K.S.A. » Chapter 38
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 38-1307 (2026)

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

38-1307.

History: L. 1978, ch. 231, § 7; Repealed, L. 2000, ch. 171, § 84; July 1.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Discretionary with district court whether to exercise jurisdiction under "inconvenient forum" provisions. Larsen v. Larsen, 5 Kan. App. 2d 284, 288, 289, 192, 292, 615 P.2d 806.

2. Avoiding interstate jurisdictional disputes and promoting child's best interests among purposes of act; applicable to code for care of children. In re Wicks, 10 Kan. App. 2d 124, 126, 693 P.2d 481 (1985).

3. Procedures regarding communication with courts of other jurisdictions are more than mere suggestions. In re L.C., 18 Kan. App. 2d 627, 633, 857 P.2d 1375 (1993).

4. Whether the UCCJA (K.S.A. 38-1301 et seq.) applies to adoptions examined; jurisdiction, inconvenient forum examined. In re Adoption of Baby Girl B, 19 Kan. App. 2d 283, 285, 867 P.2d 1074 (1994).

5. Whether custody determination which is not binding on other states under the parental kidnapping prevention act (28 U.S.C. 1738A) is inherent abuse of discretion examined. In re Marriage of Harris, 20 Kan. App. 2d 50, 60, 883 P.2d 785 (1994).

6. Case remanded to determine whether Kansas is an inconvenient forum for custody proceeding. In re Marriage of Osborne, 21 Kan. App. 2d 374, 382, 901 P.2d 12 (1995).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases, 1980–1998 · leading case: Larsen v. Larsen, 615 P.2d 806 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Larsen v. Larsen, 615 P.2d 806 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “Section 6 of the act (K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-1306) deals with the situation where proceedings are pending in another state, which is not the case here.”
In the Interest of Wicks, 693 P.2d 481 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 8× “The trial court transferred the proceeding from Kansas to Texas based upon a finding that Kansas is an inconvenient forum (K.S.A. 38-1307[e]). The natural mother appeals.”
In Re the Adoption of Baby Girl B., 867 P.2d 1074 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “The court applied K.S.A. 38-1307 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), found Kansas to be an inconvenient forum, and further found Pennsylvania to be the more appropriate forum.”
In Re the Marriage of Osborne, 901 P.2d 12 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 8× “Patricia argues that the court properly declined jurisdiction under K.S.A. 38-1307, which provides: “(a) A court which has jurisdiction under this act to make an initial or modification decree may decline to exercise its jurisdiction any time before making a decree if it finds…”
Bills v. Murdock, 654 P.2d 406 (Kan. 1982). · cites it 4× “Considerations by the trial court under 38-1307 are made only after it is found that a court of this state has jurisdiction under the Act.”
Murphy v. Woerner, 748 P.2d 749 (Alaska 1988). “Murphy has apparently exercised his visitation rights at all other times.”
In re the Marriage of Harris, 883 P.2d 785 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 2× “In Larsen , the court concluded Kansas had jurisdiction under the UCCJA although it was not the children’s home state and that the trial court was not required to decline jurisdiction under the inconvenient forum provisions of K.S.A. 38-1307. However, Larsen may no longer be…”
In re L.C., 857 P.2d 1375 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “Once jurisdictional conflict became evident, the Kansas court should have considered the inconvenient forum procedure of K.S.A. 38-1307 on its own motion or at the request of counsel.”
In Re Marriage of Anderson, 969 P.2d 913 (Kan. Ct. App. 1998). “In any event, her argument mistakenly assumes that the district court had jurisdiction but declined to exercise it under K.S.A. 38-1307. That section provides that a court that has jurisdiction to enter or modify a custody decree may decline to exercise such jurisdiction on the…”
In Re Lc, 857 P.2d 1375 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “Once jurisdictional conflict became evident, the Kansas court should have considered the inconvenient forum procedure of K.S.A. 38-1307 on its own motion or at the request of counsel.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1307(a) — 1 case
Murphy v. Woerner, 748 P.2d 749 (Alaska 1988). “Murphy has apparently exercised his visitation rights at all other times.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1307(c) — 5 cases
In Re the Adoption of Baby Girl B., 867 P.2d 1074 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “The court applied K.S.A. 38-1307 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), found Kansas to be an inconvenient forum, and further found Pennsylvania to be the more appropriate forum.”
Larsen v. Larsen, 615 P.2d 806 (Kan. Ct. App. 1980). “Section 6 of the act (K.S.A. 1979 Supp. 38-1306) deals with the situation where proceedings are pending in another state, which is not the case here.”
In the Interest of Wicks, 693 P.2d 481 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985). “The trial court transferred the proceeding from Kansas to Texas based upon a finding that Kansas is an inconvenient forum (K.S.A. 38-1307[e]). The natural mother appeals.”
Bills v. Murdock, 654 P.2d 406 (Kan. 1982). “Considerations by the trial court under 38-1307 are made only after it is found that a court of this state has jurisdiction under the Act.”
In re the Marriage of Harris, 883 P.2d 785 (Kan. Ct. App. 1994). “In Larsen , the court concluded Kansas had jurisdiction under the UCCJA although it was not the children’s home state and that the trial court was not required to decline jurisdiction under the inconvenient forum provisions of K.S.A. 38-1307. However, Larsen may no longer be…”
— K.S.A. § 38-1307(d) — 2 cases
In re L.C., 857 P.2d 1375 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). “Once jurisdictional conflict became evident, the Kansas court should have considered the inconvenient forum procedure of K.S.A. 38-1307 on its own motion or at the request of counsel.”
In Re Lc, 857 P.2d 1375 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). “Once jurisdictional conflict became evident, the Kansas court should have considered the inconvenient forum procedure of K.S.A. 38-1307 on its own motion or at the request of counsel.”
— K.S.A. § 38-1307(e) — 1 case
In Re the Marriage of Osborne, 901 P.2d 12 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “Patricia argues that the court properly declined jurisdiction under K.S.A. 38-1307, which provides: “(a) A court which has jurisdiction under this act to make an initial or modification decree may decline to exercise its jurisdiction any time before making a decree if it finds…”
— K.S.A. § 38-1307(g) — 2 cases
In the Interest of Wicks, 693 P.2d 481 (Kan. Ct. App. 1985). “The trial court transferred the proceeding from Kansas to Texas based upon a finding that Kansas is an inconvenient forum (K.S.A. 38-1307[e]). The natural mother appeals.”
In Re the Marriage of Osborne, 901 P.2d 12 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “Patricia argues that the court properly declined jurisdiction under K.S.A. 38-1307, which provides: “(a) A court which has jurisdiction under this act to make an initial or modification decree may decline to exercise its jurisdiction any time before making a decree if it finds…”
— K.S.A. § 38-1307(h) — 1 case
In Re the Marriage of Osborne, 901 P.2d 12 (Kan. Ct. App. 1995). “Patricia argues that the court properly declined jurisdiction under K.S.A. 38-1307, which provides: “(a) A court which has jurisdiction under this act to make an initial or modification decree may decline to exercise its jurisdiction any time before making a decree if it finds…”
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.