40-5-149. Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. (1) A tribunal of this state issuing a support order consistent with the law of this state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a child support order:
     (a) as long as this state remains the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee, or the child for whose benefit the support order is issued; or
     (b) until each individual party has filed written consent with the tribunal of this state for a tribunal of another state to modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
     (2) A tribunal of this state issuing a child support order consistent with the law of this state may not exercise its continuing jurisdiction to modify the order if the order has been modified by a tribunal of another state pursuant to a law substantially similar to this part.
     (3) If a child support order of this state is modified by a tribunal of another state pursuant to a law substantially similar to this part, a tribunal of this state loses its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction with regard to prospective enforcement of the order issued in this state and may only:
     (a) enforce the order that was modified as to amounts accruing before the modification;
     (b) enforce nonmodifiable aspects of that order; and
     (c) provide other appropriate relief for violations of that order that occurred before the effective date of the modification.
     (4) A tribunal of this state shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of a tribunal of another state that has issued a child support order pursuant to a law substantially similar to this part.
     (5) A temporary support order issued ex parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional conflict does not create continuing, exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing tribunal.
     (6) A tribunal of this state issuing a support order consistent with the law of this state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over a spousal support order throughout the existence of the support obligation. A tribunal of this state may not modify a spousal support order issued by a tribunal of another state having continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over that order under the law of that state.

     History: En. Sec. 9, Ch. 328, L. 1993.