Alaska Stat. » Chapter 25.30
Alaska Statutes

Alaska Stat. § 25.30.010 (2026)

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section AK-LEGakleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
Secs. 25.30.010 — 25.35.230. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. [Repealed, § 4 ch 133 SLA 1998.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1980–2001 · leading case: John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738 (Alaska 1999).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738 (Alaska 1999). · cites it 4× “" [75] This enactment was consistent with the text and the contemporaneous and long-standing interpretation of P.L. 280 by the Department of the Interior that the act bestowed exclusive jurisdiction on the states.”
Rexford v. Rexford, 631 P.2d 475 (Alaska 1980). · cites it 4× “4 The purposes of the Act are stated in seetion 1 (AS 25.30.010). 5 *477 To promote the purposes of the Act, seetion 6 (AS 25.”
Kimmons v. Heldt, 667 P.2d 1245 (Alaska 1983). · cites it 6× “FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This appeal presents a classic example of the type of jurisdictional conflict sought to be avoided by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdictional Act, adopted in Alaska at AS 25.30.010 — AS 25.30.910. The case comes before us following a series of…”
E.H. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Fam. & Youth Servs., 23 P.3d 1186 (Alaska 2001). · cites it 2× “Former AS 25.30.010(3). 10 . Former AS 25.30.010(4).”
McCaffery v. Green, 931 P.2d 407 (Alaska 1997). · cites it 2× “It also noted that, had Kerri registered the Texas judgment in Alaska, Alaska would have had jurisdiction over custody and visitation issues under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), AS 25.30.010 et seq., but would have no jurisdiction over David with respect to…”
Morgan v. Morgan, 666 P.2d 1026 (Alaska 1983). · cites it 3× “Specifically, Rod Morgan challenges the superior court’s conclusion that Virginia was not “exercising jurisdiction ‘substantially in conformity’ with [AS 25.30.010 et seq.]” and thus that Alaska was not precluded by AS 25.”
Waller v. Richardson, 757 P.2d 1036 (Alaska 1988). · cites it 2× “hild’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is available in another state, or if equally substantial evidence is more readily available in another state; (4) if the parties have agreed on another forum which is no less appropriate; and (5) if…”
Platz v. Aramburo, 17 P.3d 65 (Alaska 2001). “take into account the following factors, among others: (1) if another state is or recently was the child's home state; (2) if another state has a closer connection with the child and the child's family or with -* the child and one or more of the contestants; (3) if better…”
Szmyd v. Szmyd, 641 P.2d 14 (Alaska 1982). “AS 25.30.010(4). If Gary were forced to litigate the modification issue in California, he would be less inclined to challenge Pamela's custody absent substantial cause.”
B.J. v. J.D., 950 P.2d 113 (Alaska 1997). · cites it 2× “AS 25.30.010(3). 7 The UCCJA is also designed to “discourage continuing controversies over child custody in the interest of greater stability of home environment and of secure family relationships for the child.”
Crews v. Van Crews, 769 P.2d 433 (Alaska 1989). “AS 25.30.010 provides in part: The general purposes of this chapter tire to: [[Image here]] (5) deter abductions and other unilateral removals of children undertaken to obtain custody awards[.”
Bj v. Jd, 950 P.2d 113 (Alaska 1997). · cites it 2× “AS 25.30.010(3). [7] The UCCJA is also designed to "discourage continuing controversies over child custody in the interest of greater stability of home environment and of secure family relationships for the child.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.30.010(3) — 5 cases
Kimmons v. Heldt, 667 P.2d 1245 (Alaska 1983). “FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND This appeal presents a classic example of the type of jurisdictional conflict sought to be avoided by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdictional Act, adopted in Alaska at AS 25.30.010 — AS 25.30.910. The case comes before us following a series of…”
E.H. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Fam. & Youth Servs., 23 P.3d 1186 (Alaska 2001). “Former AS 25.30.010(3). 10 . Former AS 25.30.010(4).”
Rexford v. Rexford, 631 P.2d 475 (Alaska 1980). “4 The purposes of the Act are stated in seetion 1 (AS 25.30.010). 5 *477 To promote the purposes of the Act, seetion 6 (AS 25.”
B.J. v. J.D., 950 P.2d 113 (Alaska 1997). “AS 25.30.010(3). 7 The UCCJA is also designed to “discourage continuing controversies over child custody in the interest of greater stability of home environment and of secure family relationships for the child.”
Bj v. Jd, 950 P.2d 113 (Alaska 1997). “AS 25.30.010(3). [7] The UCCJA is also designed to "discourage continuing controversies over child custody in the interest of greater stability of home environment and of secure family relationships for the child.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.30.010(4) — 4 cases
E.H. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Fam. & Youth Servs., 23 P.3d 1186 (Alaska 2001). “Former AS 25.30.010(3). 10 . Former AS 25.30.010(4).”
Szmyd v. Szmyd, 641 P.2d 14 (Alaska 1982). “AS 25.30.010(4). If Gary were forced to litigate the modification issue in California, he would be less inclined to challenge Pamela's custody absent substantial cause.”
B.J. v. J.D., 950 P.2d 113 (Alaska 1997). “AS 25.30.010(3). 7 The UCCJA is also designed to “discourage continuing controversies over child custody in the interest of greater stability of home environment and of secure family relationships for the child.”
Bj v. Jd, 950 P.2d 113 (Alaska 1997). “AS 25.30.010(3). [7] The UCCJA is also designed to "discourage continuing controversies over child custody in the interest of greater stability of home environment and of secure family relationships for the child.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.30.010(5) — 1 case
Rexford v. Rexford, 631 P.2d 475 (Alaska 1980). “4 The purposes of the Act are stated in seetion 1 (AS 25.30.010). 5 *477 To promote the purposes of the Act, seetion 6 (AS 25.”
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.