Case Update (13 Nov 2024): Bravo v. Johnson; Mother must seek modification of Australian child support order in Australia
The Father, a resident of Australia, is the obligor on an Australian child support order. Because the Australian courts permitted his child to relocate to the USA with the Mother, the current obligation as to support is zero dollars ($0). The Mother and Child relocated to North Carolina and then Florida. When the Mother failed to provide her new Florida address, the Father registered the parties’ Australian time-sharing order to enforce it in Florida. Separately, the Mother sought to modify the time-sharing and register and modify the child support order since she was now, according to her, bearing more of the time with the child, and therefore more of the expense. The lower court found, several times, that it would let the child support modification case proceed. Father petitioned for an order to prohibit the trial court from assuming jurisdiction to modify child support.
The Florida Court of Appeals concluded that Australia was not a party to the Hague Child Support Convention and therefore, the rule, under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), as to whether or not the Florida courts could modify the Australian child support order related back to whether Australia ,“a foreign country”, lacked or refused jurisdiction to modify its child support order pursuant to its own laws. Since the Mother had not attempted to first modify the order in Australia, and there was no evidence that Australia would refuse jurisdiction (or otherwise lacked jurisdiction) to modify its order, the Mother would be obligated to seek modification in Australia, not Florida.
