Ark. Code Ann. » Title 9 Chapter 19
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-101 (2026)

Short title

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

This chapter may be cited as the “Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act”.

History. Acts 1999, No. 668, § 101.

Research References

Ark. L. Notes.

Flaccus, The New Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and Bankruptcy Discharge of Marital Settlement Obligations, 1999 Ark. L. Notes 41.

Ark. L. Rev.

Carroll, Uniform Laws in Arkansas, 52 Ark. L. Rev. 313.

Case Notes

Applicability.

The former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act applied to a proceeding by a grandparent for visitation. Bruner v. Tadlock, 338 Ark. 34, 991 S.W.2d 600 (1999).

Clean-Up Doctrine.

The clean-up doctrine did not allow an Arkansas court to decide issues of child support and alimony after it properly acquired jurisdiction under the former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, § 9-13-201 [repealed] et seq., of child custody and visitation issues. Fox v. Fox, 68 Ark. App. 281, 7 S.W.3d 339 (1999).

Jurisdiction.

In the context of personal jurisdiction in a child custody or guardianship case, personal jurisdiction over a party requires the appellate court to consider whether Arkansas remains the “home state” as defined by the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, § 9-19-101, et seq.; because such an analysis necessarily turns upon some fact to be determined by the trial court, a writ of prohibition is not the proper remedy to determine the issue, and the related issue of the trial court's continuing jurisdiction under § 9-19-202 also involves a similar factual determination. Finney v. Cook, 351 Ark. 367, 94 S.W.3d 333 (2002).

Scope of Act.

The former Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, § 9-13-201 [repealed] et seq., is solely for custody disputes between residents of different states and does not confer jurisdiction on the chancery court to enter an order for support of minor children absent a divorce proceeding. Fox v. Fox, 68 Ark. App. 281, 7 S.W.3d 339 (1999).

Wife's full faith and credit argument was rejected as the Arkansas Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, § 9-19-101 et seq., was the exclusive method for determining the proper state for jurisdictional purposes. Harter v. Szykowny, 2014 Ark. App. 701, 451 S.W.3d 215 (2014).

Cited: Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 349 Ark. 205, 82 S.W.3d 806 (2002); Dorothy v. Dorothy, 88 Ark. App. 358, 199 S.W.3d 107 (2004); Weesner v. Johnson, 89 Ark. App. 203, 201 S.W.3d 432 (2005); Hatfield v. Miller, 2009 Ark. App. 832, 373 S.W.3d 366 (2009).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2002–2024 · leading case: Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 12× “DHS asserts that this case is controlled by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), codified at Ark.Code Ann. §§ 9-19-101— 9-19-401 (Repl.”
Greenhough v. Goforth, 126 S.W.3d 345 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 6× “The trial court dismissed appellant’s petition for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (“UCCJEA”), codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-101 et seq. (Repl. 2002), applied and that Arkansas was not the home state of H.”
Finney v. Cook, 94 S.W.3d 333 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 4× “The resolution of this issue would require us to consider whether Arkansas remained the "home state" as defined by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, codified at Ark.Code Ann. §§ 9-19-101, et seq. (Repl.”
Dorothy v. Dorothy, 199 S.W.3d 107 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 4× “She contends (1) that the trial court erred in taking jurisdiction because jurisdiction was not established pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-101 et seq., and the decree did not contain language conferring…”
Harter v. Szykowny, 2014 Ark. App. 701 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “In paragraph 6 of the petition, she states, “Petitioner merely seeks to file the judgment and decree of the State of Kansas in the Circuit Court of Carroll County, Arkansas, and have it enforced pursuant to the provisions of the Arkansas Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and…”
Vick v. Cecil, 246 S.W.3d 426 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 2× “In that regard, he makes specific reference to certain statutory provisions in the Arkansas Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-19-101 through 9-19-401 (Repl.”
In Re Adoption of Amc, 246 S.W.3d 426 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 2× “In that regard, he makes specific reference to certain statutory provisions in the Arkansas Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, codified at Ark.Code Ann. §§ 9-19-101 through 9-19-401 (Repl.”
Thomas v. Avant, 260 S.W.3d 266 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 2× “The present action is one involving child custody and requires this court to inter- pret provisions of the Uniform Child Custody and Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), codified at Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-19-101 to -401 (Repl.”
Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Jones, 248 S.W.3d 507 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Finally, DHHS argues that the circuit court should have declined to issue any permanent orders in this case because Arkansas was not JTH’s home state and, therefore, it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to do so under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement…”
Deluca v. Stapleton, 84 S.W.3d 892 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 9-19-101 to 9-19-401 (Repl.”
Adams v. Adams, 2014 Ark. App. 67 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “3d 8, 13 (citing Ark.Code Ann. §§ 9-19-101 to -401 (Repl.2008) and West v.”
Lowder v. Gregory, 2014 Ark. App. 704 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014). “Christa and Eddie argue that the circuit court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction under the UCCJEA to change custody to Creed in July 2012 or thereafter because the children’s home state was Oklahoma.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
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.