(1) A court of this state which has jurisdiction under KRS 403.800 to 403.880 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 KRS 403.800 to
403.880 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.
Effective: July 13, 2004
History: Created 2004 Ky. Acts ch. 133, sec. 18, effective July 13, 2004.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 27
cases (8 in the last 5 years), 2009–2025 · leading case: Mullins v. Picklesimer
Mullins v. Picklesimer (2010) ky · cites it 4דt of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; or (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph (a) of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Biggs v. Biggs (2009) kyctapp · cites it 5ד*34 Our Supreme Court has recently held that a new state may not exercise jurisdiction for purposes of custody unless a Kentucky court first determines that the new state would be a more convenient forum according to the factors listed in KRS 403.834. Mauldin v. Bearden, 293 S.W.”
Ball v. McGowan (2016) kyctapp · cites it 4ד824 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under KRS 403.834; or (2) A court of this state or a court of the other state determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the other state.”
Lydia Addison v. Kevin Addison (2015) ky · cites it 3דThe Court of Appeals believed that demonstrated that the trial court had considered the factors in KRS 403.834. 6 ' The Court of Appeals could not say that the trial court erred in retaining jurisdiction “given the lengthy and complex litigation involving the parties sub judice.”
Williams v. Frymire (2012) kyctapp · cites it 6דLinda moved to alter, amend, or vacate the court’s order, stating that the court had failed to address the specific factors listed in KRS 403.834 related to the inconvenient forum issue.”
Ellis v. Ellis (2014) kyctapp · cites it 6דthe proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; or (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph (a) of this subsection, or a court of the home *530 state of the child has…”
Robinson v. Robinson (2018) kyctapp · cites it 4ד" KRS 403.834(1) (emphases added). Before determining whether Kentucky is an inconvenient forum, the court must consider "whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction.”
Williams v. Bittel (2009) kyctapp · cites it 3ד” Clearly a trial court may defer jurisdiction to another court under the inconvenient forum clause of the UCCJEA, KRS 403.834(2). The statute provides: Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a…”
Curry v. Curry (2014) kyctapp · cites it 5ד■ Moreover, in Biggs, supra, a panel of this Court concluded that a trial court’s conclusion that a child no longer had a substantial connection to Kentucky, without consideration of KRS 403.834, was in error. Biggs, 301 S.W.”
Dellapenta v. Goldy (2018) kyctapp · cites it 2דt of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; or (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph (a) of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Mauldin v. Bearden (2009) ky“) That is precisely what the family court did in this case, pursuant to KRS 403.834 in regard to the open visitation question, and custody modification questions, which it said could be decided in the Alabama adoption proceedings.”
Hearld v. Hearld (2009) kyctapp · cites it 2דt of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; or (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph (a) of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Ball v. McGowan (2016) kyctapp“824 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under KRS 403.834; or (2) A court of this state or a court of the other state determines that the child, the child’s parents, and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the other state.”
Robinson v. Robinson (2018) kyctapp“" KRS 403.834(1) (emphases added). Before determining whether Kentucky is an inconvenient forum, the court must consider "whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction.”
Biggs v. Biggs (2009) kyctapp“*34 Our Supreme Court has recently held that a new state may not exercise jurisdiction for purposes of custody unless a Kentucky court first determines that the new state would be a more convenient forum according to the factors listed in KRS 403.834. Mauldin v. Bearden, 293 S.W.”
Ellis v. Ellis (2014) kyctapp“the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; or (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph (a) of this subsection, or a court of the home *530 state of the child has…”
Williams v. Frymire (2012) kyctapp“Linda moved to alter, amend, or vacate the court’s order, stating that the court had failed to address the specific factors listed in KRS 403.834 related to the inconvenient forum issue.”
Robinson v. Robinson (2018) kyctapp“" KRS 403.834(1) (emphases added). Before determining whether Kentucky is an inconvenient forum, the court must consider "whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction.”
Curry v. Curry (2014) kyctapp“■ Moreover, in Biggs, supra, a panel of this Court concluded that a trial court’s conclusion that a child no longer had a substantial connection to Kentucky, without consideration of KRS 403.834, was in error. Biggs, 301 S.W.”
Biggs v. Biggs (2009) kyctapp“*34 Our Supreme Court has recently held that a new state may not exercise jurisdiction for purposes of custody unless a Kentucky court first determines that the new state would be a more convenient forum according to the factors listed in KRS 403.834. Mauldin v. Bearden, 293 S.W.”
Biggs v. Biggs (2009) kyctapp“*34 Our Supreme Court has recently held that a new state may not exercise jurisdiction for purposes of custody unless a Kentucky court first determines that the new state would be a more convenient forum according to the factors listed in KRS 403.834. Mauldin v. Bearden, 293 S.W.”
Williams v. Bittel (2009) kyctapp“” Clearly a trial court may defer jurisdiction to another court under the inconvenient forum clause of the UCCJEA, KRS 403.834(2). The statute provides: Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a…”
Curry v. Curry (2014) kyctapp“■ Moreover, in Biggs, supra, a panel of this Court concluded that a trial court’s conclusion that a child no longer had a substantial connection to Kentucky, without consideration of KRS 403.834, was in error. Biggs, 301 S.W.”
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.