With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F to be binding and specifically incorporated it into the divorce decree. Thus, in accordance with their own Stipulation, the parties bound themselves to the trial court’s determination that California has jurisdiction over the child support issue. Furthermore, written consent to change jurisdiction over child support must be filed with the tribunal of the state that issued the original child support order, which is California in this case. Cal. Fam.Code 4909(a)(2); SDCL 25-9B-205(a)(2). That was not done. Therefore, pursuant to Section F of the Marital Separation Agreement, the Stipulation and UIFSA, California has continuing, exclusive jurisdiction to modify the child support order it entered. SDCL 25-9B-205(d). See also Freeman v. Sadlier, 1998 SD 114, ¶ 10, 586 N.W.2d 171, 173-74 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 19.] We recognize that Tristina may have

A: holding that the trial courts attempt at modification of a utah child support order which was registered in south dakota was nullified due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to uifsa
B: holding that the requirements under uifsa were not met therefore a south dakota judgment modifying a utah child support order was declared void
C: holding that arkansass version of the uifsa applied to registration and modification of foreign childsupport order even though father mother and child resided in state
D: holding that a lack of a waiver of sovereign immunity deprives federal courts of subject matter jurisdiction
A.