Knabe

In this appeal, we conclude that a stipulation signed by the parties’ attorneys agreeing to transfer exclusive jurisdiction over a child support order from Texas to California is valid and enforceable even though it was not signed by the litigating parties themselves.

LEGAL BACKGROUND

This case involves the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), an act adopted by both Texas and California. (Tex. Fam. Code, § 159.001 et seq.; Cal. Fam. Code, § 4900 et seq.) , UIFSA was designed to ensure that only one state at a time would have jurisdiction to make and modify a child support order. “[T]he central jurisdictional feature of UIFSA is the concept of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. Under UIFSA, a court that makes a valid child support order retains exclusive jurisdiction to modify the order as long as the requirements for continuing, exclusive jurisdiction remain fulfilled. The court of another state may enforce a child support order registered in that state, but may not modify it unless the decree state has lost its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.” (4 Kirkland et al., Cal. Family Law Practice and Procedure (2d ed. 2007) § 151.51[1], p. 151-30 (rel.…