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

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-208 (2026)

Jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct

✓ 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 or by other law of this state, if a court of this state has jurisdiction under this chapter because a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction unless:
    1. the parents and all persons acting as parents have acquiesced in the exercise of jurisdiction;
    2. a court of the state otherwise having jurisdiction under §§ 9-19-201 — 9-19-203 determines that this state is a more appropriate forum under § 9-19-207; or
    3. no court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in §§ 9-19-201 — 9-19-203.
  2. If a court of this state declines to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, it may fashion an appropriate remedy to ensure the safety of the child and prevent a repetition of the unjustifiable conduct, including staying the proceeding until a child-custody proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction under §§ 9-19-201 — 9-19-203.
  3. If a court dismisses a petition or stays a proceeding because it declines to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, it shall assess against the party seeking to invoke its jurisdiction necessary and reasonable expenses including costs, communication expenses, attorney's fees, investigative fees, expenses for witnesses, travel expenses, and child care during the course of the proceedings, unless the party from whom fees are sought establishes that the assessment would be clearly inappropriate. The court may not assess fees, costs, or expenses against this state unless authorized by law other than this chapter.

History. Acts 1999, No. 668, § 208.

Research References

ALR.

Construction and Operation of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. 100 A.L.R.5th 1.

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

Case Notes

Specific Cases.

Appellate court was unable to say that the circuit court abused its discretion in exercising jurisdiction in a custody matter; although a court of this state should decline jurisdiction if its jurisdiction has been invoked by a person who has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, it is not required to do so under this section if, among other things, no court of any other state would have jurisdiction. Doughty v. Douglas, 2017 Ark. App. 445, 527 S.W.3d 732 (2017).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2001–2023 · leading case: Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 16× “2002), and that the probate court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Act to decide the issue of guardianship, or in the alternative, abused its discretion in failing to decline jurisdiction by reason of conduct under Ark.Code Ann. § 9-19-208. DHS also asserts that the probate…”
Devine v. Martens, 263 S.W.3d 515 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 8× “Specifically, Devine claims that the circuit court should have declined to exercise its jurisdiction as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-208 (a) (Repl. 2002).”
Anita Defell v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child., 2022 Ark. App. 27 (Ark. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “ing and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; 3 (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…”
Dorothy v. Dorothy, 199 S.W.3d 107 (Ark. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 2× “eeding 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…”
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Waugh, 2015 Ark. App. 155 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “eeding 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…”
Seamans v. Seamans, 37 S.W.3d 693 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-208 (Supp. 1999). The UCCJEA was enacted to replace the former chapter entitled the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), which dated back to 1979.”
Greenhough v. Goforth, 126 S.W.3d 345 (Ark. 2003). “) 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…”
Davis v. Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 254 S.W.3d 762 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). “) 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…”
Terrell v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs., 2015 Ark. App. 582 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “eeding 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…”
Doughty v. Douglas, 2017 Ark. App. 445 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 4× “communication with the California court as required by Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-19-110; (2) the circuit court denied Douglas the opportunity to present facts relevant to Doughty’s unjustifiable conduct before making its decision on jurisdiction as required by Arkansas…”
Bridges v. Bridges, 219 S.W.3d 699 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005). “eeding 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…”
Debra Gill v. Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. & Minor Child., 2020 Ark. App. 284 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “eeding 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…”
Show all 15 citing cases →
— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-208(3) — 1 case
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002). “2002), and that the probate court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Act to decide the issue of guardianship, or in the alternative, abused its discretion in failing to decline jurisdiction by reason of conduct under Ark.Code Ann. § 9-19-208. DHS also asserts that the probate…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-208(a) — 1 case
Devine v. Martens, 263 S.W.3d 515 (Ark. 2007). “Specifically, Devine claims that the circuit court should have declined to exercise its jurisdiction as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-208 (a) (Repl. 2002).”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-208(a)(1) — 1 case
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002). “2002), and that the probate court lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Act to decide the issue of guardianship, or in the alternative, abused its discretion in failing to decline jurisdiction by reason of conduct under Ark.Code Ann. § 9-19-208. DHS also asserts that the probate…”
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.