| The
Long Arm of Family Law
Making
Foreign Divorce Judgments, Orders, and
Decrees Valid and Enforceable California
Court Orders
People
from every country come to California to
pursue their dreams and to escape
financial and personal problems. They
bring with them the baggage of
unsatisfied obligations for support,
unresolved child custody disputes, and
unpaid property settlements. Ex-spouses
and lovers follow the scofflaws here with
their foreign court orders to collect
what is owed. Stolen children, unpaid
support, and unsatisfied money judgments
are the fallout from a litigious and
peripatetic populace. The challenge for
the California lawyer is to enforce a
foreign court order issued under an alien
court system with different rules,
procedures, and standards.
Before
California law can be utilized to enforce
foreign(3)
divorce judgments the foreign court order(4)
must first be established as a California
order. To establish the order as a
California order, it must be recognized
by our courts as valid.
The
full faith and credit clause of the
United States Constitution prescribes
that a state must recognize the public
acts, records, and judicial proceedings
of every other state.(5)
However, this mandate does not apply to
the decrees of foreign countries. Even
without the assurance of the full faith
and credit clause, our courts may
give recognition to the judgment of a
foreign nation as matter of comity. The
comity doctrine holds that, as a
courtesy, a court may recognize a foreign
court order, but is not compelled to do
so. This extension or denial of comity is
discretionary and is reviewed on an abuse
of discretion standard,(6)
allowing the trial court wide latitude.
Because the comity doctrine is
discretionary, it is undependable.
Due
to the comity doctrine's unreliability,
business and government agencies have
lobbied successfully for legislation that
will ensure that support orders, money
judgments, and custody decrees issued in
foreign countries will be recognized by
our courts in the same manner as they
would recognize the judgments of the
other states. The statutes that serve
this purpose were drafted by the National
Conference of Commissioners on Uniform
State Laws. The Uniform Child Custody
Jurisdiction Act is primarily designed to
enforce custody decrees(7)
and the Uniform Interstate Family Support
Act enforces support orders(8)
between the states. They each, however,
include provisions that allow for the
recognition of foreign country court
orders. The Uniform Foreign Recognition
of Money Judgments Act(9)
("UFMJRA") was drafted
specifically to ensure that money
judgments from other countries will be
recognized by California courts.
The
uniform laws relating to support and
custody permit the registration of
foreign court orders and objections to
registration and enforcement issues are
resolved in the Family Law Department of
the Superior Court. Registration
simplifies the process because the order
becomes a California court order at the
time of registration. On the other hand,
to obtain recognition of orders for the
payment of non-support foreign money
judgments under UFMJRA, a complaint must
be filed to establish the judgment in the
Superior Court. The issues raised under
UFMJRA relating to jurisdiction and
enforcement are resolved in the Civil
Department of the Superior Court, even
though they may arise out of a family law
judgment.(10)
The
statutes described above cover most
orders in a divorce decree — custody
orders, support orders, orders for the
payment of money to equalize the division
of the marital property, and orders for
attorney's fees.
Foreign
orders for the division of California
real property are not covered by any
uniform law. The comity doctrine is the
only recourse in obtaining recognition of
the foreign court order. The party
enforcing a foreign court order to divide
California real property may bring an
action for partition in the Civil
Department of the Superior Court. When
these actions are filed, a lis
pendens is often filed and recorded
con-currently in the county where the
property is located.
Whether
the foreign order is recognized as a
California order utilizing the common law
comity doctrine or is being established
pursuant to statute, the same
constitutional jurisdictional
prerequisites apply.(11)
Thus, the California court must first
determine whether the foreign country had
jurisdiction over the parties when the
order was issued. To make this
determination, the part of the judgment
that is being enforced must be examined.
For the purpose of determining whether
the foreign court had jurisdiction, a
divorce judgment is not treated as if it
were one court order. The divorce
judgment is unique in that it contains
separate court orders for support,
custody, children, and property, each
having different jurisdictional
requirements. This division of the
divorce judgment into separate orders
with different jurisdictional
requirements is called the doctrine of
divisible divorce.(12)
Thus, for a court to recognize an order
or enforce a divorce judgment it must
have the requisite jurisdiction over the
part of the decree that must be enforced.
