Messed-Up Modification May Have Left Me Unable to Collect Arrears

Well, not exactly what i wanted to hear, but I'm grateful for the info, nonetheless.

Thank you!

- - - Updated - - -

One other thing I don't understand is how a court can domesticate an original order (that was already modified in another state), but not domesticate the modifying order, and how that new court can then modify the original order (which was already modified) and not the stipulation. I mean, how many times can you go back and modify the original?

an original order can be modified as many times as a court will allow.


They didn't just domesticate the order. They assumed jurisdiction and modified the order under Texas standards once that happened. For all intents and purposes, it is a new order issued by Texas.
Domesticating an order is when a foreign state's order is simply accepted into the new state so that foreign order can be dealt with in the new state. It is not transferring actual jurisdiction such that it would allow the new state to alter the order. The easiest example would be if there was a simple money judgement from one state and the judgment debtor lived in another state. Unless one domesticates the order in the new state, the judgment creditor cannot effect any actions such as garnishment of wages or seizure of property to attempt to satisfy the judgment.

While I would have thought they should have utilized the modified order, in the end, I do not believe it really makes any difference since upon accepting it into the Texas courts, what was in the order can be changed as Texas chooses to change it (within the law of course). So, whether they accepted the original order or the modified order, they could alter either one as they saw fit and should have resulted in the same order in the end.


Look at it this way:

there is the Pre Texas order and there is the post texas order. When Texas changed the order, it was for that time forward. That means the arrears accumulated under the California order are still owed based on the California order. The Texas order supersedes the California but the order from California was not rendered null from the original date.

I think I follow what you are saying, I just thought that since California Order B supersedes California Order A, Texas would only be able to modify California order B. If I do understand you correctly, then you are saying that Texas Order 1 can modify either CA order A or B and that it supersedes only the order that it specifically modifies, which in this case is CA Order A and all other orders remain in full force. Or, would it be correct that TX order 1 modifies any and all orders previously issued that pertain to child support, which would be both CA orders A and B, from the date of the TX order, forward?