Indiana Code 31-18.5-2-5. Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child support order
(1) at the time of the filing of a request for modification Indiana is the residence of:
Terms Used In Indiana Code 31-18.5-2-5
- Jurisdiction: (1) The legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two courts have simultaneous responsibility for the same case. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases.
(B) the individual obligee; or
(C) the child for whose benefit the support order is issued; or
(2) even if Indiana is not the residence of:
(A) the obligor;
(B) the individual obligee; or
(C) the child for whose benefit the support order is issued;
the parties consent in a record or in open court that an Indiana tribunal may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order.
(b) An Indiana tribunal that has issued a child support order consistent with Indiana law may not exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order if:
(1) all of the parties who are individuals file consent in a record with the Indiana tribunal that a tribunal of another state that has jurisdiction over at least one (1) of the parties who is an individual or that is located in the state of residence of the child may modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction; or
(2) its order is not the controlling order.
(c) If a tribunal of another state has issued a child support order pursuant to the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act or a law substantially similar to that act which modifies a child support order of an Indiana tribunal, Indiana tribunals shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.
(d) An Indiana tribunal that lacks continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child support order may serve as an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to modify a support order issued in that state.
(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.
As added by P.L.206-2015, SEC.53.