Case Update (7 Feb 2025): In Matter of Penichet and Corroon; Defendant Father had insufficient personal connections to Mexico to warrant enforcement of Mexican child support order
The parties are parents to one child, born in New York in 2016. The child’s parents, a Father residing in New Hampshire and a Mother residing in New York, entered into a stipulation in New York giving the Mother sole legal and physical custody, and giving her the right to relocate anywhere with the child, including, but not limited to, her native Mexico. In September 2016, the Mother and Child relocated to Mexico. In October 2022, the Mother requested and obtained an ex parte temporary order of child support in Mexico. While the Father had been voluntarily paying support on behalf of the child since 2016, there was no child support order between the parties before this Mexican court order. The Mother brought this Mexican order to New Hampshire, and requested that the New Hampshire courts register and enforce the order. The Father filed a motion to contest the validity of the foreign child support order, and a hearing was held in July 2023. The Circuit Court, following the hearing, concluded that the Father had insufficient contacts with Mexico to justify Mexico’s exercise of personal jurisdiction over him. Therefore, it was not going to register or enforce the Mexican order. The NH court then issued its own temporary orders to protect the interests of the minor child. The Mother sought reconsideration, but the court declined to reopen the record. The Mother appealed.
The prevailing law is found in New Hampshire’s enactment of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, UIFSA. The Supreme Court of NH relied on UIFSA, the official comments to the Uniform Law Commission’s act, and amendments to UIFSA, in order to resolve this case. As a general premise, NH courts generally recognize and enforce support orders issued by a tribunal, so long as the issuing tribunal had jurisdiction. If a party is contesting the validity or enforcement of a registered support order, or seeking to vacate the registration, then they have the burden of proving the issuing tribunal lacked jurisdiction.
In looking at UIFSA, there are eight grounds enumerated in the UIFSA long arm statute that would permit jurisdiction over a nonresident Defendant for a child support claim. In looking at the official comments for Section 201 of UIFSA, the Supreme Court concluded that the issuing tribunal would need personal jurisdiction pursuant to this long arm statute in order for NH to recognize and enforce the foreign child support order. In other words, a NH (or other U.S. state) tribunal would be called upon to determine whether the facts underlying the support order would have provided the issuing foreign tribunal with personal jurisdiction over the respondent under the standards set forth in the long arm section of UIFSA. The Father, here, had the burden of demonstrating that the Mexican court lacked personal jurisdiction over him, as the party contesting the registration of the Mexican support order. In this case, there was no personal jurisdiction in a way that conforms to the long arm of UIFSA. The Father never purposefully availed himself of the protections in Mexico. The fact that the Father signed a stipulation in New York that permitted the child to relocate to Mexico is insufficient to connect the Father to Mexico. Further, a child’s presence in a state will not, without more, confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident parent in a child support matter. The Father’s ongoing voluntary support of the child does not confer jurisdiction over the Father wherever the Mother chooses to live.
The Mexican order is not registered in New Hampshire. Presumably the Mother can seek child support in New Hampshire.
