had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction. The trial court did not request to see financial documents of the parties nor were there discussions of applying the child support guidelines. If the trial court did enter an order, why would Tristina, the custodial parent who was paying child support to the non-custodial parent and who was residing with her parents, wait nine months before asking for a modification? The answer is simple - she waited because the trial court did not enter an order that she could modify. Assuming, for the sake of the dissent's argument, the trial court did enter a second child support order, it would have violated UIFSA. Therefore, pursuant to South Dakota law, it would have been declared void. See Freeman v. Sadlier, 1998 SD 114, ¶¶ 9-10, 586 N.W.2d 171, 173-74 (<HOLDING>). Either way, California has continuing,
holding that requirements of apprendi were not met where facts on which sentence enhancement was based were not charged and submitted to the jury holding that it was error for the trial court to determine the issue of child support without a child support guidelines worksheet holding that the requirements under uifsa were not met therefore a south dakota judgment modifying a utah child support order was declared void holding that parents may not voluntarily terminate their rights in a child to avoid child support payments or contract away a child support obligation holding void judgment must be vacated