In Re Marriage of Halko v. Halko
While a trial court has authority to dismiss a UIFSA action for discovery violations, the law requires a finding of egregious conduct by the violating party as a prerequisite to the severe penalty of dismissal.
In Re Marriage of Cepukenas v. Cepukenus
Where divorce was in Virginia, mother and child now live in Wisconsin, father lives in Delaware, Wisconsin cannot modify child support under UIFSA based on payor’s request. Wisconsin can modify under UIFSA only if either the parties file a written consent or the petitioner seeking modification is a nonresident, the respondent is subject to personal jurisdiction and no one lives in issuing state.
In Re Marriage of Hubanks v. Hubanks
Iowa support order was concurrent with Wisconsin order. It did not effect husband’s support obligation in Wisconsin.
In Re Marriage of Kranz v. Kranz
RURESA order in Pennsylvania did not modify prior Wisconsin child support order and Wisconsin order continued to run.
Horch v. Ponik
Orders by one county were not res judicata regarding arrears accrued under RURESA order in a different county.
In Re Davanis v. Davanis
Objections to RURESA filing need not be made at time of filing – no waiver by objecting when increase in support is requested.
State of Louisiana ex rel. Eaton v. Leis
Wisconsin resident may be required to pay support under URESA where he had legal custody, but not physical custody, even if mother may have removed children in violation of a court order. Support obligation is not affected by the misconduct of the custodial parent. Even children “stolen” by a noncustodial parent need food, clothing and shelter.
State ex rel. Hubbard v. Hubbard
Contempt, visitation and custody are not factors in URESA – only support.