To
properly terminate marital status
requires the court to possess subject
matter jurisdiction over the res; child
custody orders require subject matter
jurisdiction over the children; orders
for the payment of money require in
personam jurisdiction; and orders
regarding property division may require
both in rem and in personam jurisdiction.
For example, if a child of divorcing
parents were legally living in California
for six or more months(13)
at the date the divorce is filed, the
California court would have subject
matter jurisdiction to make custody
orders, but if the parent who is
obligated to pay support for the child
were living in Scotland, and our court
did not have personal jurisdiction over
him, a support proceeding would have to
be commenced in Scotland.
Once
the California court has determined that
the foreign court had proper jurisdiction
to issue the order, it must then
determine if the defendant had notice and
an opportunity to be heard in the foreign
country.(14)
Only after these constitutional
requirements are met and the order is
recognized, can it be enforced in
California.
Recognition
of Foreign Custody Orders
Foreign
custody orders are enforced in California
pursuant to California's version of the
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act
("UCCJA"), codified as Family
Code § 3400 et seq. To register a
foreign judgment, a certified copy(15)
of that judgment must be filed in the
superior court of the county in which it
is to be enforced,(16)
along with a translation of that judgment(17)
and a declaration filed under the UCCJA.(18)
This declaration provides information to
the court that may assist it determining
whether it has jurisdiction. The
declaration notifies the court where the
child or children lived in the last five
years, if there is another action pending
in another court, and if any other
parties claim to have custody of the
child.
Once
the custody order is registered, it can
be enforced using the same procedures as
would any other California court order.
Notice of the registration is not
required. When the enforcement is sought
on the registered order, the type of
notice given will depend on the remedy
sought. In the case of a kidnaping, often
no notice is required. The defendant may
challenge the registration on the basis
that the foreign court's orders are
invalid by filing a motion to quash. If
the order was rendered in a country whose
institutions are similar to those of
other states and a "reasonable
notice and opportunity to be heard was
given to affected persons,"(19)
that order will be recognized by the
California court.
In
re Marriage of Malak(20)
is significant in that it affirms that
our courts will recognize court orders
from countries with laws different from
our own. The trial court in Malak
refused to recognize the child custody
orders of the Sherei Sunnit Court of
Beirut, Lebanon, because the court
believed that the Islamic court issued an
interim custody decree without notice,
that the order did not afford Mrs. Malak
"notice and opportunity to be
heard," and because the Islamic
court did not appear to hold the
"best interest of the child a
central consideration in its
determination of custody."(21)
The appellate court reversed the trial
court and found that Lebanese law
provided for reasonable notice and an
opportunity to be heard and was not
unlike California's ex parte procedure
authorized by former Civil Code section
4600.1.(22)
Further, since the Lebanese court acted
when Lebanon was homeland of both parties(23),
had significant connections with the
family(24)
and its laws looked to the best interests
of children, it acted under statutory
provisions substantially in accordance
with our uniform custody laws(25).
In
situations where different countries
issue valid conflicting custody orders,
priority is given to the first person to
file their custody action.(26)
An instructive example of how this type
of conflict was resolved is described in In
re Stephanie M.(27)
In Stephanie M. it was held that
a California dependency court properly
refused to recognize the custody order of
a Mexican court when the Mexican court
order was issued after the
dependency court issued its order
terminating the parental rights of a
Mexican couple living in Long Beach. The
child's grandmother (who lived in Mexico)
and the child's foster parents both
requested that they be appointed
guardians of the child. After a thorough
investigation and numerous hearings, the
trial court granted the foster parents
guardianship. Only after the California
court entered its final order did a
Mexican court issue a conflicting order
granting the guardianship of the child to
the grandmother. The Mexican consulate
wrote a letter advising the California
court that there was a guardianship
decree from a Mexican court and that
pursuant to the Multilateral Vienna
Convention on Consular Relations and
Optional Protocol on Disputes of April
23, 1963,(28)
the California court had to recognize and
enforce the Mexican court order.(29)
The California dependency court refused
to vacate its order and enforce the
Mexican order. The California Supreme
Court affirmed the trial court's decision
and held that although California courts
may enforce foreign custody orders of
other countries, they are not obligated
to do so.(30)
The Supreme court further held that the
letter from the Mexican consulate
informing it there was a guardianship
decree from a Mexican court does not bind
the California court where there was a
prior California judgment terminating the
