Except as otherwise provided in § 9-19-204, a court of this state may not modify a child-custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under § 9-19-201(a)(1) or (2) and:
the court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under § 9-19-202 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under § 9-19-207; or
a court of this state or a court of the other state determines that the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the other state.
History.
Acts 1999, No. 668, § 203.
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 Exclusive, Continuing Jurisdiction Provision — No Significant Connection/Substantial Evidence. 59 A.L.R.6th 161.
Case Notes
Guardianship.
Circuit court had jurisdiction, pursuant to this section, to determine matters involving the child's care, custody, and control and to determine both temporary and permanent guardianship because (1) Arkansas was the child's home state; (2) neither the child, the mother, nor the grandparents had a significant connection to California, where the original custody decision was made; (3) there was no substantial evidence in California concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships; and (4) the California court declined to exercise continuing jurisdiction.
Devine v. Martens, 371 Ark. 60, 263 S.W.3d 515 (2007), overruled in part on other grounds, Fletcher v. Scorza, 2010 Ark. 64, 359 S.W.3d 413 (2010).
Specific Cases.
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).
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 did not have jurisdiction to modify the parties'
visitation arrangement set forth in a Hawaii decree because there was no evidence on the record that the requirements of this section were met; the changes in the case were not ministerial.
Townsend v. Townsend, 2018 Ark. App. 246 (2018).
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases, 2005–2015 · leading case: Devine v. Martens, 263 S.W.3d 515 (Ark. 2007).
Devine v. Martens, 263 S.W.3d 515 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 8דSection 9-19-203 sets forth the requirements for jurisdiction to modify a child-custody determination and states: Except as otherwise provided in § 9-19-204, a court of this state may not modify a child-custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of…”
Gullahorn v. Gullahorn, 260 S.W.3d 744 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4דnent part: (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…”
Czupil v. Jernigan, 286 S.W.3d 753 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 4דAt issue in this case is the following provision of the UCCJEA: (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…”
Thomas v. Avant, 260 S.W.3d 266 (Ark. 2007). “Also recognized within the confines of the UCCJEA is the notion of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction at section 9-19-202(a), which provides in relevant part: (a) Except as otherwise provided in § 9-19-204, a court of this state which has made a child-custody determination…”
West v. West, 216 S.W.3d 557 (Ark. 2005). “The specific section of the UCCJEA at issue in the instant case provides in pertinent part: (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…”
Harris v. Harris, 379 S.W.3d 8 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). “The UCCJEA recognizes the notion of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction in cases where the court entered an initial custody determination, such as the present one: Except as otherwise provided in § 9-19-204, a court of this state which has made a child-custody determination…”
Hatfield v. Miller, 373 S.W.3d 366 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). “In cases such as this one, where the court entered the initial child-custody determination, the UCCJEA provides as follows: (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…”
Shields v. Kimble, 375 S.W.3d 738 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). “In cases where the court entered the initial child-custody determination, the UCCJEA provides in pertinent part as follows: (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…”
Terrell v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 582, 474 S.W.3d 90. · cites it 2דSection 9-19-203 governs jurisdiction of a court of this state to modify a child-custody determination made by a court of another state.”
Bridges v. Bridges, 219 S.W.3d 699 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 2ד2002): Except as otherwise provided in § 9-19-204, a court of this State may not modify a child-custody determination made by a court of another State unless a court of this State has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under § 9-19-201 (a)(1) or (2) and: (1) the court…”
Ullrich v. Walsh, 373 S.W.3d 413 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 8ד§ 1738A(b)(3) (2009); (2) in finding that the decision of the Texas court was entitled to full faith and credit until it was set aside or modified; (3) in finding that it could only assume jurisdiction under certain conditions outlined in Arkansas Code Annotated section…”
Uttley v. Bobo, 242 S.W.3d 638 (Ark. Ct. App. 2006). “Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction (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, continuingjurisdiction over the determination until: (1) a court of this…”
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.