Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-102 (2026)
Definitions
In this chapter:
- “Abandoned” means left without provision for reasonable and necessary care or supervision.
- “Child” means an individual who has not attained eighteen (18) years of age.
- “Child-custody determination” means a judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for the legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child. The term includes a permanent, temporary, initial, and modification order. The term does not include an order relating to child support or other monetary obligation of an individual.
- “Child-custody proceeding” means a proceeding in which legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child is an issue. The term includes a proceeding for divorce, separation, neglect, abuse, dependency, guardianship, paternity, termination of parental rights, and protection from domestic violence, in which the issue may appear. The term does not include a proceeding involving juvenile delinquency, contractual emancipation, or enforcement under subchapter 3 of this chapter.
- “Commencement” means the filing of the first pleading in a proceeding.
- “Court” means an entity authorized under the law of a state to establish, enforce, or modify a child-custody determination.
- “Home state” means the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six (6) consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child-custody proceeding. In the case of a child less than six (6) months of age, the term means the state in which the child lived from birth with any of the persons mentioned. A period of temporary absence of any of the mentioned persons is part of the period.
- “Initial determination” means the first child-custody determination concerning a particular child.
- “Issuing court” means the court that makes a child-custody determination for which enforcement is sought under this chapter.
- “Issuing state” means the state in which a child-custody determination is made.
- “Modification” means a child-custody determination that changes, replaces, supersedes, or is otherwise made after a previous determination concerning the same child, whether or not it is made by the court that made the previous determination.
- “Person” means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government; governmental subdivision, agency, or instrumentality; public corporation; or any other legal or commercial entity.
-
“Person acting as a parent” means a person, other than a parent, who:
- has physical custody of the child or has had physical custody for a period of six (6) consecutive months, including any temporary absence, within one (1) year immediately before the commencement of a child-custody proceeding; and
- has been awarded legal custody by a court or claims a right to legal custody under the law of this state.
- “Physical custody” means the physical care and supervision of a child.
- “State” means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.
- “Tribe” means an Indian tribe or band, or Alaskan Native village, which is recognized by federal law or formally acknowledged by a state.
- “Warrant” means an order issued by a court authorizing law enforcement officers to take physical custody of a child.
History. Acts 1999, No. 668, § 102.
Research References
ALR.
Construction and operation of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. 100 A.L.R.5th 1.
Construction and Application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act's Home State Jurisdiction Provision. 57 A.L.R.6th 163.
Inconvenience of Forum as Ground for Declining Jurisdiction Under § 207 of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act [UCCJEA], 35 A.L.R.7th Art. 7 (2018).
Case Notes
Child-Custody Proceeding.
Court acted correctly when it continued to exercise subject-matter jurisdiction in a termination of parental rights case, and such jurisdiction existed when the termination order was entered. In the absence of any competing custody order or petition in Louisiana, the provisions of § 9-19-204(b) applied, and Arkansas then became the home state of the children. Davis v. Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 98 Ark. App. 275, 254 S.W.3d 762 (2007).
Home State.
Under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, § 9-19-101 et seq., the trial court had jurisdiction where the children had not lived with their mother in any state for six consecutive months immediately before the child-custody proceeding commenced and were living with their father in Arkansas at the time those proceedings commenced. Dorothy v. Dorothy, 88 Ark. App. 358, 199 S.W.3d 107 (2004).
Trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the child-custody determinations where Arkansas was not the home state of the child and Arkansas could not acquire jurisdiction under § 9-19-201(a)(1); the child had no connections to Arkansas, only to California. Weesner v. Johnson, 89 Ark. App. 203, 201 S.W.3d 432 (2005).
While matters concerning the modification of child custody were pending in the courts of Louisiana and Arkansas, the Arkansas court acted properly in staying its proceedings and allowing the Louisiana court to dismiss its matter, based on a finding that Arkansas was the children's home state; later, the Arkansas court properly found that it had jurisdiction and that the children had lived in Arkansas for more than six months. Bridges v. Bridges, 93 Ark. App. 358, 219 S.W.3d 699 (2005).
Father's contempt citation based on an alleged deprivation of visitation was dismissed as, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(b)(4) and this section, Missouri was the child's “home state” due to the fact that the child had resided there for more than 5 years with the mother; thus, Arkansas was an inconvenient forum for deciding issues relating to visitation and an adoption. Wilson v. Beckett, 95 Ark. App. 300, 236 S.W.3d 527 (2006).
Trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction when it entered an initial child-custody order because the order was not consistent with § 9-19-201; Arkansas was not the home state of a minor child because she was not born there and had never been there. Moreover, the home state had not declined to exercise jurisdiction. Czupil v. Jernigan, 103 Ark. App. 132, 286 S.W.3d 753 (2008).
Circuit court had jurisdiction over the parties' children because Arkansas was the home state of the children as they had lived with appellee in Arkansas since October 2011, only being absent from the state temporarily during appellee's stay in Minnesota for employer-mandated counseling, and it could not be said that Arkansas did not have significant connections to the children or that Arizona had more significant contacts. Adams v. Adams, 2014 Ark. App. 67, 432 S.W.3d 49 (2014).
Arkansas court had subject-matter jurisdiction to terminate a father's parental rights because (1) the court had jurisdiction to enter an emergency custody order under § 9-19-204, and (2) there was no evidence of a prior child-custody determination or proceeding filed in a state with jurisdiction. A guardianship proceeding commenced in Mississippi was not commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction, as the children had been in Arkansas for over a year when that proceeding was filed; thus, Mississippi was not the children's home state, § 9-19-204(b) applied, and Arkansas became the children's home state before the termination proceeding began. Terrell v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 582, 474 S.W.3d 90 (2015).
Initial Determination.
Circuit court did not err in finding that a Texas court had jurisdiction over a mother and a father because the Texas court had already made an initial child-custody determination under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and that determination was entitled to full faith and credit until it was set aside or modified by the Texas court. The Texas order provided for the legal custody, physical custody, and visitation of the child and recited that no other court had continuing, exclusive jurisdiction of the case, and the trial court's letter opinion stating its findings of fact and conclusions of law showed that it made a reasoned decision finding that the Texas court's order was an initial child-custody determination and that it did not abuse its discretion in refusing to assume jurisdiction of the father's petition for paternity and emergency custody. Ullrich v. Walsh, 2010 Ark. App. 290, 373 S.W.3d 413 (2010).
Person Acting As a Parent.
In a child custody dispute, the great-uncle and great-aunt met the definition of “person acting as a parent” under this section and § 9-19-202 where the child had resided with them in Mississippi for well over six months and they had asserted a custody right in the Arkansas circuit court. Kyle v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 491, 588 S.W.3d 754 (2019).
Tribe.
Because the Indian Child Welfare Act of 1978 (ICWA), 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq., did not apply to the adoption of the minor child because she was not an “Indian child” as defined in 25 U.S.C. § 1903(4), § 9-19-104(a) did not apply to grant Indian child status to the minor child. Vick v. Cecil (In re A.M.C.), 368 Ark. 369, 246 S.W.3d 426 (2007).
Cited: Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 349 Ark. 205, 82 S.W.3d 806 (2002).