parental rights of a Mexican child.(31)
Moreover, the Supreme Court held that the
Multilateral Vienna Convention does not
apply, since that treaty recognizes the
jurisdiction of a court in the receiving
state (in this case California) to apply
its laws to a foreign national and does
not make jurisdiction dependent on notice
(the Mexican consulate claimed it was not
given notice). The Supreme Court held
that the trial court properly applied the
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act,(32)
which states that international custody
orders are to be enforced to the same
extent that the order of a sister state
would be enforced.(33)
One
of the purposes of the Uniform Child
Custody Jurisdiction Act is to
"deter abductions and other
unilateral removals of children
undertaken to obtain custody
awards."(34)
To recover stolen children requires quick
and decisive action on the part of the
attorney. After registering the certified
copy of the foreign order (with the
translation), a warrant in lieu of writ
of habeas corpus can be filed to order
the release of the child.(35)
The assistance of the District Attorney
can be used to locate the party and the
child and to bring the child to the
hearing.(36)
The party detaining the child may attempt
to persuade the court to conduct a
hearing to determine the best interest of
the child. This attempt to relitigate the
issue of custody must be vigorously
resisted. The only issues that
should be addressed at the hearing are
whether there is a valid foreign court
order, whether the order was made by an
institution similar in nature to ours,
and whether the party had notice and
opportunity to be heard in the foreign
jurisdiction.(37)
The
party detaining the child is also likely
to argue that the California court should
assert "emergency jurisdiction"
under Family Code § 3403(a)(3) because
"the child has been subjected to or
threatened with mistreatment or abuse or
is otherwise neglected or dependent which
includes a child who has a parent who is
victim of domestic violence...."
Emergency jurisdiction should only be
asserted for the purpose of insuring that
the child is safely returned to the
country that issued the custody order and
not for the purpose of modifying the
foreign country's' court order.(38)
The
party seeking to enforce a foreign
custody order can also request that the
party violating the order pay attorney's
fees, travel costs, and other expenses to
the party and their witnesses.(39)
Foreign
Support Orders and Paternity Judgments
The
Uniform Interstate Family Support Act
("UIFSA")(40)
was enacted as California law on January
1, 1998 to more efficiently enforce the
child and spousal support orders, as well
as paternity judgments, of other states
and countries.(41)
The prerequisite to enforce another
country's orders under UIFSA is that the
country of origin must have a "law
or procedure substantially similar to
UIFSA's, or one of UIFSA's precursors
— the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement
of Support Act ('URESA') and the Revised
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support
Act ('RURESA')."(42)
UIFSA does not require that there be
reciprocity between the foreign country
and California for a foreign support
order to be enforced.(43)
UIFSA
may be used to collect a foreign support
order,(44)
as well as "related costs and fees,
interest, income withholding, attorney's
fees, and other relief."(45)
UIFSA also provides for the recognition
of foreign paternity judgments. UIFSA
allows the recognition of orders from
"administrative law agencies or a
quasi-judicial entity authorized to
establish, enforce, or modify support
orders or to determine parentage."(46)
This definition provides latitude to
enforce orders made in foreign countries
with legal systems very different from
California's.
To
register a foreign support order under
UIFSA the applicant must file two copies,
including one certified copy, of all
orders to be registered (including a
translation),(47)
including any modification of an order,(48)
with the applicable judicial council form
or a letter to the court clerk requesting
registration.(49)
On
receipt of a request for registration,
the court will file the order as a
foreign judgment, together with one copy
of the foreign court order, regardless of
the form of the request.(50)
The request must specify the grounds for
the enforcement remedy sought.(51)
An application for a determination of
arrearages under the foreign court order
or an actual writ of execution may be
issued on application to the court at the
same time the order is registered or at
later date. A support order or
income-withholding order is registered
when the order is filed.(52)
Once registered, the foreign order may be
enforced like any other support order
issued by this state.(53)
Under
the former support act (URESA), the
majority of support proceedings were
relitigated in the local court even
though the foreign court's order was
clear and unambiguous. Furthermore, even
when an existing order of one state was
"registered" in a California,
the defending party often asserted the
right to modify the foreign order. This
meant that several different support
orders could be in effect in several
states or countries.(54)
This problem is rectified by UIFSA, in
that the California court may not modify
the foreign court order if it is
determined that the foreign court had
proper jurisdiction to issue its order(55)
unless neither party resides in the
foreign country or if the parties agree
in writing that it can modified in
California.
