Oregon Code § 110.527·Enacted ·Last updated March 01, 2026
Statute Text
Continuing, exclusive jurisdiction.
(1) A tribunal of this state that has issued a child support order consistent
with the law of this state has and shall exercise continuing, exclusive
jurisdiction to modify its child support order if the order is the controlling
order and:
(a) At the time
of the filing of a request for modification, this state is the residence of the
obligor, the individual obligee or the child for whose benefit the support
order is issued; or
(b) Even if this
state is not the residence of the obligor, the individual obligee or the child
for whose benefit the support order is issued, the parties consent in a record
or in open court that the tribunal of this state may continue to exercise jurisdiction
to modify its order.
(2) A tribunal of
this state that has issued a child support order consistent with the law of
this state may not exercise continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the
order if:
(a) All of the
parties who are individuals file consent in a record with the tribunal of this
state that a tribunal of another state that has jurisdiction over at least one
of the parties who is an individual or that is located in the state of
residence of the child may modify the order and assume continuing, exclusive
jurisdiction; or
(b) The tribunals
order is not the controlling order.
(3) If a tribunal
of another state has issued a child support order pursuant to the Uniform
Interstate Family Support Act or a law substantially similar to that Act which
modifies a child support order of a tribunal of this state, tribunals of this
state shall recognize the continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the tribunal of
the other state.
(4) A tribunal of
this state that lacks continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify a child
support order may serve as an initiating tribunal to request a tribunal of
another state to modify a support order issued in that state.
(5) A temporary
support order issued ex parte or pending resolution of a jurisdictional
conflict does not create continuing, exclusive jurisdiction in the issuing
tribunal. [2015 c.298 §11]