Harding

Harding v. Harding

Good Law
121 Cal. Rptr. 2d 450·2002 Cal. App. LEXIS 4310·2002 Daily Journal DAR 7085·99 Cal. App. 4th 626·18 A.L.R. 6th 827
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaJune 21, 2002B151542California3,957 words

Opinion

Opinion

Hastings, J.

The trial court dismissed Marla Harding’s request for order to show cause for modification of a Texas child support order because it lacked subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to the federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA), title 28 United States Code section 1738B (section 1738B), and the complementary state statute, the California Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (Fam. Code, § 4900 et seq.) She argues that the FFCCSOA and the state law are unconstitutional because they infringe upon what is traditionally a local issue. She also argues there is insufficient evidence that respondent remains a Texas resident for either law to apply and preclude the court from having jurisdiction. We conclude there is no constitutional infirmity and that sufficient evidence supports the trial court determination that respondent is a Texas resident. We accordingly affirm.

Facts

Appellant and respondent were divorced in Texas in 1994 and appellant was awarded child support for the parties’ two children. Appellant and the children later moved to California. Respondent claimed his residence remained in Texas, although he also has a residence in Missouri, his…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.