When
a support order or income withholding
order issued in another country is
registered in California under UIFSA, the
clerk will send out a notice of the
registration to the party who owes the
support. The notice informs the party
that they have twenty days to contest the
validity or enforcement of a registered
order in this state. The party objecting
to the registration may seek to vacate
the registration, assert any defense to
an allegation of noncompliance with the
registered order, or to contest the
remedies being sought or the amount of
any alleged arrearages. If the
nonregistering party fails to contest the
validity or enforcement of the registered
order in a timely manner, the order is
confirmed by operation of law.(56)
A
party contesting the validity or
enforcement of a registered order or
seeking to vacate the registration has
the burden of proving one or more of the
following defenses:(57)
(1)
The issuing tribunal lacked personal
jurisdiction over the contesting
party;
(2) The order was obtained by fraud;
(3) The order has been vacated,
suspended, or modified by a later
order;
(4) The issuing tribunal has stayed
the order pending appeal;
(5) There is a defense under the law
of this state to the remedy sought;
(6) Full or partial payment has been
made; or
(7) The statute of limitation
precludes enforcement of some or all
of the arrearages.(58)
Refusal
to permit visitation cannot be used as a
defense to support orders registered
pursuant to this act,(59)
despite the fact that there is
conflicting California state law
regarding this issue.(60)
When registering a paternity judgment of
a foreign country under UIFSA,
nonparentage cannot be plead as a defense
to enforcement.(61)
In a provision modeled after a similar
section in the UCCJA,(62)
UIFSA provides that a court may contact
the court of another state in writing, by
telephone, or by other means to obtain
information concerning the laws of that
state, the legal effect of an order of
that tribunal, and of a proceeding in the
other country.(63)
The law of the foreign country governs
the nature, extent, amount, and duration
of current payments and other obligations
of support and the payment of arrearages
under the order,(64)
as well as discovery that must be done in
the foreign country. The procedural,
substantive, and choice of law rules of
California are controlling in all other
respects(65)
UIFSA
provides an even more streamlined method
of enforcing wage assignment orders. The
act does not require the wage assignment
order to be registered. Rather, the wage
assignment order can be sent directly to
the obligor's employer, which triggers
wage withholding by that employer without
the necessity of a hearing — unless
the employee files an objection with the
court.
Money
Judgments
The
Uniform Foreign Money-Judgments
Recognition Act (66)
("UFMJRA") covers family law
orders for the payment of money that are
not for spousal or child support.(67)
To be recognized by our courts, the
UFMJRA requires that the order be
conclusive and enforceable (even though
an appeal may be pending or the order is
subject to appeal).(68)
The defendant may apply for a stay of
enforcement if an appeal is pending or
the defendant is entitled to and intends
to appeal the judgment.(69)
Once established, the order is
enforceable as though it were a judgment
of another state. There is no expedited
method of registration of foreign
judgments as there is under UIFSA. A
complaint to establish a foreign country
judgment must be filed in California
alleging the elements set forth in the
UFMJRA.(70)
The
UFMJRA requires that before giving
recognition to a foreign judgment there
must be personal jurisdiction over the
defendant. Under the statute, personal
jurisdiction is obtained by personal
service in the foreign country, a
voluntarily general appearance of the
defendant, consent to service in the
foreign country, or the defendant was
domiciled in the foreign country.(71)
The
defenses to recognition of the foreign
court order under the UFMJRA are:
(1)
The judgment was rendered under a
system that does not provide
impartial tribunals or procedures
compatible with the requirements of
due process of law;
(2) The foreign court did not have
personal jurisdiction over the
defendant;
(3) The foreign court did not have
jurisdiction over the subject matter;
(4) The defendant in the proceedings
in the foreign court did not receive
notice of the proceedings in
sufficient time to enable him to
defend;
(5) The judgment was obtained by
extrinsic fraud;
(6) The cause of action or defense on
which the judgment is based is
repugnant to the public policy of
this state;
(7) The judgment conflicts with
another final and conclusive
judgment;
(8) The proceeding in the foreign
court was contrary to an agreement
between the parties under which the
dispute in question was to be settled
other than by proceeding in that
court;
(9) In the case where jurisdiction is
based solely on personal service, the
foreign court was a seriously
inconvenient forum for the trial of
the action.(72)
The
California legislature should bolster the
Uniform Foreign Money Judgments
Recognition Act by adding a section that
would authorize the registration of
certified family law money judgments
similar to that provided for by Family
Code § 3416, which permits the filing of
foreign custody orders or to UIFSA. A
certified copy of the foreign judgment
would be filed in our court with a family
law case number. Any objections relating
to the validity of the foreign court
order could be addressed at the time
enforcement procedures commenced. This
amendment would mean that most foreign
divorce orders (except those relating to
real property and restraining order)
would be addressed in the family law
department in an expedited manner by
registration.
