DocketNumber: No. FA 01-0457193S
Citation Numbers: 2002 Conn. Super. Ct. 149, 31 Conn. L. Rptr. 181
Judges: GRUENDEL, JUDGE.
Filed Date: 1/4/2002
Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 4/18/2021
On November 9, 2001, the defendant filed a Rule To Show Cause seeking to modify the child support orders entered by the New Jersey Court. In support of that motion, the defendant appended an order of the New Jersey court which provided that the parties should file all future motions concerning the matter in the Connecticut Superior Court unless this court declines jurisdiction. The plaintiff contends that the order deferring jurisdiction to Connecticut was limited to custody matters, over which Connecticut does assume jurisdiction, but not to child support matters.
The filing of a matrimonial judgment in this state makes the judgment subject to enforcement, satisfaction, and modification in the same manner as a judgment of this court, although in modifications Connecticut is required to apply the substantive law of the state that initiated the judgment. Connecticut General Statutes, Section
Both Connecticut and New Jersey have adopted the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act. Under both statutes, the court of the initiating state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a child support order as long as that state remains the residence of the obligor or the parties have consented to have the court of another state assume jurisdiction. Connecticut General Statutes, Section
The Rule to Show Cause concerning child support is dismissed, but the court does accept jurisdiction over the matter for purposes of custody and visitation.
So ordered.
BY THE COURT, CT Page 151
GRUENDEL, J.