a definitional concept called “continuing, exclusive jurisdiction,” under which the state that issues the support order (the issuing state) retains exclusive jurisdiction over the order, until specified conditions occur which provide a basis for jurisdiction in another state. 782 So.2d at 577-78. Under UIFSA, as opposed to URESA, there can be only one controlling order, initially issued by the issuing state, which is the state of controlling, exclusive jurisdiction. A state with controlling, exclusive jurisdiction over a support order retains this jurisdiction throughout the existence of the support obligation, and another state may not modify this order except by consent of the parties, or if the issuing court loses jurisdiction over the order. La. Ch. C. art. 1302.5 ; Jurado, \^supra (<HOLDING>). In addition, in an effort to reconcile the
holding that when district court has continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over sapcr matter judge of another district court in same county may rule in matter so long as record is clear that judge is acting on behalf of court with continuing and exclusive jurisdiction holding that under uifsa alabama courts may modify an alabama childsupport order only if the obligor the obligee or the concerned child affected by that order reside in the state and all the parties who are individuals have not filed written consent for the tribunal of another state to exercise jurisdiction over the childsupport order holding that once a support order is established the issuing court retains continuing exclusive jurisdiction under la chcode art 13025a 1 until the obligor the individual obligee and the child all establish a residence outside of the issuing state or 2 until all consent in writing to assumption of continuing exclusive jurisdiction by another state or 3 until the court of another state modifies the order of the issuing state in accordance with uifsa holding that until the case is no longer sub judice federal courts must apply state law in accordance with the then controlling decision of the highest state court holding that the trial court had continuing jurisdiction over all subsequent custody orders once the trial court acquired jurisdiction