The
uniform statutes described above do not
explain how to calculate the dollar
amount of a judgment issued in a foreign
currency, but in Pecaflor
Construction, Inc. v. Landes(73)
it was held that when enforcing a foreign
judgment rendered in a foreign currency,
the foreign money judgment must
ordinarily be converted to American
dollars using the exchange rate that was
in effect at the time of the foreign
judgment.
The
lawyer enforcing a foreign judgment in
California must use ingenuity in
obtaining recognition of that judgment.
While some orders in a judgment require
registration, other orders in the same
judgment require that a complaint be
filed to establish the order as a
California order. Despite the fact that
several statutes address the diverse
aspects of a divorce judgment, most
orders will be recognized by California
courts without having to rely on the
comity doctrine.
As
international commerce continues to
expand and people immigrate to California
in greater numbers, lawyers will need
more efficient means of enforcing foreign
court orders. With a few revisions to the
current uniform statutes, the enforcement
of foreign divorce judgments in
California, which once involved expensive
civil litigation, will be accomplished
simply and cost-effectively in the family
law court.
1.
Peter
M. Walzer is Certified Family Law
Specialist by the State Bar of California
Board of Legal Specialization and a
Fellow of the Academy of Matrimonial
Lawyer practicing in Woodland Hills.
2.
Laurel
Brauer is a family lawyer practicing in
Century City.
3.
Statutes
often use the term "foreign" to
refer to another state. In this article
foreign refers to other countries.
4.
This
article discusses the enforcement of
judgments, decrees, and orders. We use
these terms interchangeably because the
requirements for enforcement are the
same.
5.
U.S.
Const. Art IV, Sec.1.
6.
In
re Stephanie M., 7 Cal. 4th 295,
314, 27 Cal. Rptr. 2d 595 (1994).
7.
Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act
Family Code § 3400 et seq. See
the National
Conference on Commissioners on Uniform
State Law
with the complete text of the Uniform
Statutes cited here.
8.
Uniform
Interstate Family Support Act Family Code
§ 4800 et seq.
9.
Uniform
Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act
(UFMJRA) Code of Civil Procedure § 1713 et
seq.: "(1) 'Foreign State'
means any governmental unit other than
the United States, or any state,
district, commonwealth, territory,
insular possession thereof, or the Panama
Canal Zone, or the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands; (2) 'Foreign judgment'
means any judgment of a foreign state
granting or denying recovery of a sum of
money, other than judgment for taxes, a
fine or other penalty, or a judgment for
support in matrimonial or family
matters." Code Civ. Proc. § 1713.1
(1) & (2).
10.
Bringing
a family law action in the Civil
Department of the Superior Court takes
much longer to process, and many of the
judicial officers are not familiar with
family law.
11.
The
constitutional requirements are codified
in each of the uniform laws discussed
herein.
12.
Estin
v. Estin, 334 U.S. 541, 68 S. Ct.
1213 (1948).
13.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 3403(a)(1).
14.
Kulko
v. Superior Court, 436 U.S. 84, 98
S. Ct. 1690 (1978).
15.
See
The Convention Abolishing the
Requirement of Legalization of Foreign
Public Documents done at The Hague
October 5, 1961, entered into force for
the United States October 15, 1981
(located on the Internet at http://lawlib.wuacc.edu/forint/treaties/index.htm
and in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Digest
— Selected International Conventions
for the requirements of certification of
a party to the convention). Evidence Code
§ 1530(a)(3) describes the requirements
of certifying an official writing of a
foreign country not signatory to the
convention.
