New Mexico Statutes
Part B - PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING TWO OR MORE STATES
Section 40-6A-205 - Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify child-support order.

A. A tribunal of this state that has issued a child-support order consistent with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify its child-support order if the order is the controlling order and:
(1) at the time of the filing of a request for modification this state is the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued; or
(2) even if this state is not the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued, the parties consent in a record or in open court that the tribunal of this state may continue to exercise jurisdiction to modify its order.
B. A tribunal of this state that has issued a child-support order consistent with the law of this state 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 tribunal of this state that a tribunal of another state that has jurisdiction over at least one of all 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 that modifies a child-support order of a tribunal of this state, tribunals of this state shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state.
D. A tribunal of this state 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.
History: Laws 1994, ch. 107, § 205; 1997, ch. 9, § 4; 2005, ch. 166, § 6; 2011, ch. 159, § 8.
Compiler's notes. — Laws 2016, ch. 61, § 1 repealed Laws 2011, ch. 159, §§ 69 and 70, an applicability clause and contingent effective date, respectively, effective May 18, 2016, thereby making Laws 2011, ch. 159, §§ 1 through 68, effective May 18, 2016. For provisions of Laws 2011, ch. 159, §§ 69 and 70, see compiler's note to 40-6A-100 NMSA 1978.
The 2011 amendment, effective May 18, 2016, made stylistic changes.
The 2005 amendment, effective June 17, 2005, provided in Subsection (a) that a tribunal in New Mexico that has issued a child-support order has continuing jurisdiction to modify the order it the order is the controlling order; deleted the former language in Subsection (a)(2) and provided that a New Mexico tribunal has continuing jurisdiction even if the obligor, obligee or the child do not reside in New Mexico but consent to the jurisdiction of the tribunal to modify the child support order; deleted in Subsection (b) the qualification that the order has been modified by a tribunal in another state; deleted former Subsection (c) which provided for the loss of jurisdiction by a New Mexico tribunal if the tribunal of another state modified a child-support order of New Mexico; added Subsection (b)(1) and (2) to provide that a New Mexico tribunal does not have continuing exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child-support order if all parties file a consent that a tribunal of another state that has jurisdiction of one party may modify the order and assume jurisdiction or the order is not the controlling order; provided in Subsection (c) that if a tribunal of another state has issued a child-support order under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act or a similar act that modifies a child-support order of New Mexico, then the New Mexico tribunals shall recognize the jurisdiction of the tribunal of the other state; added Subsection (d) to provide that a tribunal in New Mexico that lacks jurisdiction to modify a child-support order may serve as an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of another state to modify the support order issued in that state; and deleted former Subsection (f) which provided that a tribunal in New Mexico that has issued a child-support order has jurisdiction over a spousal support order but may not modify a spousal support order issued by another state.
The 1997 amendment, effective July 1, 1997, substituted "all of the parties who are individuals have" for "each individual party has" and "consents" for "consent" near the beginning of Subsection (a)(2).
Law of state where respondent present applicable. — Under former 40-6-4 and 40-6-7 NMSA 1978, the duty of support imposed by the laws of this state or the laws of the state where respondent was present for any period during which support is sought are binding upon the respondent regardless of the presence or residence or the petitioner-obligee. State ex rel. Alleman v. Shoats, 1984-NMCA-072, 101 N.M. 512, 684 P.2d 1177 (decided under former law).
No absolute right of obligee to choose applicable law. — The choice of law provision in the former reciprocal enforcement act was intended to prevent the obligee from having the absolute right to choose the applicable law as her interest might dictate. Altman v. Altman, 1984-NMCA-060, 101 N.M. 380, 683 P.2d 62 (decided under former law).

Structure New Mexico Statutes