Before Justices Saitta, Hardesty, and Parraguirre. Opinion by Justice Hardesty.
Both parties appealed from a divorce decree; the Court consolidated the appeals and addressed a district court’s ability to enforce or modify a child custody order when neither the divorced parties nor the children live in Nevada. Having resolved the issues involving personal jurisdiction in an earlier appeal, the Court concluded that under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act (“UIFSA”) a district court retains jurisdiction to enforce its order despite the parties having moved unless and until a court from the new state enters an order modifying the original order in accordance with the UISFA. Courts do not, however, retain jurisdiction to modify the order. Addressing whether the district court had modified the support order or simply clarified it to assist in enforcement, the Court held that a clarification would define the parties previously articulated rights, and a modification would change the rights granted under the previous order. In this case, the district court had modified the order and was without jurisdiction to do so. Reversed and remanded. (Kerry S. Doyle, Associate in the Reno office of McDonald Carano Wilson.)