16.
Cal. Fam. Code § 3416(a) states that
"[a] certified copy of a custody
decree of another state may be filed in
the office of the clerk of any superior
court of this state. The clerk shall
treat the decree in the same manner as a
custody decree of the superior court of
this state. A custody decree so filed has
the same effect and shall be enforced in
like manner as a custody decree rendered
by a court of this state." See the
sidebar for a explanation of obtaining
certified copies from foreign countries.
17.
Cal. Evid. Code § 753(a).
18.
Cal. Fam. Code § 3409 and see Judicial
Council form MC-150. For more
information, see William
Hilton.
19.
Cal. Fam. Code § 3424.
20.
In re Marriage of Malak, 182
Cal. App.3d 1018, 227 Cal. Rptr. 841
(1986).
21.
Footnote 1 in Malak describes
the findings of the Sherei Court
indicating that the court did examine
what was in the best interests of the
children. It also describes divorce under
the Muslim Sharia laws.
22.
Replaced by Cal. Fam. Code § 3060
through Family Code § 3064.
23.
Cal. Fam. Code § 3403(a)(1).
24.
Cal. Fam. Code § 3403(a)(2).
25.
Cal. Fam. Code § 3424.
26.
Cal. Fam. Code § 3406.
27.
In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal. 4th
295 (1994).
28.
This is referred to as a Treaty of
Friendship and Commerce. There are many
countries not specifically covered by the
Uniform Acts, but there may be a treaty
that would be controlling. These treaties
are numerous and beyond the scope of this
article. Information may be obtained by
contacting the State Department.
29.
In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal. 4th
295 (1994).
30.
The supreme court cites the comity
doctrine for the proposition that the
courts are not obligated to recognize
foreign court orders, but later in the
opinion they cite the uniform act, which
states that they are obligated
to enforce international custody orders
to the same extent that the order of a
sister state would be enforced. Cal. Fam.
Code § 3424. The court does not explain
this contradiction.
31.
In re Stephanie M., 7 Cal.4th
295 (1994).
32.
Cal. Fam. Code § 3424.
33.
Cal. Fam. Code § 3414 states
"[O]nce a decree is entered by a
court that does have jurisdiction under
the act, the decree is not to be
modified by the courts of another state"
[in this case another country] unless
"it appears ... that the court which
rendered the decree does not now have
jurisdiction under the jurisdictional
prerequisites substantially in accordance
with this party or has declined to assume
jurisdiction to modify the decree"
and the modifying court has jurisdiction.
Id. at 315.
34.
Cal. Fam. Code § 3401(5).
35.
Cal. Fam. Code § 3411 on obtaining a
warrant of arrest against the party and a
protective custody warrant for the child.
An alternate procedure is to make an ex
parte application for a "turn over
order." This is followed by an order
to show cause hearing not less than three
court days from the date the ex parte
order issued. The benefit of this
procedure is that from the time the
children are picked up they are in the
care of the rescuing parent (instead of
in juvenile hall or foster care). The
downside is that the court may not set
the hearing for a month, and a judicial
officer unfamiliar with the law in this
area may permit a full custody hearing
rather than a relatively simple
jurisdictional hearing.
36.
Cal. Fam. Code § 3131.
37.
See To
Catch a Child Thief,
Peter M. Walzer, California Lawyer,
December 1991, which discusses the
specific procedures for picking up a
stolen child.
38.
In
re Joseph D., 19 Cal. App.4th 678,
23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 574 (1993).
39.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 3416(b).
40.
UIFSA developed from the congressional
legislation in 1975, 1984, 1988, and 1996
relating to child support enforcement
procedures such as wage withholding, tax
intercepts, and credit reporting and
federal substantive requirements (the
Bradley Amendment, 1986, which directs
states to enact laws that prohibit
retroactive reduction of a child support
arrearage stemming from a court order)
spurred the National Conference of
Commissioners to revise the two prior
uniform support statutes (the Revised
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support
Act (RURESA) and the Uniform Reciprocal
Enforcement of Support Act (URESA)) and
come up with UIFSA Welfare reform, known
as the Personal Responsibility and Work
Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996.
