• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer navigation
  • Washington, D.C.
  • melissa@mkfamily.law
  • (202) 713-5165
  • mkfamily.law
Family Law Across Borders

Family Law Across Borders

International Family Law Resources

  • About MKFL
  • Websites
  • Blog
  • FAQ
  • Articles
  • Books
  • Videos
  • Events
  • Contact

Case Update (2020): Tompkins v. Tompkins; jurisdiction to issue an initial child support order under UIFSA; difference between custody jurisdiction and child support jurisdiction

Case Update (2020): Tompkins v. Tompkins; jurisdiction to issue an initial child support order under UIFSA; difference between custody jurisdiction and child support jurisdiction

December 22, 2020

In a rare appellate opinion that addresses international child support, the Court of Appeals of Arkansas reversed its trial court and concluded that Arkansas did have jurisdiction to issue an initial child support order.  

Natalie Tompkins and the parties’ child resided in Germany, which the parties agreed was the child’s “home state” (pursuant to the UCCJEA for purposes of custody jurisdiction).  Lawrence Tompkins was active duty military and his permanent residence was Arkansas.  The parties proceeded to a divorce hearing in Arkansas in November 2018.  It did not address custody of the parties’ child.  During the hearing, Natalie’s lawyer raised the issue of child support, and requested a child support order.  The trial court conflated the issue of child support with jurisdiction over the child’s custody, and denied Natalie’s request for a support order.  The Court of Appeals clarified that the UCCJEA dictates child-custody jurisdiction, but the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), and particularly those parts that reference the Hague Maintenance Convention (Germany and the United States are treaty partners since the U.S.’s ratification and it becoming effective on January 1, 2017), dictate child support jurisdiction.  UIFSA is clear that since there was no existing child support obligation that was due recognition by Arkansas, and the Arkansas court had personal jurisdiction over Lawrence, it could issue a child support order. 

Category iconchild support,  Hague Maintenance Convention,  jurisdiction,  personal jurisdiction,  UIFSA

Primary Sidebar

Subscribe

Join 108 others, and get a notification to our new posts right on your inbox.

We promise we’ll never spam! Only notifications of new posts.

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.

The use of the name MK Family Law is protected as are the logo and content of this website. The information is provided by MK Family Law and while we endeavour to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability or availability with respect to the website or the information, products, services, or related graphics contained on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

© 2023 · MK Family Law · All Rights Reserved · Developed by RDK

  • Disclaimer
  • Privacy Policy
  • Attorney Advertising