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

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-201 (2026)

Initial child-custody jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. Except as otherwise provided in § 9-19-204, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination only if:
    1. this state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six (6) months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state;
    2. a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subdivision (a)(1) of this section, 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 § 9-19-207 or § 9-19-208, and:
      1. the child and the child's parents, or the child and at least one (1) parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence; and
      2. substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships;
    3. all courts having jurisdiction under subdivision (a)(1) or (2) of this section 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 § 9-19-207 or § 9-19-208; or
    4. no court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in subdivision (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this section.
  2. Subsection (a) of this section is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child-custody determination by a court of this state.
  3. Physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child-custody determination.

History. Acts 1999, No. 668, § 201.

Research References

ALR.

Construction and Application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act's Significant Connection Jurisdiction Provision. 52 A.L.R.6th 433.

Construction and Application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act's Home State Jurisdiction Provision. 57 A.L.R.6th 163.

Construction and Application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act's Exclusive, Continuing Jurisdiction Provision — No Significant Connection/Substantial Evidence. 59 A.L.R.6th 161.

Construction and Application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act's Exclusive, Continuing Jurisdiction Provision — Other Than No Significant Connection/Substantial Evidence. 60 A.L.R.6th 193.

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

Home State.

Pursuant to subdivision (a)(4) of this section, 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).

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).

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).

Jurisdiction.

Trial court erred in taking jurisdiction pursuant to Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, § 9-19-101 et seq., and awarding custody of a minor child to her father where the only state with which the child had “significant” connections was California; the minor child had been born there, lived in California for over half of her life (except for two brief moves out of state), and lived in California at the time of the hearing. Weesner v. Johnson, 89 Ark. App. 203, 201 S.W.3d 432 (2005).

Trial court erred in assuming jurisdiction over the child-custody determinations where, under § 9-19-102, Arkansas was not the home state of the child and Arkansas could not acquire jurisdiction under subdivision (a)(1) of this section; the child had no connections to Arkansas, only to California. Weesner v. Johnson, 89 Ark. App. 203, 201 S.W.3d 432 (2005).

Trial court lacked subject matter jurisdiction when it entered an initial child-custody order because the order was not consistent with this section; 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 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).

Trial court had subject-matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, §§ 9-19-101 to 9-19-401, to change custody, because the children maintained significant Arkansas connections, coming there for visitation, having their own rooms at the legal father's house and having friends over. Lowder v. Gregory, 2014 Ark. App. 704, 451 S.W.3d 220 (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).

