61.520
Inconvenient forum.
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
FL-LEGleg.state.fl.us
JustiaFla. Statutes
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
61.520 Inconvenient forum.—
(1) A court of this state which has jurisdiction under this part 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.
(2) 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:
(a) Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;
(b) The length of time the child has resided outside this state;
(c) The distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;
(d) The relative financial circumstances of the parties;
(e) Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;
(f) The nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;
(g) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and
(h) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.
(3) 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.
(4) A court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this part 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.—s. 5, ch. 2002-65.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 23
cases (3 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case: Steckler v. Steckler
Steckler v. Steckler (2006)
“[2] The former wife contends that the trial court erred in refusing to conduct a hearing to determine jurisdiction under the inconvenient forum factors enumerated in section 61.520, Florida Statutes (2005). Under section 61.”
in the Interest of T.B. and A.B., Children (2016)
“See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 61.520 . Section 61.520 of Florida’s UC-CJEA is identical to section 152.”
KI v. Department of Children and Families (2011)
“” § 61.520(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). 3 The transfer of a case from one jurisdiction to another on the ground of inconvenient forum may be raised in a motion from either party, the court, or the request of another court; provided the court follows the statutory procedures and…”
Rudel v. Rudel (2013)
“See § 61.520, Fla. Stat. At the hearing on the husband’s motions, the court heard evidence on the factors in section 61.”
M.A.C. v. M.D.H. (2012)
“514(l)(a) in this paragraph and not section 61.520, the inconvenient forum section.”
Dept. of Children and Families v. M.N. and O.C.S. (2016)
“Section 61.520, “Inconvenient Forum,” in subpart (1), permits a court of this state which has jurisdiction to decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate…”
Dileo v. Dileo (2006)
“514, Florida Statutes (2005)), or that the Florida forum was now inconvenient and should not exercise further jurisdiction, in accordance with section 61.520, Florida Statutes (2005). He suggested that jurisdiction more logically fell within Tennessee where the former wife and…”
Haugabook v. Jeffcoat-Hultberg (2016)
“One of the statutory considerations is that when a court of this state decides to communicate ■ with the court of another state, “[t]he court shall allow the parties to participate in the communication.”
Barnes v. Barnes (2013)
“The mother’s argument that the trial court properly refused jurisdiction pursuant to section 61.520, Florida Statutes (2011), is not supported by the record and does not merit further discussion.”
Salloum v. Falkowski (2016)
“21(A) and Fla. Stat. 61.520(A). Furthermore, a review of R.”
Johnson v. Johnson (2012)
“See § 61.520(4) (providing that “[a] court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this part if a child custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other…”
London v. London (2009)
“The UCCJEA defines the term “inconvenient forum” in section 61.520. To conform substantially with the UCCJEA in this instance, the French court must "consider all relevant factors” to make this determination, including: (a) Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to…”
— 61.520(1) — 5 cases
KI v. Department of Children and Families (2011)
“” § 61.520(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). 3 The transfer of a case from one jurisdiction to another on the ground of inconvenient forum may be raised in a motion from either party, the court, or the request of another court; provided the court follows the statutory procedures and…”
Haugabook v. Jeffcoat-Hultberg (2016)
“One of the statutory considerations is that when a court of this state decides to communicate ■ with the court of another state, “[t]he court shall allow the parties to participate in the communication.”
Burgos v. Sequeira, Vargas (2024)
— 61.520(2) — 10 cases
Steckler v. Steckler (2006)
“[2] The former wife contends that the trial court erred in refusing to conduct a hearing to determine jurisdiction under the inconvenient forum factors enumerated in section 61.520, Florida Statutes (2005). Under section 61.”
KI v. Department of Children and Families (2011)
“” § 61.520(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). 3 The transfer of a case from one jurisdiction to another on the ground of inconvenient forum may be raised in a motion from either party, the court, or the request of another court; provided the court follows the statutory procedures and…”
Rudel v. Rudel (2013)
“See § 61.520, Fla. Stat. At the hearing on the husband’s motions, the court heard evidence on the factors in section 61.”
Dept. of Children and Families v. M.N. and O.C.S. (2016)
“Section 61.520, “Inconvenient Forum,” in subpart (1), permits a court of this state which has jurisdiction to decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate…”
Burgos v. Sequeira, Vargas (2024)
— 61.520(2)(a) — 3 cases
M.A.C. v. M.D.H. (2012)
“514(l)(a) in this paragraph and not section 61.520, the inconvenient forum section.”
KI v. Department of Children and Families (2011)
“” § 61.520(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). 3 The transfer of a case from one jurisdiction to another on the ground of inconvenient forum may be raised in a motion from either party, the court, or the request of another court; provided the court follows the statutory procedures and…”
— 61.520(2)(f) — 1 case
Destefanis v. Tan (2017)
— 61.520(3) — 2 cases
Dept. of Children and Families v. M.N. and O.C.S. (2016)
“Section 61.520, “Inconvenient Forum,” in subpart (1), permits a court of this state which has jurisdiction to decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate…”
— 61.520(4) — 1 case
Johnson v. Johnson (2012)
“See § 61.520(4) (providing that “[a] court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this part if a child custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other…”
— 61.520(A) — 1 case
Salloum v. Falkowski (2016)
“21(A) and Fla. Stat. 61.520(A). Furthermore, a review of R.”
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.