Welsher v. Rager,
491 S.E.2d 661 (1997)

Procedure:Plaintiff former wife appealed the decision entered in Forsyth County District Court (North Carolina) that granted defendant former husband's motion to dismiss, and denied the former wife's request for continued support, in a case where the former wife filed a petition requesting registration and enforcement of a New York child support order for two children who were aged 22 and 19 at the time that this petition was filed.

Facts: Welsher and Rager were divorced in 1980. In 1985, W petitioned for a court order to recognize an agreement for support that was executed by W and H in 1985. The court order provided that H was to be legally responsible for support of their two sons and ordered that H pay $45 per week. H signed the order. W still resided in New York and H has moved to Winston Salem and has refused to make payments of $45 per week since July 6, 1996. The boys were born on 5/26/74 and 11/26/76. At the time of refusal, the boys were 21 and 18 with the latter just graduating from high school. W filed the present action asking for arrearages. H responded by filing an Answer for Civil Suit stating that the original decree only obligated him to support the children until they were eighteen and out of high school, that he did not knowing agree to support then until 21. H's motion to dismiss was granted.

Issue:

1.) Under UIFSA, once a child support judgment of the issuing state is registered, must the registering state enforce the judgment unless either (i) both parties consent to its modification or (ii) the issuing state has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction?

2.) Does the federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act ("FFCCSOA") require the registering state to apply the law of the issuing state ?

Rule:Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) governs proceedings over any foreign support order which is registered in North Carolina after UIFSA's effective date, regardless of when order was issued in foreign state


Holding: Yes. Yes. Judgment reversed and remanded.
The District Court, granted ex-husband's motion to dismiss and denied any further support on ground that children had reached age of majority under North Carolina law. Former wife appealed. The Court of Appeals, held that: (1) support order had to be interpreted according to law of New York, the state in which order was issued, as requiring divorced husband to pay support until children turned 21, and (2) any reduction in former husband's support obligation would constitute an impermissible modification of New York order.


Analysis: UIFSA is now the law in North Carolina. It governs the proceedings over any foreign support order that is registered after January 1, 1996, its effec¬tive date. UIFSA establishes a one order system in multistate enforcement of child support judgments. If only one court has issued a judgment, the judgment becomes the one order to be recognized and enforced once it is registered, unless either (i) both parties consent to its modification or (ii) the issuing state has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. D did not contest registration. Both parties did not consent to modification. New York has not lost jurisdiction.