Controlling Order and Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction (CEJ)

Introduction

The principles of controlling order and CEJContinuing Exclusive Jurisdiction are two of the most important provisions of the UIFSAUniform Interstate Family Support Act. These concepts were developed to correct the many problems that occurred with multiple orders in intergovernmental cases. Using these concepts for all new cases ensures that only one order is issued per child support obligation.

Determining Controlling Order

For cases with multiple orders—usually those entered before the UIFSA was enacted by all states—UIFSA provides that only one of the orders will be recognized from the present time forward. That order is called the controlling order. Determination of a controlling order involves two stages:

1. Preliminary identification of existing/current orders; and
2. Formal determination by a tribunal.

Preliminary Identification (Presumed Controlling Order)

Preliminary identification is a determination made by the petitioning state for what is believed to be the controlling order. The rules or principles used to determine the controlling order are set forth by N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.74:

• If only one tribunal has issued an order, the order of that tribunal is the controlling orderorderN.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.74(a).
• If there are multiple orders but only one state, Indian Tribal Nation, or country has CEJ authority, the order of the state with CEJ is the controlling order and shall be so recognized in accordance with NJSA 2A:4-30.74(a)NJSA 2A:4-30.74(a)N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.74(b)(1).  
• If two or more tribunals have CEJ authority, an order issued by a tribunal in the current home state of the child shall be recognizedrecognizedN.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.65; N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.74(b)(2).
• If there is no order issued by the child’s home state, but there are orders issued by tribunals in both the obligor’s and the obligee’s states, the more recent order is the controlling orderorderN.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.74(b)(2).  
• If none of the tribunals have CEJ authority, the tribunal of the state having jurisdiction over the parties shall issue a child support order that will be recognized as the controlling orderorderN.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.74(b)(3).  
• If two or more child support orders are issued for the same obligor and child, and if either the obligee or the obligor resides in New Jersey, either one can request that the New Jersey tribunal (i.e., the Superior Court, Family Division) determine the controlling order.

Formal Determination by a Tribunal

Only a tribunal can make a controlling order determination. Certified copies of each order and payment records are filed with the appropriate tribunal, which makes the determination of controlling order. If two or more orders have been issued for the same obligor, and if the obligor or individual obligee resides in New Jersey, a party may request that the New Jersey court determine the controlling orderorder N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.74(c) .

The outcome of the determination of controlling order should be the same regardless of which jurisdiction makes the decision. For the New Jersey court to make the controlling order determination, the following conditions must exist:

• multiple orders;
• either the obligor or the obligee must reside in the state;
• the request must be accompanied by certified copies of every child support order and payment record in effect; and
• every party whose rights might be affected by the determination must be given notice of the request.

The order must determine which order is controlling and must include the basis of the decision. Within 30 days, the party obtaining the order must file a certified copy with each tribunal that had issued or registered a prior order. Once the determination has been made, the tribunal that issued the controlling order has CEJCEJN.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.74(d).

Effect of the Controlling Order Determination

The tribunal issuing the controlling order has the jurisdiction to modify the order as long as one of the parties or the child that is the subject of the order remains resident in that state. That order may establish the non-modifiable terms for the life of the obligation. Any arrears accrued under any prior order, and any non-modifiable terms in such an order, remain enforceable. The tribunal that issued those orders retains authority to enforce only preexisting arrears, prior contempt, and non-modifiable terms. The controlling order also determines the duration of support based on the issuing state’s statutes and law. The controlling order may be used as a factor in determining CEJ.

Reconciliation of Arrears

In addition to making a controlling order determination, it may be necessary to reconcile the arrears from the multiple orders. The reconciliation should be based on the highest order in effect at any given time, with credit for all payments made up to the determination of the controlling order. In accordance with N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.107(b), in a proceeding for arrears, the Statute of Limitations under the laws of this state or the issuing state, whichever is longer, applies.

Non-modifiable Terms or Provisions

N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.107(a) states that the law of the issuing state governs the nature, extent, amount, and duration of current payments and other obligations of support and the payment of arrears under the order. For example, if the age of emancipation in the state that issued the order is 21 and the emancipation age in the state enforcing the order is 18, the order must be enforced until the child is 21. That aspect of the order cannot be modified. The law in the state that issued the controlling order must be reviewed to determine which aspects of the order cannot be modified (e.g., domestic violence, emancipation).

Determination of Controlling Order (DCO) Decision Tree

The decision tree below can be used for DCODetermination of Controlling Order under a given set of circumstances.

Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction

CEJContinuing Exclusive Jurisdiction is the exclusive authority of the state issuing a support order to modify the terms of support. In an intergovernmental case, a modification of the controlling order is done by the state with CEJ. The state in question must have issued the order and be the resident state of the obligee, obligor, or child.

• If more than one state, Indian Tribal Nation, or country claims CEJ authority, a determination of controlling order must be made.
• If no state has CEJ, the person seeking the modification must register the order in the state of the other party.
• If there are multiple orders and no state has CEJ authority, a new petition for support should be filed.
• All individuals involved with the case can file written consent in the issuing state for another state to assume CEJ. The assuming state must be the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued.
• CEJ pertains specifically to modification, not enforcement, of a child support order. When a child support order issued in another state is registered in New Jersey for modification, the responding tribunal may modify the order only if, after notice and hearing, it finds that
  • the child, the individual obligee, and the obligor do not reside in the issuing state;
  • a petitioner who is a non-resident of New Jersey seeks modification;
  • the respondent is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the New Jersey courtcourtN.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.114(a)(1).

Under the UIFSA, only one state has the right to change an order at any one time. The state with the authority to modify the child support provisions has CEJ. In accordance with the one-order-per-case concept, only one tribunal can have CEJ; thus, CEJ is exclusive. The CEJ is continuing because once a tribunal has CEJ, that tribunal keeps it as long as one of the participants in the case resides in that statestate N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.72(a)(1) . Initially, CEJ vests in the state that set the controlling order. However, if the child, the individual obligee, and the obligor are not residing in the state that issued the controlling order when a modification is sought, that state loses CEJ. In this situation, there is a controlling order, but no tribunal has jurisdiction to modify the order. Parties can agree, in writing, to vest CEJ in a certain jurisdiction. The agreement must be filed with the controlling order state. If there is no agreement and a modification is requested, the UIFSA rules must be applied.

Determining Continuing Exclusive Jurisdiction (CEJ)

The following diagram illustrates how CEJ is determined under certain sets of circumstances:

Examples of Intergovernmental Situations

The following examples are representative of intergovernmental situations that staff might encounter.  

Example 1

Gloria and Marvin had a son together in Ohio. When they broke up, the Family Court in Ohio issued a child support order for $100 per week. Gloria moved to New Jersey to be closer to her family, and Marvin moved to Delaware. Gloria wants to increase the amount of child support she receives.

Which state has CEJ? No state has CEJ.

Is there a controlling order? Even though all of the parties have left the state, the order issued by Ohio is the controlling order because it is the only support order in effect. If either parent wants a modification of the support order, he or she would need to file a registration for modification in the non-requesting parent’s state, and that state would then assume CEJ.

Example 2

LaQuanda and Michael met, got married, and had a son in New Jersey. When they divorced, the Superior Court, Family Division, in New Jersey issued a child support order for $212 per week. Michael moved to Massachusetts and visited his son only once or twice a year. When he heard that LaQuanda remarried, Michael wanted to apply for a decrease in the support he had to pay.

Which state has CEJ? New Jersey has CEJ because the CP lives with the child in the state that issued the order

Is there a controlling order? Yes, the New Jersey order is the controlling order, because the New Jersey order is the only order. If the NCP wants to modify the order, he may file the motion directly with the New Jersey tribunal or he may file a UIFSA petition from Massachusetts to New Jersey.

Example 3

William and Mary Jane had a daughter together in New Jersey. When Mary Jane applied for TANF, the CWA established a child support order compelling William to pay $98 per week in child support. Mary Jane moved to North Carolina with the child, and William moved to Colorado. Mary Jane wants an increase in her child support to offset her increased living expenses.

Which state has CEJ? No state has CEJ.

Is there a controlling order? Yes, the New Jersey order is the controlling order, because it is the only order. If the CP, Mary Jane, wants to modify the order, she must file the registration for modification directly with the Colorado tribunal or file a UIFSA petition from North Carolina to Colorado. She would need to provide a certified copy of the New Jersey support order. New Jersey must petition Colorado for any New Jersey welfare arrears.

If William wants to modify the order, he may file the registration for modification directly with the North Carolina tribunal or file a UIFSA petition from Colorado to North Carolina. He would need to provide a certified copy of the New Jersey support order. The state where the modification occurs assumes CEJ.

Related Information

• N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.135(a)
• N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.135(b)(1)
• N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.125; N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.135(b)(2)
• N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.135(b)(2)
• N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.135(b)(3)
• N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.135(c)
• N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.135(d)
• N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.178(a)(1)
• N.J.S.A. 2A:4-30.133(a)(1)

 

Institute for Families, School of Social Work  Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey - Child Support Program Manual 2020 Release