In McHale v. McHale, 210 Ariz. 194, 109 P.3d 89 (App. 2005), the Court considered an appeal in which the father had contested the assertion of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction by the Arizona court when it modified a child support award. The Court ultimately held that the court erred in asserting jurisdiction and modifying the award in that case because: If all parties and the child reside elsewhere, the issuing state loses its continuing, exclusive jurisdiction-which in practical terms means the issuing tribunal loses its authority to modify its order. The issuing state no longer has a nexus with the parties or child and, furthermore, the issuing tribunal has no current information about the circumstances of anyone involved. McHale, 210 Ariz. at 197,12, 109 P.3d at 92 (quoting UIFSA 205 cmt. (1992)).