NOT TO BE PUBLISHED
OPINION
STUMBO, Judge.
Gerald R. Smith appeals from a Judgment and Sentence of the Scott Circuit Court reflecting Smith's conditional plea of guilty to one count of Flagrant Non-Support. He contends that the Circuit Court lacked jurisdiction over this matter because the indictment was based on a vacated Ohio Order. For the reasons stated below, we find no error and AFFIRM the Order on appeal.
In 1985, Appellant Gerald Smith and Susan Smith were wed in the Philippines. Sometime thereafter, the couple allegedly established residency in Ohio. On June 19, 1995, the Court of Common Pleas, Lorrain County, Ohio, rendered a Judgment dissolving the marriage. Under the terms of the Judgment, the Court ordered Appellant to pay $73 per month in child support for each of the couple's three children. Ms. Smith was granted custody of the children.
Sometime thereafter, Ms. Smith moved to Kentucky. In 2004, the Scott County, Kentucky Child Support Office initiated efforts to enforce the Ohio child support Order. By this time, Appellant was residing in Oklahoma. The Scott County, Kentucky Child Support Office then contacted Oklahoma officials seeking to register and enforce the Ohio Judgment and support Order. The Ohio Judgment and Order were then successfully registered in Oklahoma, with an Oklahoma Notice of Registration and First Amended Notice of Registration rendered in December 2004, and October 2005, respectively.
On June 6, 2005, Oklahoma rendered an Order suspending Appellant's Oklahoma driver's license for non-compliance of the First Amended Notice of Registration. That Order stated in relevant part that the "balance for past due support shown in the Notice is confirmed as a judgment."
On March 27, 2007, an Ohio magistrate judge made a journal entry in Appellant's divorce case noting that Oklahoma had registered the current support and arrearage order for enforcement purposes only. It stated that, "[c]urrent support order to Susan S. Smith is terminated as of 8/6/04. Arrears order owed to Susan Smith shall be set to zero as of 8/6/04." It went on to address how the arrearages occurring after 8/6/04 were to be paid. The Ohio Court of Common Pleas adopted the magistrate's Order and memorialized it in the record.
In 2008, Appellant was indicted in Kentucky on one count of Flagrant Non-Support pursuant to KRS 530.050. The following year, he was indicted again on the same charge, with the new indictment subsuming the old one. Based on the indictments, Appellant was arrested in Oklahoma and extradited to Kentucky. He eventually entered a conditional guilty plea to one count of Flagrant Non-Support. A Judgment reflecting the plea was rendered and Appellant was sentenced to two years in prison, to be probated for five years. This appeal followed.
Appellant now argues that the Scott Circuit Court erred in enforcing the Oklahoma child support Order and grounding the Kentucky indictment for non-support on that Order. He contends that Ohio retained jurisdiction over the original child support Order and Oklahoma never rendered a binding child support Order. Rather, in his view, Oklahoma only acted to enforce the Ohio Order; therefore, Appellant argues that the March 27, 2007 Ohio Order erasing the arrearage and discontinuing future child support is controlling. Accordingly, he maintains that as a result of the March 27, 2007 Ohio Order, no valid child support Order remains for enforcement and the Scott Circuit Court erred in failing to so rule.
The corpus of Appellant's argument is that the March 27, 2007 Ohio Order voids the prior Oklahoma Judgment (recognizing the initial Ohio child support Order), and that the Oklahoma Judgment is no longer enforceable under Kentucky law. We do not find this argument persuasive. Appellant is challenging the Oklahoma judgment upon which the instant proceeding was based; however, Oklahoma, rather than Kentucky, is the proper forum to challenge that judgment. The Commonwealth directs our attention to KRS 407.5603 and Baker by Thomas v. General Motors Corporation, 522 U.S. 222, 233, 118 S.Ct. 657, 139 L.Ed.2d 580 (1998), which each affirm that Kentucky shall extend full faith and credit to the judgments of other states if rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction. "Regarding judgments, however, the full faith and credit obligation is exacting. A final judgment in one State, if rendered by a court with adjudicatory authority over the subject matter . . . qualifies for recognition throughout the land." Baker by Thomas, 522 U.S. at 233.
Appellant contends that the June 6, 2005 Oklahoma Order was merely rendered to enforce the pre-existing Ohio child support order. That June 6, 2005 Order, however, unequivocally provides that "[t]he balance for past due support shown in the Notice is confirmed as a judgment." It further states as follows: "JUDGMENT FOR PAST-DUE SUPPORT. The obligor owes past-due support in the principal amount of $24,674.00 for the time period of June 19, 1995 through and including August 31, 2005. . . . Judgment for said amount is hereby determined and awarded to the Department of Human Services/Obligee against the obligor[.]"
We conclude from the foregoing that the June 6, 2005 Oklahoma Order was both a registered order and an enforceable judgment. "A registered order issued in another state is enforceable in the same manner and is subject to the same procedures as an order issued by a tribunal of this state." KRS 407.5603(2). The second and superseding indictment of Appellant was grounded on the June 6, 2005 Oklahoma Order in accordance with KRS 407.5603(2). Any effort to modify or quash that Order must be accomplished, if at all, in the jurisdiction in which it was rendered. We find no error.
For the foregoing reason, we AFFIRM the Judgment and Sentence on Conditional Plea of Guilty of the Scott Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR.
