(a) Except as otherwise provided in section
46b-115n, 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 a provision substantially similar to section 46b-115k, 46b-115l or 46b-115m determines that this state is a more appropriate forum under a statute similar to section 46b-115q; or
(3) No court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in sections 46b-115k to 46b-115m, inclusive.
(b) 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 a provision substantially similar to section 46b-115k, 46b-115l or 46b-115m.
(c) 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 reasonable expenses including costs, communication expenses, attorneys' 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 the state unless authorized by law.
(P.A. 99-185, S. 19, 40.)
History: P.A. 99-185 effective July 1, 2000.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
2 in the last 5 years), 2003–2024 · leading case:
In Re Iliana M., 38 A.3d 130 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
In Re Iliana M., 38 A.3d 130 (Conn. App. Ct. 2012).
· cites it 4× “4 The respondent mother also claims that the trial court, pursuant to General Statutes § 46b-115r, should have declined to exercise jurisdiction because the department engaged in unjustifiable conduct.”
Temlock v. Temlock, 898 A.2d 209 (Conn. App. Ct. 2006).
· cites it 2× “ysical 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 the ground that…”
In re Natalie S., 163 A.3d 1189 (Conn. 2017).
· cites it 2× “sical 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 the ground that…”
Ammar I. v. Evelyn W., 323 A.3d 1111 (Conn. App. Ct. 2024).
“See Parisi v. Niblett, 199 Conn. App. 761 , 782, 238 A.”
In re Teagan K.-O., 335 Conn. 745 (2020).
· cites it 6× “19 The counterpart to this provision in Florida’s UCCJEA is structured differently from ours but is the same substantively in all material respects.”
In re Teagan K.-O., 242 A.3d 59 (Conn. 2020).
· cites it 7× “By fleeing Connecticut, the respondents clearly were not trying to invoke the jurisdiction of any court.”
Parisi v. Niblett, 238 A.3d 740 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020).
“ate of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under a provision substantially similar to section 46b-115q or section 46b-115r, the child and at least one parent or person acting as a parent have a significant…”
Parisi v. Niblett, 238 A.3d 740 (Conn. App. Ct. 2020).
· cites it 2× “onships; (4) A court of another state which is the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under a provision substantially similar to section 46b-115q or section 46b-115r, the child and at least…”
In re Teagan K.-O., 274 A.3d 985 (Conn. App. Ct. 2022).
· cites it 2× “eclined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under a provision substantially similar to section 46b-115q or section 46b-115r, the child and at least one parent or person acting as a parent have a significant connection with this…”
Davis v. Kania, 836 A.2d 480 (Conn. Super. Ct. 2003).
· cites it 2× “ysical 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 the ground that…”
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.