The purpose of this article is to examine a conflict in judicial interpretations of the extradition provisions of the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act of 1952 and to suggest an appropriate solution. The question raised is whether an obligor-defendant charged with the crime of desertion or nonsupport in a demanding state can defeat extradition by submitting to the jurisdiction of a court in a responding state and complying with that court's support order. Section 5 of the Support Act, expanding upon the Uniform Extradition Act, provides for extradition of any person charged with desertion or nonsupport in the demanding state at the time of the crime's commission and even if he has not fled from justice. Whether or not the obligor-defendant can defeat extradition under Section 5 depends upon the interpretation of Section 6 of the Support Act. As there have been no reported Nebraska decisions dealing with Sections 5 and 6 of the Support Act, an analysis of the conflict among the courts is particularly pertinent. Particular emphasis is given to a 1959 Oregon case, Lefler v. Lefler, which granted jurisdiction to the obligor under Section 6 of the Support Act, thereby defeating extradition. Also included is a brief resume of the background of the Support Act 6 and of the intent of the drafters as set out in a number of sources.
Joseph L. Krause,
Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act: Granting an Obliger Section Six Jurisdiction in a Responding State on an Ex Parte Basis,
40 Neb. L. Rev. 517
Available at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/nlr/vol40/iss3/8