From my own research, jursidiction does NOT follow daddy. Period. I've made the calls, Oregon and California will be helping me with this case. Nevada says they have NOTHING to do, unless Oregon asks them to help locate, but according to Oregon, he's been located... Now he just needs to start paying, If he has, GREAT! Oregon will be doing a DIRECT with-holding...
For CUSTODY issues you are correct OR will have jurisdiction HOWEVER.... UNLESS the father has some ties to OR (lives there, conceived a child with you there, or is personally served with a motion there) OR has NO PERSONAL JURISDICTION over the Obligor.
*************For your reading pleasure***************
Article 6, divided into three parts, concerns the enforcement and modification of support orders after registration. Sections 601-604 detail the means for registration. Under the one order, one time, one place system of UIFSA, only the existing order may be enforced, and registration is the first step to enforcement. If a prior support order has been validly issued, only that order may be enforced against the obligor. Sections 605-608 provide the procedure by which the nonregistering party may contest registration of an order. To prevail in a challenge to the validity of a support order, the obligor must show that:
the issuing tribunal lacked personal jurisdiction over the contesting party
the order was obtained by fraud
the order has been vacated, suspended, or modified by a later order
the issuing tribunal has stayed the order pending appeal
there is a defense under the law of the responding state to the remedy sought
full or partial payment has been made
the statute of limitations under the Section 604 choice-of-law Section precludes enforcement of some or all of the arrearage
Sections 609-611 concern those situations where it is necessary for a registering state to modify the existing child support order of another state. Particular attention should be paid to these Sections. As long as the issuing state has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over its order, a registering state is precluded from modifying that order. This is the most significant departure from the URESA multiple-order, multiple- modification system. Where the issuing state does not have continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, the registering state may assume the power to modify. Section 611 is thus the counterpart to Section 205(b), which establishes continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. (Note that these provisions relate only to child support. UIFSA does not contemplate modification of spousal support orders.)
Section 611 provides:
(a) After a child support order issued in another state has been registered in this State, the responding tribunal of this State may modify that order if, after notice and hearing, it finds that:
(1) the following requirements are met:
(i) the child, the individual obligee, and the obligor do not reside in the issuing state;
(ii) a petitioner who is a nonresident of this State seeks modification;
(iii) the respondent is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the tribunal of this State; or
(2) an individual party of the child is subject to the personal jurisdiction of the tribunal and all of the individual parties have filed a written consent in the issuing tribunal providing that a tribunal of this State may modify the support order and assume continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the order.
In sum, under UIFSA, there are two ways for a state to assume jurisdiction for the purpose of modifying another state's order. Either no one continues to reside in the issuing state, and the petitioner seeking modification is a nonresident of the same state assuming jurisdiction, and the assuming state has personal jurisdiction over the respondent; or some person is subject to personal jurisdiction and all the parties have filed a written consent in the issuing state for the assuming state to modify the order.
It is quite important to note that jurisdiction for modification of child support is quite different from jurisdiction for modification of custody under the PKPA and UCCJA. In custody modification, a court with continuing, exclusive jurisdiction may decline jurisdiction. This privilege is not authorized under UIFSA. Once an initial child support order is established, there is, at all times thereafter, an existing order in force to be enforced. Thus, even if the issuing court no longer has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction, the order of the court remains fully enforceable until a court with modification jurisdiction issues a new order.
Section 611 also provides that the final, nonmodifiable aspects of a child support order may not be modified. For example, if the issuing state issued an order that child support terminates at age 21, the responding state cannot change that aspect of the order, even if support in the responding state ends at age 18. To make this Section work, Section 612 provides the deference to the support order of a sister state that was missing in URESA.
It can be alot to take in.