Is the State of Arizona obligated to enforce void orders?

---

 In the case involving a child support order from Maryland, Maine refused to register it because the Maryland court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, rendering the order void ab initio:

• “...Maine had retained its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction … the Maryland order was void ab initio... the Maine District Court correctly declined to register the Maryland order for enforcement in Maine on that basis.”  https://www.courts.maine.gov/courts/sjc/lawcourt/2021/21me040.pdf
   

Since the obligation to enforce only applies to orders “made consistently with this section,” an order that is void due to absence of jurisdiction (i.e., not “consistently made”) is not enforceable under federal law.

• UIFSA: States are not required to enforce an order that is void due to lack of jurisdiction—evidenced by the Maine case refusing registration.
   
• FFCCSOA: Its enforcement mandate applies only to orders consistent with its jurisdictional and due-process standards—void orders fall outside that scope.
   

These exact quotes and statutory excerpts establish that when an order is void ab initio, enforcement is not required under UIFSA or FFCCSOA. 

28 U.S.C. § 1738B (FFCCSOA) imposes a duty on states to enforce out‑of‑state child support orders, but only those “made consistently with this section”—i.e., orders issued with proper jurisdiction and due process:

General Rule (a) – A state:  “shall enforce according to its terms a child support order made consistently with this section by a court of another State; and shall not seek or make a modification of such an order except in accordance with…”

UIFSA (Uniform Interstate Family Support Act) was enacted to require states to enforce valid support orders from other states as if they were their own. However, UIFSA does not obligate a responding state to enforce an order that is:

• Void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the issuing state
   
• Expired by its own terms (e.g., post-majority child support when the issuing state’s law does not allow it)
• Facially invalid due to statutory noncompliance

• Procured by fraud upon the court
   

If the original order is legally void, UIFSA’s “full faith and credit” obligations under 28 U.S.C. § 1738B do not apply — full faith and credit only applies to orders issued with proper jurisdiction.

• UIFSA § 603(c) (2008 version; § 606 in some versions) — A tribunal of the responding state “shall recognize and enforce” a registered order unless the nonregistering party proves one of the statutory defenses in § 607.
   
• UIFSA § 607(a)(1)–(8) — Lists defenses to enforcement, including:
   
  • The issuing tribunal lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction.
  • The order was obtained by fraud.
  • The order has been vacated, suspended, or modified by a later valid order.
  • The statute of limitations has expired.
     

If a party believes the order is defective, UIFSA allows them to contest enforcement after registration in the responding state by filing a written objection and proving one of the § 607 defenses.

For example:

• Lack of jurisdiction — In re Marriage of Malwitz, 99 P.3d 56 (Colo. App. 2004) (responding state refused enforcement where issuing state lacked jurisdiction to enter post-majority support order).
   
• Fraudulent procurement — State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyler, 252 Kan. 646, 847 P.2d 1273 (1993) (fraud upon the court can defeat enforcement if proved).
   

• FFCCSOA (28 U.S.C. § 1738B) works in tandem with UIFSA and only protects valid orders issued with proper jurisdiction.
   
• If an order is void ab initio, neither UIFSA nor FFCCSOA requires enforcement.
   

In summary--
A responding state may refuse to enforce a registered support order if the contesting party proves it is void or defective under UIFSA § 607(a). The refusal isn’t automatic — the order must first be registered, then contested with evidence showing one of the statutory defenses applies.