Home
Jacksonville Location Phone Call/Texting Policy How do Fees Work?
Criminal Defense DUI Defense Foreclosure Defense Copyright Workers Compensation Attorney Jacksonville Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statutes Georgia Code Jacksonville Accident Attorney Real Estate Attorney Jacksonville Florida Criminal Lawyer Jacksonville Notary Public
Menu
904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 61.521 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 61.521 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 61.521

The 2023 Florida Statutes

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 61
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE; SUPPORT; TIME-SHARING
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 61.521
61.521 Jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct.—
(1) Except as otherwise provided in s. 61.517 or by other law of this state, if a court of this state has jurisdiction under this part because a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction unless:
(a) The parents and all persons acting as parents have acquiesced in the exercise of jurisdiction;
(b) A court of the state otherwise having jurisdiction under ss. 61.514-61.516 determines that this state is a more appropriate forum under s. 61.520; or
(c) No court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in ss. 61.514-61.516.
(2) If a court of this state declines to exercise its jurisdiction under subsection (1), 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 ss. 61.514-61.516.
(3) If a court dismisses a petition or stays a proceeding because it declines to exercise its jurisdiction under subsection (1), 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 expenses for 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 part.
History.—s. 5, ch. 2002-65.

F.S. 61.521 on Google Scholar

F.S. 61.521 on Casetext

Amendments to 61.521


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 61.521
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 61.521.

Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

10 Cases from Casetext:Date Descending

U.S. Supreme Court11th Cir. - Ct. App.11th Cir. - MD FL11th Cir. - ND FL11th Cir. - SD FLFed. Reg.Secondary Sources - All

  1. Chatani v. Blaze

    346 So. 3d 670 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022)
    Section 61.521(1), Florida Statutes, provides "if a court of this state has jurisdiction under this part because a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction." Essentially, section 61.521 provides that when a party has engaged in unjustifiable conduct to establish jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, a Florida court shall decline, not accept, that jurisdiction. Therefore, it is clear that unjustifiable conduct does not confer jurisdiction on a court where it otherwise does not have it. It simply operates as a basis for the court to decline jurisdiction if a party engages in it. See Benson, 901 So. 2d at 895 (" ‘[U]njustifiable conduct’ does not vest jurisdiction in a court; [instead] ‘unjustifiable conduct’ by a person seeking to invoke jurisdiction is a basis for a court declining jurisdiction.").
    PAGE 674

  2. Martinez v. Lebron

    284 So. 3d 1146 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2019)   Cited 6 times
    (c) All courts having jurisdiction under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521; or
    PAGE 1148

  3. Baker v. Tunney

    201 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)   Cited 4 times
    (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph (a), or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521, and:
    PAGE 1238

  4. M.A.C. v. M.D.H.

    88 So. 3d 1050 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)   Cited 6 times
    (c) All courts having jurisdiction under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521; or
    PAGE 1054

  5. Sarpel v. Eflanli

    65 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 8 times
    (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph (a), or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521, and:
    PAGE 1082

  6. Medlin v. Medlin

    18 So. 3d 734 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)
    Petitioner asks this court to direct the circuit court to consider assessment of fees and costs to the wife under the provisions of section 61.521(3), Florida Statutes. We decline to address this issue, finding that it should first be presented to the circuit court.

  7. Karam v. Karam

    6 So. 3d 87 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 13 times
    (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph (a), or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521, and:
    PAGE 90

  8. McGhee v. Biggs

    974 So. 2d 524 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)   Cited 13 times
    (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph (a), or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 and . . .
    PAGE 526

  9. Arjona v. Torres

    941 So. 2d 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)   Cited 20 times
    (c) All courts having jurisdiction under paragraph (a) or paragraph (b) have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521; or
    PAGE 455

  10. Benson v. Evans

    901 So. 2d 893 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 3 times
    The circuit court's determination that Florida is the child's home state was made after a general discussion of public policy, not with reference to statutory authority. Section 61.514(1) is "the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child custody determination by a court of this state." § 61.514(2); see also Mainster v. Mainster, 466 So.2d 1228, 1229 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985) (holding that Florida was not home state for minor child removed without parent's permission to Virginia, because she had been living there for over six months preceding the father's filing of emergency petition for temporary custody). At the February 1, 2005 hearing it appears that the Texas court was willing to let the Florida court have the case, if the Florida court found jurisdiction. At a November, 2004, telephone hearing, the Texas court indicated that it believed Florida might decline jurisdiction and was prepared to take jurisdiction if Florida declined to do so. The dismissal of the case in Texas appears to be based on the decision of the Florida circuit court to take over jurisdiction. In an April 13, 2005 order by the Texas court, there is no explicit ruling that because of the father's…

Cases from cite.case.law:

BAKER, v. TUNNEY,, 201 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520, or s. 61.521 . . .

M. A. C. v. M. D. H., 88 So. 3d 1050 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 [the “inconvenient forum” section of the UC-CJEA] or s. 61.521 . . . this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 . . .

SARPEL f k a v. EFLANLI,, 65 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 . . . this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 . . . See § 61.521(1), Fla. Stat. . . .

MEDLIN, v. D. MEDLIN,, 18 So. 3d 734 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . circuit court to consider assessment of fees and costs to the wife under the provisions of section 61.521 . . .

KARAM, v. KARAM,, 6 So. 3d 87 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 . . . this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 . . .

McGHEE, v. BIGGS a k a, 974 So. 2d 524 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 . . .

ARJONA a k a v. TORRES a k a, 941 So. 2d 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . propriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521, and: 1. . . . this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 . . .

M. BENSON, v. EVANS,, 901 So. 2d 893 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521 . . . See § 61.521(1). Petition for writ of prohibition granted. WARNER, GROSS and HAZOURI, JJ., concur. . . .