for a nonresident child under statutes similar to Utah's statutes. 113 Nor does it necessarily follow from the general rule-that a state may prosecute a nonresident parent for failure to support a resident child, that a state may not prosecute a resident parent for failure to support a nonresident child. See State v. Gantt, 201 Wis.2d 206, 548 N.W.2d 134, 186 (Ct.App.1996) (emphasizing that although Wisconsin cases holding Wisconsin has jurisdiction to prosecute nonresident parents for failing to support Wisconsin resident children are consistent with general criminal law rule, such cases do not hold that "nonsupport statutes may be enforced only in the place where the child[ren] reside[ 1"); see also United States v. Lombardo, 241 U.S. 78, 77-78, 36 S.Ct. 508, 510, 60 L.Ed. 897 (1916) (<HOLDING>). In fact, there is authority generally
holding that there is no independent duty to test and even if there were it would be completely speculative as to what the consequences would be of any purported failure to fulfill this supposed duty holding that the duty of good faith and fair dealing is a contractual duty holding where there is no duty to defend there is no duty to indemnify holding no duty and noting that foreseeability bears on the scope of a duty and not whether it exists in the first place recognizing in dicta that where there is a general duty it may be considered as insistent both where the actor is and the subject is  as in the case of the duty of a father to support his children and if the duty hals criminal sanetion it may be enforced in either place