(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 30-3B-204, a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child has been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this chapter, unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under Section 30-3B-207.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in Section 30-3B-204, a court of this state, before hearing a child custody proceeding, shall examine the court documents and other information supplied by the parties pursuant to Section 30-3B-209. If the court determines that a child custody proceeding has been commenced in a court in another state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this chapter, the court of this state shall stay its proceeding and communicate with the court of the other state. If the court of the state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this chapter does not determine that the court of this state is a more appropriate forum, the court of this state shall dismiss the proceeding.
(c) In a proceeding to modify a child custody determination, a court of this state shall determine whether a proceeding to enforce the determination has been commenced in another state. If a proceeding to enforce a child custody determination has been commenced in another state, the court may:
(1) Stay the proceeding for modification pending the entry of an order of a court of the other state enforcing, staying, denying, or dismissing the proceeding for enforcement;
(2) Enjoin the parties from continuing with the proceeding for enforcement; or
(3) Proceed with the modification under conditions it considers appropriate.
(Act 99-438, p. 866, §1.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2026 · leading case:
Hensley v. Kanizai, 143 So. 3d 186 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).
Hensley v. Kanizai, 143 So. 3d 186 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).
· cites it 6× “Relying on § 30-3B-206(b) — which provides that when a simultaneous child-custody proceeding is pending in another state having jurisdiction pursuant to its version of the UCCJEA, a court entertaining a child-custody proceeding must stay the proceeding and communicate with the…”
Ex Parte Davis, 2100515 (ala.civ.app. 10-7-2011), 82 So. 3d 695 (Ala. Civ. App. 2011).
· cites it 3× “The father also argues that the Alabama trial court failed to comply with Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3B-206, which provides: “(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 30-3B-204, [Ala.”
Ex parte J.B., 223 So. 3d 251 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3B-206(b) (requiring a court facing a simultaneous proceeding in another state that appears to be exercising jurisdiction in conformity with the UCCJEA to “stay its proceeding and communicate with the court of the other state”).”
Davis v. Self, 960 F. Supp. 2d 1276 (N.D. Ala. 2013).
· cites it 5× “See Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3B-206. Hence, and considering further the father’s failure to cite any legal authority to support this position, see Rule 28(a)(10), Ala.”
Davis v. Blackstock, 47 So. 3d 796 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “See Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3B-206. Hence, and considering further the father’s failure to cite any legal authority to support this position, see Rule 28(a)(10), Ala.”
Fordham v. Siderius, 144 So. 3d 319 (Ala. 2013).
“” § 30-3B-206(b), Ala.Code 1975 (emphasis added).”
Pierce v. Pierce, 50 So. 3d 447 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).
· cites it 5× “” § 30-3B-206, Ala.Code 1975. Under § 30-3B-206, if the Colorado court had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination pursuant to the UC-CJEA, the Alabama trial court would be required to dismiss the father’s custody claim.”
Stulce v. Stulce, 961 So. 2d 173 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).
· cites it 9× “Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3B-206; see also Official Comment, Ala.”
Holloway v. Holloway, 218 So. 3d 853 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “” § 30-3B-206, Ala.Code 1975. 3 The trial court was made aware of the mother’s custody action pending in the Mississippi court.”
Fuller v. Fuller, 51 So. 3d 1053 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).
“When simultaneous custody proceedings exist, § 30-3B-206 provides: “(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 30-3B-204, a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning…”
M.J.P. v. K.H., 923 So. 2d 1114 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005).
“§ 30-3B-206(b). If the Alabama court determines that the other state’s court has jurisdiction, the Alabama court must stay proceedings in its court and communicate with the other state’s court.”
I.F.R. v. N.F.B., 825 So. 2d 845 (Ala. Civ. App. 2001).
“” Section 30-3B-206, Ala.Code 1975, governs simultaneous proceedings; it provides, in part: “(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 30-3B-204, a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction under this article if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a…”
— Ala. Code § 30-3B-206(a) — 3 cases
Pierce v. Pierce, 50 So. 3d 447 (Ala. Civ. App. 2010).
“” § 30-3B-206, Ala.Code 1975. Under § 30-3B-206, if the Colorado court had jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination pursuant to the UC-CJEA, the Alabama trial court would be required to dismiss the father’s custody claim.”
— Ala. Code § 30-3B-206(b) — 11 cases
Hensley v. Kanizai, 143 So. 3d 186 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).
“Relying on § 30-3B-206(b) — which provides that when a simultaneous child-custody proceeding is pending in another state having jurisdiction pursuant to its version of the UCCJEA, a court entertaining a child-custody proceeding must stay the proceeding and communicate with the…”
Ex parte J.B., 223 So. 3d 251 (Ala. Civ. App. 2016).
“See Ala. Code 1975, § 30-3B-206(b) (requiring a court facing a simultaneous proceeding in another state that appears to be exercising jurisdiction in conformity with the UCCJEA to “stay its proceeding and communicate with the court of the other state”).”
Fordham v. Siderius, 144 So. 3d 319 (Ala. 2013).
“” § 30-3B-206(b), Ala.Code 1975 (emphasis added).”
M.J.P. v. K.H., 923 So. 2d 1114 (Ala. Civ. App. 2005).
“§ 30-3B-206(b). If the Alabama court determines that the other state’s court has jurisdiction, the Alabama court must stay proceedings in its court and communicate with the other state’s court.”
Stulce v. Stulce, 961 So. 2d 173 (Ala. Civ. App. 2007).
“Ala.Code 1975, § 30-3B-206; see also Official Comment, Ala.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.