Multi-State Child Support Issues
The South Carolina Supreme Court recently issued a decision which addressed problems that can arise for both parties and their attorneys when dealing with multi-state child support issues. Specifically, it addresses what can happen when two different states issue child support orders and the second one does not specifically nullify the first one.
In this case, the parties were divorce in California in 1986, and an order was issued there requiring the father to pay child support to the mother. The father later moved to South Carolina, and the mother filed a support petition here pursuant to the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), S.C. Code Sections 20-7-960 to -1170.
Prior to the hearing, the parties reached an agreement, and an Order approving their agreement was issued in 1990. The SC Order referred to the prior California order but did not explicitly nullify it. In 2003, the father was found in contempt of court here in SC for his failure to pay support pursuant to the 1986 California Order. The father argued that the 1990 SC order modified the 1986 California order.
The problem the father encountered was that URESA contains an "anti-nullification clause" (found at S.C. Code Section 20-7-1110 states that a “support order made by a court of this State pursuant to this subarticle does not nullify and is not nullified by … a support order made by a court of any other state … unless otherwise specifically provided by the court.”
Citing that statute, the Court of Appeals held that the 1986 California order remained independently enforceable in South Carolina because the 1990 South Carolina order did not indicate it was intended to nullify the California order. The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision on that same basis.
You can read the full text of SCDSS v. Martin by clicking HERE.
