Draper v. Burke
450 Mass. 676 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (28 U.S.C. § 1738B) preempts a state's version of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA) when the state law imposes a jurisdictional requirement, such as that the petitioner must be a nonresident, which conflicts with the federal act's purpose of facilitating interstate child support modification.
Facts:
- The husband and wife were married in Massachusetts in 1980 and had two children.
- In 1993, the family moved to Oregon, where they were divorced by an Oregon court judgment on August 15, 1997.
- The Oregon judgment established the husband's child support obligation but did not address college expenses, though the parties intended to share them.
- In July 1997, one month before the divorce was final, the wife and children moved back to Massachusetts, where they have resided since.
- Also in July 1997, the husband moved to Idaho, where he has resided since.
- At the time of the dispute, none of the parties—husband, wife, or children—resided in Oregon, the state that issued the original support order.
- When the children became college-aged, the wife sought contribution from the husband for their college expenses.
Procedural Posture:
- The wife filed complaints for modification of an Oregon child support judgment in the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court.
- The husband filed a motion to dismiss the wife's complaints, arguing the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under Massachusetts law.
- The Probate and Family Court judge denied the husband's motion to dismiss.
- After a trial, the court entered a judgment modifying the husband's child support obligation to include contributions to the children's college expenses.
- The husband appealed both the final judgment and the denial of his motion to dismiss.
- The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court granted the husband's application for direct appellate review of the jurisdictional issue.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (28 U.S.C. § 1738B) preempt the Massachusetts Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (G. L. c. 209D, § 6-611), which requires a petitioner seeking to modify another state's child support order to be a nonresident of Massachusetts?
Opinions:
Majority - Greaney, J.
Yes, the federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act preempts the conflicting provision of the Massachusetts Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. The Massachusetts law, G. L. c. 209D, § 6-611(a)(1), allows a Massachusetts court to modify another state's child support order only if the petitioner is a nonresident of Massachusetts. The wife, a resident, cannot meet this requirement. However, the federal act, 28 U.S.C. § 1738B, establishes its own criteria for modification jurisdiction, requiring only that the issuing state (Oregon) has lost continuing, exclusive jurisdiction and that the new forum court has personal jurisdiction over the non-moving party. The federal act does not include a nonresident petitioner requirement. The court found a direct conflict, reasoning that the state law's requirement creates an obstacle to the congressional objectives of ensuring financial stability for children and reducing burdens on custodial parents. Forcing the wife to litigate in Idaho, the husband's state of residence, would impose the very hardship the federal act was designed to prevent. Therefore, because the state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of Congress's purposes, it is preempted.
Analysis:
This decision establishes that in cases of conflict between the federal Full Faith and Credit for Child Support Orders Act (FFCCSOA) and a state's adoption of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (UIFSA), the federal act's jurisdictional rules prevail. It specifically invalidates the 'nonresident petitioner' or 'play an away game' rule contained in many states' UIFSA statutes when that rule prevents a custodial parent from seeking modification in their home state. The ruling prioritizes the federal goals of protecting children's financial stability and easing the burden on custodial parents over a state-level rule designed to promote procedural 'rough justice'. This precedent significantly aids resident custodial parents by allowing them to use their local courts to modify out-of-state support orders, provided they can establish personal jurisdiction over the non-resident parent.
