As clients (and adversaries) become more mobile, enforcing child support orders often involves multiple jurisdictions. Michigan has several statutes designed for intergovernmental cooperation, such as the UIFSA, the IIWA, or the UEFJA. (If you need a refresher on these acronyms, see §§13.72–13.75 in chapter 13 of Michigan Family Law.) However, the recent case of Gaudreau v Kelly, No 304345, 2012 Mich App LEXIS 2036 (Oct 16, 2012), illustrates that when these statutes are inapplicable, the common-law doctrine of comity may be used as an enforcement tool.
In Gaudreau, the plaintiffs sought to enforce a child support order issued by a Quebec court against the children’s father, who lived and worked in Michigan. The father argued that the order was unenforceable because Quebec isn’t a “reciprocating state” under UIFSA. The court seemed to agree that the statute was inapplicable, but that wasn’t the focus of its ruling. Instead, the court held that the order was enforceable under the principle of international comity, which is “the recognition … one nation allows within its territory to the legislative, executive, or judicial acts of another nation.” 2012 Mich App LEXIS 2036 at *4. A court must weigh several factors when deciding to invoke comity, as it is “neither a matter of absolute obligation … nor of mere courtesy and good will.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). The Gaudreau court applied comity because the Quebec proceeding was fair and the support order was supported by the evidence.
To read more about Gaudreau and other cases addressing comity, see chapter 13 of Michigan Family Law.