Alaska Statutes
Alaska Stat. § 25.30.360 (2026)
Inconvenient forum
✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
AK-LEGakleg.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
Sec. 25.30.360. Inconvenient forum.
(a) A court of this state that has jurisdiction under this chapter to make a child custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised on motion of a party, the court's own motion, or request of another court.
(b) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including
(1) whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;
(2) the length of time the child has resided outside this state;
(3) the distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;
(4) the relative financial circumstances of the parties;
(5) an agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;
(6) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;
(7) the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and
(8) the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.
(c) If a court of this state determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, it shall stay the proceedings on condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state and may impose any other condition the court considers just and proper.
(d) A court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this chapter if a child custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding.
(a) A court of this state that has jurisdiction under this chapter to make a child custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised on motion of a party, the court's own motion, or request of another court.
(b) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including
(1) whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;
(2) the length of time the child has resided outside this state;
(3) the distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;
(4) the relative financial circumstances of the parties;
(5) an agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;
(6) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;
(7) the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and
(8) the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.
(c) If a court of this state determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, it shall stay the proceedings on condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state and may impose any other condition the court considers just and proper.
(d) A court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this chapter if a child custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 11
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2022 · leading case: S.B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Fam. & Youth Servs., 61 P.3d 6 (Alaska 2002).
S.B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Fam. & Youth Servs., 61 P.3d 6 (Alaska 2002). “300(a)(1), (2), or (3) and (1) the court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under provisions substantially similar to AS 25.”
Steven D. v. Nicole J., 308 P.3d 875 (Alaska 2013). “" 23 But Behr was testifying about the courts' discretionary power to cede jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum under AS 25.30.360, an issue discussed below. We do not believe that she was suggesting that an Alaska court can never have jurisdiction if "the child had been out of…”
Mikesell v. Waterman, 197 P.3d 184 (Alaska 2008). “] [ 18 ] Section 40-10A-207 of New Mexico's statutes corresponds to AS 25.30.360, the statutory section the superior court used here in deciding to decline jurisdiction.”
Jason Mouritsen v. Julia Mouritsen, n/k/a Julia Taubert, 459 P.3d 476 (Alaska 2020). “In Taubert’s reply to Mourtisen’s opposition, she presented a new argument that pursuant to AS 25.30.360 “[e]ven if this court felt it retained jurisdiction, it should decline to exercise that jurisdiction in favor of South Carolina being a more convenient 1 Earlier that year,…”
Jayda Roman v. Cleveland Karren, 461 P.3d 1252 (Alaska 2020). “: (1) whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child; (2) the length of time the child has resided outside this state; (3) the distance between the court in this state and the court in…”
Rice v. McDonald, 390 P.3d 1133 (Alaska 2017). “See UCCJEA § 207(a); AS 25.30.360(a). 7 . Rice also challenges the use of the inconvenient forum provision itself, but we reject her policy and due process arguments.”
E.H. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Fam. & Youth Servs., 23 P.3d 1186 (Alaska 2001). “parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; (3) a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under provisions substantially similar to (1) or (2) of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction…”
Robertson v. Riplett, 194 P.3d 382 (Alaska 2008). “310 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under provisions substantially similar to AS 25.30.360; or (2) a court of this state or a court of the other state determines that neither the child, nor a parent, nor a person acting as a parent presently…”
Fox v. Grace, 435 P.3d 883 (Alaska 2018). “310 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under provisions substantially similar to AS 25.30.360 ; or (2) a court of this state or a court of the other state determines that neither the child, nor a parent, nor a person acting as a parent presently…”
Nina T. v. Michael P. (Alaska 2022). “6 Under AS 25.30.360(a) the inconvenient forum issue “may be raised on motion of a party, the court’s own motion, or request of another court.”
John B. v. Alisa B. (Alaska 2021). “”); AS 25.30.360 (allowing court with jurisdiction to “decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if .”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.30.360(a) — 6 cases
Mikesell v. Waterman, 197 P.3d 184 (Alaska 2008). “] [ 18 ] Section 40-10A-207 of New Mexico's statutes corresponds to AS 25.30.360, the statutory section the superior court used here in deciding to decline jurisdiction.”
