Avoiding Conflicting Orders Across Borders

Few problems create more chaos than two courts issuing different support amounts for the same parents and child. Conflicting orders confuse employers, jam up child support ledgers, and spark endless litigation. The antidote is early jurisdiction analysis, disciplined filing, and careful wording.

Identify the controlling order. Start by collecting every order and modification from every jurisdiction. Create a timeline of who lived where when each order issued. Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), one order is designated as controlling, and the issuing state keeps continuing exclusive jurisdiction (CEJ) to modify while a party or the child remains there (unless everyone consents to move). If you’re outside the U.S., check for similar “first in time” or recognition rules in the other country.

Don’t double‑file. If you’ve asked State A to modify and CEJ remains there, don’t file for a different amount in State B or abroad. Instead, register the existing order in the other place for enforcement only. Conflicting filings look like forum shopping and can poison your credibility with both courts.

Resolve duplicates fast. If multiple orders already exist, request a controlling‑order determination in the appropriate court. Provide certified copies of all orders, address histories, and any written consents. Ask the court to declare which order controls, vacate or suspend others to the extent of conflict, and issue a clear statement for employers and agencies. Then circulate the order to all payrolls and recorders involved.

Draft with precision. New orders should name the controlling state, cite the guideline used, and specify effective dates, interest rules, and how payments apply (current first, then interest, then principal). In cross‑border cases, add a paragraph noting that the order is intended for recognition and enforcement abroad and attach a certified translation if needed. Precision prevents misinterpretation by foreign authorities.

Coordinate enforcement channels. Employers need one valid IWO, not two. If you register in another state or country for enforcement, make sure the local IWO matches the controlling order’s amounts and case identifiers. If you later modify, send stop notices to outdated payroll orders and provide the new documents immediately to prevent double deductions.

Communication discipline. Share updates across jurisdictions: when an order is modified, notify the foreign court or Central Authority handling enforcement. Keep a single “numbers memo” that lists current support, arrears installment, interest, and case numbers in each jurisdiction. Provide this memo to payroll and agencies so they reconcile postings correctly.

When comity is needed. In non‑Convention countries, you may need a recognition (exequatur) decision to make your controlling order effective locally. File that first, before pursuing a new, conflicting local order. If a local court insists on applying its own guideline to a new case, present the controlling‑order determination and argue for recognition rather than relitigation.

Bottom line. One family, one order. Pick the proper forum, register elsewhere for enforcement, and keep employers and agencies on the same page. With disciplined filings and crisp drafting, you avoid years of conflicting‑order clean‑up.