, also known as "The Runaway Peppy Act," allows the custodial parent to file an enforcement petition in his or her home state court, which forwards the petition to the absent parent's state court.
124) If the order can be enforced just like any original order of the responding court, the issue arises whether the responding court can then modify the order just as it may modify any of its other orders;(125) neither URESA nor RURESA provides a clear answer to this question, and states have reached opposite conclusions regarding the extent of the responding court's authority to modify
128) UIFSA was designed to respond to new federal legislation that affected child support laws to eliminate the problems of multiple effective support orders that resulted from URESA proceedings in different states and to streamline some of the procedures for registration and modification of support orders.
140) The rather common practice of support order modification under URESA and RURESA will be eliminated under UIFSA, and UIFSA's drafters hope that the doctrine of continuing exclusive jurisdiction will keep both custodial and noncustodial parents from forum shopping for a state whose substantive child support law favors their claim.
Although the innovations of UIFSA promise to alleviate some of the problems faced by the states who were operating under the URESA and RURESA systems, these improvements will take some time to become effective.
does not address the question of what actions the first two states should take under these circumstances, and state legislatures have not enacted statutes to address this problem.
The effort has simply grown beyond the original URESA.
So the Delaware court, which responded under URESA to a petition from Florida, must go forward in an uncertain position, dependent upon the good will of the courts in the other states to complete the enforcement action, while it is also encumbered with unnecessary and delaying procedural requirements.
The certainty and the efficiencies that UIFSA would introduce far exceed those available under URESA.
Unfortunately, there were numerous problems with the URESA and the RURESA.
10) The UIFSA establishes a priority scheme for the exercise of jurisdiction in order to deal with the inherited multiple order system created by the URESA and the RURESA and to achieve one controlling order for the prospective enforcement of support.
It is possible to have more than one state with CEJ if multiple support orders were created under the URESA or the RURESA prior to enactment of the UIFSA.