25-1037. 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. Any 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.
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
27
cases (
9 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case:
Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 14× “A.R.S. § 25-1037. This hearing may include a “best interests” determination.”
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn, 394 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 7× “had a more substantial connection to Arizona than to Wisconsin; she contends the court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum pursuant to A.”
Los Angeles Cnty. Dep't of Child. & Fam. Servs. v. Angela H., 224 Cal. App. 4th 1088 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “) Both California (§ 3427) and Arizona ( Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1037 ), in identical language adopted from the UCCJEA, provide that a court of the state with exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to make child custody determinations “may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any…”
Melgar v. Campo, 161 P.3d 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 4× “A.R.S. § 25-1037(A) (emphasis added). The statutory provision clearly provides that the state with jurisdiction may decline jurisdiction after consideration of several factors indicating that another state may be more appropriate.”
Angel B. v. Vanessa J., 316 P.3d 1257 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “§ 25-1033(1), Aizona would have jurisdiction to grant severance in this case only if the California court determined that it no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, A.”
In re the Marriage of Margain & Ruiz-Bours, 372 P.3d 313 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph 1 or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under § 25-1037 or 25-1038 and both of the following are true: (a)…”
Ramirez v. Barnet, 384 P.3d 828 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “See generally A.R.S. § 25-1037 (inconvenient forum). Finally, as the successful party on appeal, we award Ramirez costs on appeal contingent upon his compliance with Arizona Rule of Civil Appellate Procedure 21.”
Arizona Dep't of Econ. Sec. v. Grant, 307 P.3d 1003 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2013).
“All courts having jurisdiction under paragraph 1 or 2 have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under § 25-1037 or 25-1038. 4. A court of any other state would not have…”
Phillip G. v. Hon korbin-steiner/dcs, 542 P.3d 664 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 10× “See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3127.21 . ¶28 The juvenile court’s discussions with the Ohio judges were insufficient to trigger jurisdiction because the resulting decisions denying jurisdiction did not follow the UCCJEA’s procedural requirements for doing so.”
Greene v. Sawicki, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0007-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. June 26, 2018).
· cites it 17× “Under A.R.S. § 25-1037, which sets forth the test for inconvenient forum under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), the court was required to consider domestic violence.”
Griffith v. Bennett, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0671 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. May 28, 2026).
· cites it 12× “¶24 “When a married couple with children divorces, a court may be asked to resolve three sets of issues: (1) dissolution of the marriage; (2) child custody and visitation; and (3) financial questions including spousal maintenance, child support, and allocation of marital…”
Troy W. v. Dcs, T.W., No. 1 CA-JV 20-0261 (Ariz. Ct. App. Feb. 25, 2021).
· cites it 8× “” ¶13 Addressing the second requirement under § 25-1033, the juvenile court did not explicitly state that the additional conditions in either § 25-1033(1) or (2) were met.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1037(A): 6 cases
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn, 394 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“had a more substantial connection to Arizona than to Wisconsin; she contends the court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum pursuant to A.”
Melgar v. Campo, 161 P.3d 1269 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007).
“A.R.S. § 25-1037(A) (emphasis added). The statutory provision clearly provides that the state with jurisdiction may decline jurisdiction after consideration of several factors indicating that another state may be more appropriate.”
Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“A.R.S. § 25-1037. This hearing may include a “best interests” determination.”
Phillip G. v. Hon korbin-steiner/dcs, 542 P.3d 664 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3127.21 . ¶28 The juvenile court’s discussions with the Ohio judges were insufficient to trigger jurisdiction because the resulting decisions denying jurisdiction did not follow the UCCJEA’s procedural requirements for doing so.”
Greene v. Sawicki, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0007-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. June 26, 2018).
“Under A.R.S. § 25-1037, which sets forth the test for inconvenient forum under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), the court was required to consider domestic violence.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1037(B): 7 cases
Gutierrez v. Hon. fox/kivlighn, 394 P.3d 1096 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2017).
“had a more substantial connection to Arizona than to Wisconsin; she contends the court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum pursuant to A.”
Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
“A.R.S. § 25-1037. This hearing may include a “best interests” determination.”
Phillip G. v. Hon korbin-steiner/dcs, 542 P.3d 664 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2023).
“See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 3127.21 . ¶28 The juvenile court’s discussions with the Ohio judges were insufficient to trigger jurisdiction because the resulting decisions denying jurisdiction did not follow the UCCJEA’s procedural requirements for doing so.”
Griffith v. Bennett, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0671 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. May 28, 2026).
“¶24 “When a married couple with children divorces, a court may be asked to resolve three sets of issues: (1) dissolution of the marriage; (2) child custody and visitation; and (3) financial questions including spousal maintenance, child support, and allocation of marital…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1037(B)(1): 1 case
Griffith v. Bennett, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0671 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. May 28, 2026).
“¶24 “When a married couple with children divorces, a court may be asked to resolve three sets of issues: (1) dissolution of the marriage; (2) child custody and visitation; and (3) financial questions including spousal maintenance, child support, and allocation of marital…”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1037(B)(4): 1 case
Greene v. Sawicki, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0007-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. June 26, 2018).
“Under A.R.S. § 25-1037, which sets forth the test for inconvenient forum under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), the court was required to consider domestic violence.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1037(C): 1 case
Greene v. Sawicki, No. 1 CA-CV 17-0007-FC (Ariz. Ct. App. June 26, 2018).
“Under A.R.S. § 25-1037, which sets forth the test for inconvenient forum under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), the court was required to consider domestic violence.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1037(D): 1 case
Griffith v. Bennett, No. 1 CA-CV 25-0671 FC (Ariz. Ct. App. May 28, 2026).
“¶24 “When a married couple with children divorces, a court may be asked to resolve three sets of issues: (1) dissolution of the marriage; (2) child custody and visitation; and (3) financial questions including spousal maintenance, child support, and allocation of marital…”
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.