<p>I wouldn’t start counting the college money just yet. While the Illinois statute definitely applies to residents of Illinois, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”) specifically addresses how and when support orders issued in one state can be amended in another. </p>
<p>This is from the case Marshak v Weser where the Appellate Court of New Jersey overturned a lower court ruling requiring college expenses be paid by the father. While this case is from New Jersey, the opinion is based upon a uniform statute required by Congress. </p>
<p>The case has a similar fact situation to the OP (divorce and child support order entered in Pennsylvania where college expenses cannot be granted); the family members subsequently move to New Jersey (where college expenses can be required by the court). In overturning the lower court, the appellate court found that UIFSA prohibits the modification of the original court order.</p>
<p>Excerpts from the opinion: </p>
<p>“UIFSA is a model act adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws at the behest of Congress in 1992 and revised in 1996. Kurtis A. Kemper, Annotation, Construction and Application of Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, 90 A.L.R.5th 1, 2 (2006). Congress thereafter mandated that all States enact UIFSA as a condition of receiving certain federal funding.</p>
<p>The purpose of the uniformity requirement was not only to establish a means of enforcing a support order when one or both parties have moved from the jurisdiction where the support order was issued, but also to establish ground rules for modifying such an order, and to do so in a way that avoids conflicting orders issued by courts of different states. Congress obviously anticipated that multi-state conflicts over child support jurisdiction would be avoided if each state were to enact the same rules.</p>
<p>Moreover, in 2001 the model UIFSA was amended to more specifically address the situation at issue here:</p>
<p>In a proceeding to modify a child-support order, the law of the State that is determined to have issued the initial controlling order governs the duration of the obligation of support. The obligor’s fulfillment of the duty of support established by that order precludes imposition of a further obligation of support by a tribunal of this State. [Unif. Interstate Family Support Act 611(d) (2001).]
The comment to the 2001 amendment clearly indicates that its purpose was to clarify the original UIFSA enactment: “From its original promulgation UIFSA determined that the duration of child-support obligation[s] should be fixed by the controlling order . . . If the language was insufficiently specific before . . . 2001, the amendments should make this decision absolutely clear.” Id. cmt. on 611(d). The comment also specifically indicates that the amendment was intended to address modifications to impose college tuition payments for adult offspring where the law of the issuing state would not provide for such support. Ibid.”</p>
<p>While the opinion may not stop the OP’s mother from trying, the best time for “forum shopping” is at the time of the original support decree.</p>