Cited: Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 349 Ark. 205, 82 S.W.3d 806 (2002); West v. West, 362 Ark. 456, 208 S.W.3d 776 (2005); Newkirk v. Burton, 2015 Ark. App. 627, 475 S.W.3d 573 (2015).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (7 in the last 5 years), 2001–2023 · leading case: Devine v. Martens, 263 S.W.3d 515 (Ark. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Devine v. Martens, 263 S.W.3d 515 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 16× “§§ 9-19-201 to -204 (Repl.2002). Moreover, a trial court has the discretion to decide whether it should exercise or decline to exercise its jurisdiction when there is another appropriate forum under the UCCJEA.”
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 6× “Section 9-19-201 provides the criteria used to determine whether a state has jurisdiction to make an "initial child-custody determination.”
Anita Defell v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child., 2022 Ark. App. 27 (Ark. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 11× “Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-19-201 sets forth the criteria used to determine whether this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination and pertinently states as follows: (a) Except as otherwise provided in § 9-19-204, a court of this state has…”
Davis v. Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 254 S.W.3d 762 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 12× “Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-19-201 (Repl. 2002), provides in pertinent part: (a) Except as otherwise provided in § 9-19-204, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination only if: (1) this state is the home state of the child on the…”
Greenhough v. Goforth, 126 S.W.3d 345 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 7× “reside in South Carolina, appellee moved to dismiss the petition, alleging that Arkansas was not the child’s “home state” under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-201 (Repl. 2002), and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.”
in Int. of S.A.G, 2021 CO 38 (Colo. 2021). “”); see also Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-201 (a)(1) (West 2021) (“[A] court of [Arkansas] has [home-state] jurisdiction .”
Dorothy v. Dorothy, 199 S.W.3d 107 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 9× “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-201 , Uniform Law Comments (Repl.”
Lowder v. Gregory, 2014 Ark. App. 704 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 6× “The Arkansas court therefore had the Inauthority to make the initial child-custody determination under section 9-19-201. See West v. West, 364 Ark.”
Harris v. Harris, 379 S.W.3d 8 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 5× “§ 9 — 19—202(a)(1); it lacked jurisdiction because the court had no basis for making an initial determination under Ark.Code Ann. § 9-19-201; and it should have declined to exercise jurisdiction, as allowed by section 9-18-207.”
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Waugh, 2015 Ark. App. 155 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 8× “In the alternative, DHS argues that if the juveniles had no home state under the UC-CJEA, then Arkansas had jurisdiction under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-201 (a)(4). The circuit court found that Waugh and the juveniles resided in Oklahoma when the dependency-neglect petition was…”
Gullahorn v. Gullahorn, 260 S.W.3d 744 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “: (a) Except as otherwise provided in § 9-19-204, a court of this state which has made a child-custody determination consistent with § 9-19-201 or § 9-19-203 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until: (1) a court of this state determines that neither…”
Harter v. Szykowny, 2014 Ark. App. 701 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014). · cites it 2× “Sub-chapter 2 primarily comes into play when a court of this state has been asked to exercise its jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination (Ark.Code Ann. § 9-19-201 (Repl.2009)) or to modify an existing child-custody determination ( Ark.”
Show all 36 citing cases →
— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-201(a) — 7 cases
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002). “Section 9-19-201 provides the criteria used to determine whether a state has jurisdiction to make an "initial child-custody determination.”
Davis v. Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 254 S.W.3d 762 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). “Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-19-201 (Repl. 2002), provides in pertinent part: (a) Except as otherwise provided in § 9-19-204, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination only if: (1) this state is the home state of the child on the…”
Dorothy v. Dorothy, 199 S.W.3d 107 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004). “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-201 , Uniform Law Comments (Repl.”
Anita Defell v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child., 2022 Ark. App. 27 (Ark. Ct. App. 2022). “Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-19-201 sets forth the criteria used to determine whether this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child-custody determination and pertinently states as follows: (a) Except as otherwise provided in § 9-19-204, a court of this state has…”
Greenhough v. Goforth, 126 S.W.3d 345 (Ark. 2003). “reside in South Carolina, appellee moved to dismiss the petition, alleging that Arkansas was not the child’s “home state” under Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-201 (Repl. 2002), and that the trial court lacked jurisdiction.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-201(a)(1) — 3 cases
Devine v. Martens, 263 S.W.3d 515 (Ark. 2007). “§§ 9-19-201 to -204 (Repl.2002). Moreover, a trial court has the discretion to decide whether it should exercise or decline to exercise its jurisdiction when there is another appropriate forum under the UCCJEA.”
Ullrich v. Walsh, 373 S.W.3d 413 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010).
Estefanya Garcia Huerta v. Marco Polo Davila Delgado, 2023 Ark. App. 304 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023).
— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-201(a)(2) — 1 case
Weesner v. Johnson, 201 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005).
— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-201(a)(4) — 2 cases
Dorothy v. Dorothy, 199 S.W.3d 107 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004). “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-201 , Uniform Law Comments (Repl.”
Weesner v. Johnson, 201 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005).
— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-201(a)(l) — 4 cases
Devine v. Martens, 263 S.W.3d 515 (Ark. 2007). “§§ 9-19-201 to -204 (Repl.2002). Moreover, a trial court has the discretion to decide whether it should exercise or decline to exercise its jurisdiction when there is another appropriate forum under the UCCJEA.”
Lowder v. Gregory, 2014 Ark. App. 704 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014). “The Arkansas court therefore had the Inauthority to make the initial child-custody determination under section 9-19-201. See West v. West, 364 Ark.”
Adams v. Adams, 2014 Ark. App. 67 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014).
Weesner v. Johnson, 201 S.W.3d 432 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005).
— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-201(c) — 1 case
MacArena Trevino v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child., 2022 Ark. App. 182 (Ark. Ct. App. 2022).
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.