25-1038. Jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct
A. Except as otherwise provided in section 25-1034, if a court of this state has jurisdiction under this chapter because a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction unless any of the following is true:
1. The parents and all persons acting as parents have acquiesced in the exercise of jurisdiction.
2. A court of the state otherwise having jurisdiction under section 25-1031, 25-1032 or 25-1033 determines that this state is a more appropriate forum under section 25-1037.
3. A court of any other state would not have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in section 25-1031, 25-1032 or 25-1033.
B. If a court of this state declines to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to subsection A of this section, it may fashion an appropriate remedy to ensure the safety of the child and prevent a repetition of the unjustifiable conduct, including staying the proceeding until a child custody proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction under section 25-1031, 25-1032 or 25-1033.
C. If a court dismisses a petition or stays a proceeding because it declines to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to subsection A of this section, it shall assess against the party seeking to invoke its jurisdiction necessary and reasonable expenses including costs, communication expenses, attorney fees, investigative fees, expenses for witnesses, travel expenses and child care during the course of the proceedings, unless the party from whom fees are sought establishes that the assessment would be clearly inappropriate. The court shall not assess fees, costs or expenses against this state unless authorized by law other than this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
4
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2009–2023 · leading case:
Duwyenie v. Moran, 207 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
Duwyenie v. Moran, 207 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 5× “9 In part, this section provides that “if a court of this state has jurisdiction under this chapter became a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction.”
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions, 367 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 3× “11We recognize that under A.R.S. § 25-1038(A), a court of this state “shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction” if the court has jurisdiction “because a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has 20 FRANK R.”
Antanelle Duwyenie v. William C. Moran (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
· cites it 4× “¶14 Nor are we persuaded by Moran’s contention that § 25-1038 required the trial court to decline jurisdiction because of Duwyenie’s “unjustifiable conduct” in violating the RSTC’s temporary orders and returning to Arizona with CJ.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1038(A): 3 cases
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions, 367 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“11We recognize that under A.R.S. § 25-1038(A), a court of this state “shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction” if the court has jurisdiction “because a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has 20 FRANK R.”
Duwyenie v. Moran, 207 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“9 In part, this section provides that “if a court of this state has jurisdiction under this chapter became a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction.”
Antanelle Duwyenie v. William C. Moran (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“¶14 Nor are we persuaded by Moran’s contention that § 25-1038 required the trial court to decline jurisdiction because of Duwyenie’s “unjustifiable conduct” in violating the RSTC’s temporary orders and returning to Arizona with CJ.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1038(A)(2): 1 case
Frank R. v. Mother Goose Adoptions, 367 P.3d 88 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016).
“11We recognize that under A.R.S. § 25-1038(A), a court of this state “shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction” if the court has jurisdiction “because a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has 20 FRANK R.”
Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 25-1038(A)(3): 2 cases
Duwyenie v. Moran, 207 P.3d 754 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“9 In part, this section provides that “if a court of this state has jurisdiction under this chapter became a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction.”
Antanelle Duwyenie v. William C. Moran (Ariz. Ct. App. 2009).
“¶14 Nor are we persuaded by Moran’s contention that § 25-1038 required the trial court to decline jurisdiction because of Duwyenie’s “unjustifiable conduct” in violating the RSTC’s temporary orders and returning to Arizona with CJ.”
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.