Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-206 (2026)
Simultaneous proceedings
- Except as otherwise provided in § 9-19-204, a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction under this subchapter if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child has been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this chapter, unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under § 9-19-207.
- Except as otherwise provided in § 9-19-204, a court of this state, before hearing a child-custody proceeding, shall examine the court documents and other information supplied by the parties pursuant to § 9-19-209. If the court determines that a child-custody proceeding has been commenced in a court in another state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this chapter, the court of this state shall stay its proceeding and communicate with the court of the other state. If the court of the state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this chapter does not determine that the court of this state is a more appropriate forum, the court of this state shall dismiss the proceeding.
-
In a proceeding to modify a child-custody determination, a court of this state shall determine whether a proceeding to enforce the determination has been commenced in another state. If a proceeding to enforce a child-custody determination has been commenced in another state, the court may:
- stay the proceeding for modification pending the entry of an order of a court of the other state enforcing, staying, denying, or dismissing the proceeding for enforcement;
- enjoin the parties from continuing with the proceeding for enforcement; or
- proceed with the modification under conditions it considers appropriate.
History. Acts 1999, No. 668, § 206.
Case Notes
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).
Arkansas circuit court did not err in declining to exercise jurisdiction over a child custody matter because California was a more appropriate forum under § 9-19-207(b) as a previous child custody determination was made there and allegations were made that the child had been removed to California to prevent abuse by appellant mother. Casas-Cordero v. Mira, 2012 Ark. App. 457 (2012).
Circuit court did not err in exercising jurisdiction under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, § 9-19-101 et seq., where the father failed to object to the circumstances of an Arkansas court’s communication with a California court regarding its decision to decline jurisdiction, and he had acquiesced in the manner in which the Arkansas court made a record of its previous communication with the California court. Doughty v. Douglas, 2017 Ark. App. 445, 527 S.W.3d 732 (2017).
Cited: Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 349 Ark. 205, 82 S.W.3d 806 (2002).