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

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-204 (2026)

Temporary emergency jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. A court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction if the child is present in this state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, or a sibling or parent of the child, is subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse.
  2. If there is no previous child-custody determination that is entitled to be enforced under this chapter, and a child-custody proceeding has not been commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under §§ 9-19-201 — 9-19-203, a child-custody determination made under this section remains in effect until an order is obtained from a court of a state having jurisdiction under §§ 9-19-201 — 9-19-203. If a child-custody proceeding has not been or is not commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under §§ 9-19-201 — 9-19-203, a child-custody determination made under this section becomes a final determination, if it so provides and this state becomes the home state of the child.
  3. If there is a previous child-custody determination that is entitled to be enforced under this chapter, or a child-custody proceeding has been commenced in a court of a state having jurisdiction under §§ 9-19-201 — 9-19-203, any order issued by a court of this state under this section must specify in the order a period that the court considers adequate to allow the person seeking an order to obtain an order from the state having jurisdiction under §§ 9-19-201 — 9-19-203. The order issued in this state remains in effect until an order is obtained from the other state within the period specified or the period expires.
  4. A court of this state which has been asked to make a child-custody determination under this section, upon being informed that a child-custody proceeding has been commenced in, or a child-custody determination has been made by, a court of a state having jurisdiction under §§ 9-19-201 — 9-19-203, shall immediately communicate with the other court. A court of this state which is exercising jurisdiction pursuant to §§ 9-19-201 — 9-19-203, upon being informed that a child-custody proceeding has been commenced in, or a child-custody determination has been made by, a court of another state under a statute similar to this section shall immediately communicate with the court of that state to resolve the emergency, protect the safety of the parties and the child, and determine a period for the duration of the temporary order.

History. Acts 1999, No. 668, § 204.

Research References

ALR.

Construction and Application of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act's Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction Provision. 53 A.L.R.6th 419.

Case Notes

Applicability.

In a case where an Oklahoma child was left unattended in a car in Arkansas by his mother, a trial court had the authority to enter an order granting custody to the paternal grandparents because the child was placed in an emergency situation in Arkansas within the meaning of this section. Ark. Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Jones, 97 Ark. App. 267, 248 S.W.3d 507 (2007).

Failure to Engage in Home-State Analysis.

Circuit court erred in dismissing a petition for dependency-neglect for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the court made no findings regarding the connection that a mother and her children had with Arkansas and the children's care, protection, training, and personal relationships and it also relied on an incorrect assumption of law in its decision to decline jurisdiction. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Waugh, 2015 Ark. App. 155, 457 S.W.3d 286 (2015).

Jurisdiction Proper.

In a guardianship case, there was no dispute that the child was present in Arkansas; also, the circuit court found that the child had been abandoned and that an emergency existed which created an imminent danger to the safety and health of the child. Thus, an emergency existed forming the basis for the circuit court's jurisdiction under this section. 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).

In a guardianship case, the circuit court concluded that it had jurisdiction for the purpose of determining matters of the child's custody, and granted emergency temporary guardianship to the grandparents pursuant to § 28-65-218; the circuit court reasoned that an emergency existed because (1) the mother's lifestyle created a risk of imminent danger to the child's life or health; and (2) the mother had abandoned care of the child on a number of occasions during her lifetime, and left the child most recently with his grandparents. Thus, pursuant to this section, the circuit court did not clearly err in finding that an emergency existed that warranted the circuit court's exercise of jurisdiction over the temporary emergency guardianship petition. 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).

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 subsection (a) of this section 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).

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 this section, 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, subsection (b) of this section 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: Smith v. Murphy, 2017 Ark. App. 188, 517 S.W.3d 453 (2017).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 36 cases (8 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 28× “Moreover, Devine challenges the emergency temporary guardianship order because the circuit court's exercise of jurisdiction in this case did not fall within the exceptions set out in Ark.Code Ann. § 9-19-204 (Repl.2002). Specifically, Devine argues that the circuit court clearly…”
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 12× “2002), provides that a court of this state may not exercise jurisdiction, excepting temporary emergency jurisdiction under Ark.Code Ann. § 9-19-204, where at the time of the commencement of the proceeding in this state, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child has…”
Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Jones, 248 S.W.3d 507 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 7× “Jacob claims that the circuit court acted properly under its emergency jurisdiction authorized by Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-204 (Repl. 2002). Arkansas Code Annotated § 9-19-204(a) (Repl.”
Davis v. Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 254 S.W.3d 762 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 8× “The appellant acknowledges that the trial court acted in compliance with the UCCJEA under the emergency jurisdiction statute A.C.A. 9-19-204.... It is not the appellant’s position that the initial proceedings lacked jurisdiction, rather, that the emergency passed and was…”
Smith v. Murphy, 2017 Ark. App. 188 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “§ 9-15-215 ; Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-204 . Orders of protection are also subject to modification .”
Anita Defell v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child., 2022 Ark. App. 27 (Ark. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 5× “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…”
Gullahorn v. Gullahorn, 260 S.W.3d 744 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “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…”
Terrell v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 582 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 9× “(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 date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child…”
Piccioni v. Piccioni, 378 S.W.3d 838 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “Ark.Code Ann. § 9-19-204(a). Section (d) provides: A court of this state which has been asked to make a child-custody determination under this section, upon being informed that a child-custody proceeding has been commenced in, or a child-custody determination has been made by, a…”
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…”
Greenhough v. Goforth, 126 S.W.3d 345 (Ark. 2003). “The statute provides: (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 date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home…”
Show all 36 citing cases →
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-204(a): 2 cases
Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs. v. Jones, 248 S.W.3d 507 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). “Jacob claims that the circuit court acted properly under its emergency jurisdiction authorized by Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-204 (Repl. 2002). Arkansas Code Annotated § 9-19-204(a) (Repl.”
Piccioni v. Piccioni, 378 S.W.3d 838 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). “Ark.Code Ann. § 9-19-204(a). Section (d) provides: A court of this state which has been asked to make a child-custody determination under this section, upon being informed that a child-custody proceeding has been commenced in, or a child-custody determination has been made by, a…”
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-204(b): 4 cases
Davis v. Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 254 S.W.3d 762 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). “The appellant acknowledges that the trial court acted in compliance with the UCCJEA under the emergency jurisdiction statute A.C.A. 9-19-204.... It is not the appellant’s position that the initial proceedings lacked jurisdiction, rather, that the emergency passed and was…”
Terrell v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 582 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015). “(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 date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child…”
Anita Farfan v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child, 2022 Ark. App. 438 (Ark. Ct. App. 2022).
Lauren Taylor v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child, 2023 Ark. App. 36 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023).
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-204(d): 1 case
Piccioni v. Piccioni, 378 S.W.3d 838 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011). “Ark.Code Ann. § 9-19-204(a). Section (d) provides: A court of this state which has been asked to make a child-custody determination under this section, upon being informed that a child-custody proceeding has been commenced in, or a child-custody determination has been made by, a…”
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.