2007) (providing a discussion of UIFSA's history and the problems that resulted from states' non-uniform adoption of URESA
Much like URESA, Title IV-D has shown itself to be an ineffectual mechanism for enforcing child support orders against absent parents.
URESA, 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.
Almost all the states have adopted URESA in some fashion.
Even though all states have adopted a version of URESA, a study focusing on the state of Michigan showed that in only 41% of URESA cases sent by Michigan courts to other states did the non-payer comply with the Michigan court's support order.
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.
(94) Two early efforts at creating uniform laws were the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act ("URESA"), see 9B U.L.A.
Despite URESA's potential contribution to solving the problem of nonsupport, the U.S.
URESA 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.
URESA has served its purpose well over its 30-year history, but child support enforcement has changed dramatically in that time.
The effort has simply grown beyond the original URESA. The new UIFSA meets the larger demands of enforcement that exist today and means more money for those children deprived of support.
Unfortunately, there were numerous problems with the URESA
and the RURESA.