Congress mandated enactment of UIFSA in
order for a state to remain eligible for
the federal fund of child support. 42
U.S.C.66 states in part "(f) In
order to satisfy section 454(2)A), on and
after January 1, 1998, each state must
have in effect the Uniform Interstate
Family Support Act, as approved by the
American Bar Association on February 9,
1993, together with any amendments
officially adopted before January 1,
1998, by the National Conference of
Commissioners on Uniform State
Laws."
41.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4901(19)(ii). It
specifically defines a state as "[a]
foreign jurisdiction that has enacted a
law or established procedures for
issuance and enforcement of support
orders which are substantially similar to
the procedures under this chapter, the
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support
Act, or the Revised Uniform Reciprocal
Enforcement of Support Act."
42.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4901(16). Former Family Code
§4844 (URESA) states: "When the
Attorney General is satisfied that
reciprocal provisions will be made by a
foreign jurisdiction for the enforcement
of support orders made within this state,
the Attorney General may declare the
foreign jurisdiction to be a
reciprocating state for the purpose of
this chapter. Any such declaration ...
may be reviewed by the court in an action
brought under URESA." As of the
April 15, 1998, the Attorney General had
declared the following foreign
jurisdictions to be reciprocating states:
all the Canadian provinces, South Africa,
Australia, Germany, Bermuda, France, New
Zealand, Czech Republic, Fiji, Finland,
Hungary, Ireland, Austria, Mexico,
Norway, Poland, Republic of the Marshall
Islands, Slovak Republic, Sweden,
Northern Ireland, Scotland, and England.
43.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4901(22).
44.
"Judgment,
decree, or order, whether temporary,
final, or subject to modification, for
the benefit of a child, a spouse, or a
former spouse, which provides for
monetary support, health care,
arrearages, or reimbursement, and may
include related costs, and fees,
interest, income withholding, attorney's
fees, and other relief."
45.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4901(21).
46.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4901(22).
47.
Cal. Evid. Code § 753(a).
48.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4951(a).
49.
Statement
for Registration of Foreign Support Order
and Clerk's Notice, Form EJ-120. This is
the form drafted by the Judicial Council
for use under URESA. No new form has been
issued.
50.
Cal. Fam. Code § 4941(b).
51.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4951(c).
52.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4952.
53.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4952(b).
54.
Uniform
Conference of Commissioners, Prefatory
note II.B.3. Under UIFSA, the principle
of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction
aims, so far as possible, to recognize
that only one valid support order may be
effective at any one time.
55.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4952(c).
56.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4955.
57.
Cal. Fam. Code § 4956.
58.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4953(B).
59.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4919(d).
60.
Cal. Fam. Code § 3556 and In re
Marriage of Damico, 7 Cal. 4th 673
(1994).
61.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4929.
62.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 3406.
63.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4931.
64.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4953.
65.
Cal.
Fam. Code § 4906.
66.
Uniform
Foreign Money-Judgments Recognition Act
(UFMJRA), Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1713 et
seq. Cal. Civ. Proc. Code §
1713.1(1)&(2) states:
"(1)'Foreign State' means any
governmental unit other than the United
States, or any state, district,
commonwealth, territory, insular
possession thereof, or the Panama Canal
Zone, or the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands; (2) 'Foreign judgment'
means any judgment of a foreign state
granting or denying recovery of a sum of
money, other than judgment for taxes, a
fine or other penalty, or a judgment for
support in matrimonial or family
matters."
67.
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1713.1(2).
68.
Cal.
Civ. Proc. Code § 1713.2. The Sister
State Money-Judgment Act authorizes the
registration of the other state's
judgment using judicial council forms
EJ-105 Application for Entry of Judgment
on Sister-State Judgment and form EJ-110
Notice of Entry of Judgment on
Sister-State Judgment.
69.
Cal.
Civ. Proc. Code § 1713.6.
70.
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1713.4 to §
1713.5.
71.
Cal.
Civ. Proc. Code § 1713.5. This section
states the criteria for establishing
jurisdiction in business matters and
accident cases.
72.
Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 1713.4. This
section codifies the common law doctrine
of comity.
73.
Pecaflor Construction, Inc. v. Landes,
198 Cal. App.3d 342, 243 Cal. Rptr. 605
(1988).
|