Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-207 (2026)
Inconvenient forum
- A court of this state which has jurisdiction under this chapter to make a child-custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised upon motion of a party, the court's own motion, or request of another court.
-
Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including:
- whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;
- the length of time the child has resided outside this state;
- the distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;
- the relative financial circumstances of the parties;
- any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;
- the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;
- the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and
- the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.
- If a court of this state determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, it shall stay the proceedings upon condition that a child-custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state and may impose any other condition the court considers just and proper.
- A court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this chapter if a child-custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding.
History. Acts 1999, No. 668, § 207.
Research References
ALR.
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
In General.
Because a circuit court awarded child custody when it entered a divorce decree, it had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the custody determination until it made either of the two determinations set forth in the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), § 9-19-202(a); the language of the UCCJEA, subsection (a) of this section, clearly indicates that the court with jurisdiction has discretion to decide whether it should decline to exercise this discretion when there is another appropriate forum. Harris v. Harris, 2010 Ark. App. 160, 379 S.W.3d 8 (2010).
Specific Cases.
Arkansas was not an inconvenient forum despite the fact that the mother and children had not resided in Arkansas for over five years as the mother provided no evidence to show that a court in the United Kingdom would have been an appropriate forum; despite the fact that the issue was moot since the mother retained custody, the issue was heard since it was capable of repetition, yet evading review. Uttley v. Bobo, 97 Ark. App. 15, 242 S.W.3d 638 (2006).
Arkansas was not an inconvenient forum despite the fact that the mother resided in Texas where the child had lived in Texas for only one year, the father had remained a resident of Arkansas, the child had continued to come to Arkansas on a regular basis to visit with the father, and the Arkansas trial court was familiar with the case because it had made the initial custody determination and had taken testimony and entered a temporary custody order just weeks earlier. Hatfield v. Miller, 2009 Ark. App. 832, 373 S.W.3d 366 (2009).
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).
Where a child had lived in Montana with her mother for only nine months before her father filed a petition for modification of custody, as the father remained a resident of Arkansas, and the Arkansas trial court found that the child had continued to come to Arkansas on a regular basis to visit with him, the court did not abuse its discretion by not declining jurisdiction in favor of Montana under subsection (a) of this section. Shields v. Kimble, 2010 Ark. App. 479, 375 S.W.3d 738 (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 subsection (b) of this section 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).
Trial court did not err in sua sponte dismissing a wife's petition for registration and enforcement of an out-of-state divorce decree where the issue decided was an inconvenient forum, and under subsection (a) of this section, the trial court had the authority to dismiss the petition on its own motion. Harter v. Szykowny, 2014 Ark. App. 701, 451 S.W.3d 215 (2014).
Circuit court did not abuse its discretion in declining to exercise jurisdiction over an adoption petition because the court determined that it was an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of Mississippi was a more appropriate forum. The guardians, who petitioned a court in Mississippi to terminate parental rights and to adopt the child, lived in Mississippi with the child for two years, and all of the evidence concerning the child's care, education, protection, health, and personal relationships was in Mississippi. Newkirk v. Burton, 2015 Ark. App. 627, 475 S.W.3d 573 (2015).