(a) 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 a motion of a party, the guardian ad litem for the child or the attorney for the child, the court's own motion or a request of another court.
(b) In determining whether a court of this state is an inconvenient forum and that it is more appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors including: (1) Whether family violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child; (2) the length of time the child has resided outside this state; (3) the distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction; (4) the relative financial circumstances of the parties; (5) any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction; (6) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child; (7) the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and (8) the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.
(c) 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.
(d) 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 dissolution of marriage, divorce or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the dissolution of marriage, divorce or other proceeding.
(P.A. 99-185, S. 18, 40.)
History: P.A. 99-185 effective July 1, 2000.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
13
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2003–2022 · leading case:
Daniels v. Alander, 818 A.2d 106 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
Daniels v. Alander, 818 A.2d 106 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 18× “The court possessed temporary emergency jurisdiction to modify the child custody determination made by the court in New Jersey by virtue of General Statutes § 46b-115n after it found the conditions set forth therein to have been present.”
In re Natalie S., 163 A.3d 1189 (Conn. 2017).
· cites it 19× “At that time, counsel for the mother asserted that the trial court could exercise jurisdiction over the motion under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (act), General Statutes § 46b-115 et seq. Nevertheless, counsel for the mother also recognized that the…”
Temlock v. Temlock, 898 A.2d 209 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 10× “, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), applies to this case and that the inconvenient forum provision *510 contained in the UCCJEA as set forth in General Statutes § 46b-115q 5 should govern the plaintiffs postjudgment motion.”
De Almeida-Kennedy v. Kennedy, 207 Conn. App. 244 (Conn. App. Ct. 2021).
· cites it 6× “’’ 10 General Statutes § 46b-115q (a) provides in relevant part that ‘‘[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…”
Daniels v. Alander, 844 A.2d 182 (Conn. 2004).
· cites it 2× “” General Statutes § 46b-115q provides in relevant part: “(a) 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…”
Rinfret v. Porter, 164 A.3d 812 (Conn. App. Ct. 2017).
· cites it 2× “cticut action, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the case on February 14, 2012, citing the following grounds: the plaintiff had voluntarily consented to the jurisdiction of the courts of England for all disputes concerning the minor child, and there had been no custody…”
In Re Iliana M., 38 A.3d 130 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 2× “e other than mere physical presence, and there is substantial evidence available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships; (4) A court of another state which is the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on…”
In re Teagan K.-O., 335 Conn. 745 (Conn. 2020).
· cites it 10× “General Statutes § 46b-115q (a) and (d). If it so declines, it ‘‘shall stay’’ the proceeding ‘‘upon condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state .”
In re Teagan K.-O. (Conn. 2020).
· cites it 4× “General Statutes § 46b-115q (b) (3) and (4).”
Parisi v. Niblett (Conn. App. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 3× “ve, of subsection (a) of section 46b-115k and one of the following occurs: (1) The court of the other state determines that it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under a provision substantially similar to section 46b-115l; (2) a court of another state determines…”
Parisi v. Niblett (Conn. App. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 2× “subsection (a) of section 46b-115k and one of the following occurs: (1) The court of the other state determines that it no longer has exclusive, contin- uing jurisdiction under a provision substantially similar to section 46b-115l; (2) a court of another state deter- mines that…”
In re Teagan K.-O. (Conn. App. Ct. 2022).
· cites it 2× “her than mere physical presence, and there is substan- tial evidence available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relation- ships; (4) A court of another state which is the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on…”
— Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115q(b) — 1 case
Daniels v. Alander, 818 A.2d 106 (Conn. App. Ct. 2003).
“The court possessed temporary emergency jurisdiction to modify the child custody determination made by the court in New Jersey by virtue of General Statutes § 46b-115n after it found the conditions set forth therein to have been present.”
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.