Jayda Roman v. Cleveland Karren, 461 P.3d 1252 (Alaska 2020). “: (1) whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child; (2) the length of time the child has resided outside this state; (3) the distance between the court in this state and the court in…”
Steven D. v. Nicole J., 308 P.3d 875 (Alaska 2013). “" 23 But Behr was testifying about the courts' discretionary power to cede jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum under AS 25.30.360, an issue discussed below. We do not believe that she was suggesting that an Alaska court can never have jurisdiction if "the child had been out of…”
Rice v. McDonald, 390 P.3d 1133 (Alaska 2017). “See UCCJEA § 207(a); AS 25.30.360(a). 7 . Rice also challenges the use of the inconvenient forum provision itself, but we reject her policy and due process arguments.”
Jason Mouritsen v. Julia Mouritsen, n/k/a Julia Taubert, 459 P.3d 476 (Alaska 2020). “In Taubert’s reply to Mourtisen’s opposition, she presented a new argument that pursuant to AS 25.30.360 “[e]ven if this court felt it retained jurisdiction, it should decline to exercise that jurisdiction in favor of South Carolina being a more convenient 1 Earlier that year,…”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.30.360(b) — 6 cases
Jayda Roman v. Cleveland Karren, 461 P.3d 1252 (Alaska 2020). “: (1) whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child; (2) the length of time the child has resided outside this state; (3) the distance between the court in this state and the court in…”
Mikesell v. Waterman, 197 P.3d 184 (Alaska 2008). “] [ 18 ] Section 40-10A-207 of New Mexico's statutes corresponds to AS 25.30.360, the statutory section the superior court used here in deciding to decline jurisdiction.”
Steven D. v. Nicole J., 308 P.3d 875 (Alaska 2013). “" 23 But Behr was testifying about the courts' discretionary power to cede jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum under AS 25.30.360, an issue discussed below. We do not believe that she was suggesting that an Alaska court can never have jurisdiction if "the child had been out of…”
Rice v. McDonald, 390 P.3d 1133 (Alaska 2017). “See UCCJEA § 207(a); AS 25.30.360(a). 7 . Rice also challenges the use of the inconvenient forum provision itself, but we reject her policy and due process arguments.”
Jason Mouritsen v. Julia Mouritsen, n/k/a Julia Taubert, 459 P.3d 476 (Alaska 2020). “In Taubert’s reply to Mourtisen’s opposition, she presented a new argument that pursuant to AS 25.30.360 “[e]ven if this court felt it retained jurisdiction, it should decline to exercise that jurisdiction in favor of South Carolina being a more convenient 1 Earlier that year,…”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.30.360(b)(1) — 1 case
Rice v. McDonald, 390 P.3d 1133 (Alaska 2017). “See UCCJEA § 207(a); AS 25.30.360(a). 7 . Rice also challenges the use of the inconvenient forum provision itself, but we reject her policy and due process arguments.”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.30.360(b)(2) — 1 case
Jason Mouritsen v. Julia Mouritsen, n/k/a Julia Taubert, 459 P.3d 476 (Alaska 2020). “In Taubert’s reply to Mourtisen’s opposition, she presented a new argument that pursuant to AS 25.30.360 “[e]ven if this court felt it retained jurisdiction, it should decline to exercise that jurisdiction in favor of South Carolina being a more convenient 1 Earlier that year,…”
— Alaska Stat. § 25.30.360(b)(6) — 3 cases
Steven D. v. Nicole J., 308 P.3d 875 (Alaska 2013). “" 23 But Behr was testifying about the courts' discretionary power to cede jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum under AS 25.30.360, an issue discussed below. We do not believe that she was suggesting that an Alaska court can never have jurisdiction if "the child had been out of…”
Rice v. McDonald, 390 P.3d 1133 (Alaska 2017). “See UCCJEA § 207(a); AS 25.30.360(a). 7 . Rice also challenges the use of the inconvenient forum provision itself, but we reject her policy and due process arguments.”
Jason Mouritsen v. Julia Mouritsen, n/k/a Julia Taubert, 459 P.3d 476 (Alaska 2020). “In Taubert’s reply to Mourtisen’s opposition, she presented a new argument that pursuant to AS 25.30.360 “[e]ven if this court felt it retained jurisdiction, it should decline to exercise that jurisdiction in favor of South Carolina being a more convenient 1 Earlier that year,…”
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.