Maine Revised Statutes

Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1746 (2026)

Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ME-LEGlegislature.maine.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. Except as otherwise provided in section 1748, a court of this State that has made a child custody determination consistent with section 1745 or 1747 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until:

A. A court of this State determines that neither the child, nor the child and one parent, nor the child and a person acting as a parent have a significant connection with this State and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this State concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal relationships; or [PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]

B. A court of this State or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's parents and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this State. [PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]

[PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]

2. Modification without exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. A court of this State that has made a child custody determination and does not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under this section may modify that determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under section 1745.

[PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW); PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).]

SECTION HISTORY

PL 1999, c. 486, §3 (NEW). PL 1999, c. 486, §6 (AFF).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 8 cases, 2000–2018 · leading case: Eric N. Fitzpatrick v. Arlene McCrary, 2018 ME 48 (Me. 2018).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Eric N. Fitzpatrick v. Arlene McCrary, 2018 ME 48 (Me. 2018). · cites it 4× “Accordingly, even assuming the Pennsylvania court could make such an "implicit finding," 4 there is no competent record evidence to support that finding.”

Cole v. Cushman, 2008 ME 72 (Me. 2008). · cites it 3× “See also 19-A M.R.S. §§ 1746, 1751. The court erred when it relinquished jurisdiction based, even in part, on Alabama’s claiming to have “assumed jurisdiction.”

Shanoski v. Miller, 2001 ME 139 (Me. 2001). “See 19-AM.R.S.A. § 1746(1). [¶ 14] The crux of Shanoski’s argument is that because Maine had exclusive continuing jurisdiction, the PKPA prohibited North Carolina from accepting jurisdiction.”

Timothy True v. Sheena Harmon, 2015 ME 14 (Me. 2015). “1 See 19-A M.R.S. § 1746(1)(B) (2014) (stating that, with some exceptions not applicable here, “a court of this State that has made a child custody determination .”

Koszegi v. Erickson, 855 A.2d 1168 (Me. 2004). “See 19-A M.R.S.A. § 1746 (Supp.2003). [¶ 4] In the 2002 divorce, Erickson was ordered to pay $400 per month in spousal support for a period of ninety-six months.”

Barclay v. Eckert, 2000 ME 10 (Me. 2000). “See 19-A M.R.S.A. § 1746 (Supp.1999). 4 .The father argues that the District Court erred by not determining that Colorado was the children’s “home state” as defined by 19-A M.”

Hamilton v. Hamilton, 976 A.2d 924 (Me. 2009). “19-A M.R.S. § 1746(1). However, pursuant to the UCCJEA, a Maine court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction “if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum *928 under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.”

Shanoski v. Miller (Me. Super. Ct 2001). · cites it 3× “” 19-A M.R.S.A. § 1746(1) & uniform cmt. Maine, as the original decree state, is the sole determinant of whether its jurisdiction continues.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1746(1) — 5 cases

Cole v. Cushman, 2008 ME 72 (Me. 2008). “See also 19-A M.R.S. §§ 1746, 1751. The court erred when it relinquished jurisdiction based, even in part, on Alabama’s claiming to have “assumed jurisdiction.”

Shanoski v. Miller, 2001 ME 139 (Me. 2001). “See 19-AM.R.S.A. § 1746(1). [¶ 14] The crux of Shanoski’s argument is that because Maine had exclusive continuing jurisdiction, the PKPA prohibited North Carolina from accepting jurisdiction.”

Eric N. Fitzpatrick v. Arlene McCrary, 2018 ME 48 (Me. 2018). “Accordingly, even assuming the Pennsylvania court could make such an "implicit finding," 4 there is no competent record evidence to support that finding.”

Hamilton v. Hamilton, 976 A.2d 924 (Me. 2009). “19-A M.R.S. § 1746(1). However, pursuant to the UCCJEA, a Maine court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction “if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum *928 under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.”

Shanoski v. Miller (Me. Super. Ct 2001). “” 19-A M.R.S.A. § 1746(1) & uniform cmt. Maine, as the original decree state, is the sole determinant of whether its jurisdiction continues.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1746(1)(A) — 2 cases

Eric N. Fitzpatrick v. Arlene McCrary, 2018 ME 48 (Me. 2018). “Accordingly, even assuming the Pennsylvania court could make such an "implicit finding," 4 there is no competent record evidence to support that finding.”

Shanoski v. Miller (Me. Super. Ct 2001). “” 19-A M.R.S.A. § 1746(1) & uniform cmt. Maine, as the original decree state, is the sole determinant of whether its jurisdiction continues.”

— Me. Rev. Stat. tit. 19-A, § 1746(1)(B) — 2 cases

Eric N. Fitzpatrick v. Arlene McCrary, 2018 ME 48 (Me. 2018). “Accordingly, even assuming the Pennsylvania court could make such an "implicit finding," 4 there is no competent record evidence to support that finding.”

Timothy True v. Sheena Harmon, 2015 ME 14 (Me. 2015). “1 See 19-A M.R.S. § 1746(1)(B) (2014) (stating that, with some exceptions not applicable here, “a court of this State that has made a child custody determination .”

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.