[§576B-205]  Continuing, exclusive
jurisdiction.  (a)  A tribunal of this State issuing a support order
consistent with the law of this State has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction
over a child support order:



(1)  As long as this State remains the residence of
the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support
order is issued; or



(2)  Until all of the parties who are individuals have
filed written consents with the tribunal of this State for a tribunal of
another state to modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive
jurisdiction.



(b)  A tribunal of this State issuing a child
support order consistent with the law of this State may not exercise its
continuing jurisdiction to modify the order if the order has been modified by a
tribunal of another state pursuant to this chapter or a law substantially
similar to this chapter.



(c)  If a child support order of this State is
modified by a tribunal of another state pursuant to this chapter or a law
substantially similar to this chapter, a tribunal of this State loses its
continuing, exclusive jurisdiction with regard to prospective enforcement of
the order issued in this State, and may only:



(1)  Enforce the order that was modified as to amounts
accruing before the modification;



(2)  Enforce nonmodifiable aspects of that order; and



(3)  Provide other appropriate relief for violations
of that order which occurred before the effective date of the modification.



(d)  A tribunal of this State shall recognize
the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of a tribunal of another state which has
issued a child support order pursuant to this chapter or a law substantially
similar to this chapter.



(e)  A temporary support order issued ex parte
or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing,
exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.



(f)  A tribunal of this State issuing a support
order consistent with the law of this State has continuing, exclusive
jurisdiction over a spousal support order throughout the existence of the
support obligation.  A tribunal of this State may not modify a spousal support
order issued by a tribunal of another state having continuing, exclusive
jurisdiction over that order under the law of that state. [L 1997, c 295, pt of
§1]



 



Case Notes



 



  Where New Mexico had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over
its spousal support order, New Mexico could act as a responding tribunal to
enforce or modify its order; husband and wife were subject to the continuing,
exclusive jurisdiction of New Mexico notwithstanding the fact that neither
resided in New Mexico; because Hawaii lacked continuing, exclusive jurisdiction
over New Mexico's spousal support order, Hawaii could not serve as a responding
tribunal to modify New Mexico's spousal support order, but could enforce it. 
111 H. 51 (App.), 137 P.3d 365.