Call Now(480) 305-8300

Authority to Hear Support Enforcement Action in Arizona

Posted on : March 6, 2017, By:  Christopher Hildebrand
Authority to Hear Support Enforcement Action in Arizona

Authority to Hear Support Enforcement Action in Arizona

A court in Arizona can only hear a divorce if it has jurisdiction to do so. In the past, the court in the county where the couple resided had exclusive jurisdiction. No other Arizona court could rule on matters involved in the divorce, including child support enforcement. Did the enactment of the Family Responsibility Act change that?

In Pflum v. Pflum, 660 P. 2d 1231 (1982), the Arizona Court of Appeals considered the issue.

Facts and Procedure

Mrs. and Mr. Pflum divorced in 1973, in Gila County Superior Court. The decree provided that Mrs. Pflum would have custody of the youngest child. The court ordered Mr. Pflum to pay $150.00 per month as child support.

In 1979, Mrs. Pflum was living in Maricopa County with the child. She filed a petition in the Maricopa County court claiming that Mr. Pflum owed $5,250.00 in back child support. She filed the relevant documents from Gila County Superior Court with the Maricopa County court clerk and attached copies to her filing. At that time, Mr. Pflum lived in California.

Authority to Hear Support Enforcement Action in Arizona
Mr. Pflum filed a motion to quash the order to show cause. He claimed that any enforcement action should be filed in Gila County Superior Court.

Both motions were heard on December 3, 1979. The Maricopa court denied Mr. Pflum’s motion to quash. It awarded Mrs. Pflum $5,400.00 in back child support plus $200.00 for attorney’s fees. It also ordered Mr. Pflum to make child support payments through the clerk of the Maricopa County Superior Court.

Jurisdiction under the Family Responsibility Act

Arizona law in the past provided that a divorce court jurisdiction is exclusive. A superior court sitting in one county had continuing and exclusive authority to hear child support matters. No other court could hear the matter. However, the law was changed effective August 27, 1977, when the legislature enacted the Family Responsibility Act (A.R.S. § 12-2455).

The Family Responsibility Act states that every parent has a duty to provide support for natural and adopted minor children. The remaining sections discuss the court’s jurisdiction. Under the law, actions regarding support can be brought in the county of residence of either party or of the children.

The cases Mr. Pflum cites were all decided before the Family Responsibility Act. Under that Act, a child support order can be enforced as any other civil judgment. Each child support installment is enforceable as a judgment when it becomes due. A party entitled to the past due support can petition the court and obtain written judgment for the full amount.

The Court of Appeals held that a person can bring a support enforcement petition in any county of this state where one of the parents or the child resides. It does not matter where the decree was originally obtained.

Authority to Hear Support Enforcement Action in Arizona
Mr. Pflum also argues that even if the Maricopa court has jurisdiction, it should refuse to act. He argues that one court should not review or enforce another court’s orders. He claims that to do so encourage judge and forum shopping.

The Court noted that the Family Responsibility Act was enacted to allow courts around the state to enforce child support orders. Since Mrs. Pflum and the child lived in Maricopa County at the time the petition was filed, venue was appropriate.

The Court rejected the arguments regarding forum shopping and judge shopping. They are without merit since the original divorce action could also be brought in any county. Under the Act, any Arizona court can hear a divorce as long as one spouse lived in Arizona for ninety days. Prior law contained a county domicile requirement in addition to the state domicile requirement that the legislature removed. It obviously intended that a dissolution action could be brought in any county.


The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment below. It found that the motion to quash the petition for order to show cause regarding contempt was properly denied.