Section 2. (a) Any court which is competent to decide child custody matters has jurisdiction to make a custody determination by initial or modification judgment if:
(1) the commonwealth (i) is the home state of the child on the commencement of the custody proceeding, or (ii) had been the child's home state within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from the commonwealth because of his or her removal or retention by a person claiming his or her custody or for other reasons, and a parent or person acting as parent continues to reside in the commonwealth; or
(2) it appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under paragraph (1) and it is in the best interest of the child that a court of the commonwealth assume jurisdiction because (i) the child and his or her parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with the commonwealth, and (ii) there is available in the commonwealth substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships; or
(3) the child is physically present in the commonwealth and (i) the child has been abandoned or (ii) it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child from abuse or neglect or for other good cause shown, provided that in the event that jurisdictional prerequisites are not established pursuant to any other paragraph of this subsection and a court of another state shall be entitled to assert jurisdiction under any other subparagraph of this paragraph then a court exercising jurisdiction pursuant to this clause of paragraph (3) may do so only by entering such temporary order or orders as it deems necessary unless the court of the other state has declined to exercise jurisdiction, has stayed its proceedings or has otherwise deferred to the jurisdiction of a court of the commonwealth; or
(4) (i) it appears that no other state would have jurisdiction under prerequisites substantially in accordance with paragraph (1), (2) or (3), or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the commonwealth is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child, and (ii) it is in the best interest of the child that a court of the commonwealth assume jurisdiction.
(b) Except under subparagraphs (3) and (4) of paragraph (a), physical presence in the commonwealth of the child or of the child and one of the contestants, is not alone sufficient to confer jurisdiction on a court of the commonwealth to make a custody determination.
(c) Physical presence of the child, while desirable, is not a prerequisite for jurisdiction to make a custody determination.
(d) A court of the commonwealth shall not exercise jurisdiction in any custody proceeding commenced during the pendency of a proceeding in a court of another state where such court of that state is exercising jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of this section for the purpose of making a custody determination, except in accordance with paragraph (3) of subsection (a), unless the court of the other state shall decline jurisdiction pursuant to paragraph (4) of subsection (a) or shall stay its proceedings or otherwise defer to the jurisdiction of a court of the commonwealth.
(e) If a court of another state has made a custody determination in substantial conformity with this chapter, a court of the commonwealth shall not modify that determination unless (1) it appears to the court of the commonwealth that the court which made the custody determination does not now have jurisdiction under jurisdictional prerequisites substantially in accordance with this chapter or that such court has declined to assume jurisdiction to modify its determination and (2) a court of the commonwealth now has jurisdiction pursuant to this chapter.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 52
cases (10 in the last 5 years), 1984–2026 · leading case: Custody of Victoria, 39 N.E.3d 418 (Mass. 2015).
Custody of Victoria, 39 N.E.3d 418 (Mass. 2015). · cites it 11דWe conclude that G. L. c. 209B, § 2 (a) (2), as applied to the facts of this case, grants jurisdiction to Massachusetts courts because no other State has “home [Sjtate” jurisdiction and it is in the best interest of the child that a Massachusetts court assume jurisdiction of the…”
Adoption of Anisha, 55 N.E.3d 986 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016). · cites it 13דSee G. L. c. 209B, § 2(a)(1); Custody of Victoria, supra at 70.”
MacDougall v. Acres, 693 N.E.2d 663 (Mass. 1998). · cites it 9ד“Jurisdiction must be exercised pursuant to any of the four subsections of G. L. c. 209B, § 2 (a).” Guardianship of Zeke, supra at 441; Custody of *367 Brandon, supra at 9 .”
Guardianship of Zeke, 663 N.E.2d 815 (Mass. 1996). · cites it 12דSee G. L. c. 209B, § 2 (a) (3) (1994 ed.). The judge also reasoned that no other State could exercise home State jurisdiction over Zeke and that it was in Zeke’s best interests for a Massachusetts court to assume jurisdiction.”
Redding v. Redding, 495 N.E.2d 297 (Mass. 1986). · cites it 4ד3 The Massachusetts court had jurisdiction to determine custody of Jessica under G. L. c. 209B, § 2 (a) (4), because “another state [here Georgia] has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the commonwealth is the more appropriate fomm to determine the custody of…”
Charara v. Yatim, 937 N.E.2d 490 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010). · cites it 5ד209B, § 2(a)(1), that is, unless the children had resided with a parent in Lebanon for at least six consecutive months “immediately preceding the date of commencement of the custody proceeding” in Lebanon. G. L. c. 209B, § 1, inserted by St.”
Adoption of Yvette, 881 N.E.2d 1159 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). · cites it 5ד209B, § 2(a)(1); Massachusetts could not assert jurisdiction by default or necessity where Maryland had home State jurisdiction and had not declined it, see § 2(a)(2) and (4); Massachusetts could not exercise jurisdiction where Maryland was doing so consistently with the…”
Custody of Brandon, 551 N.E.2d 506 (Mass. 1990). · cites it 5דChapter 209B provides guidelines to determine when a Massachusetts court may exercise jurisdiction over an initial child custody proceeding, or, as in the present case, when it may exercise jurisdiction over the modification of a prior child custody order.”
Custody of a Minor, 468 N.E.2d 251 (Mass. 1984). · cites it 5דis the home state of the child on the commencement of the custody proceeding.” Because the son had lived in Massachusetts with his mother for at least six consecutive months preceding the date of commencement of the custody proceedings, Massachusetts by definition was the home…”
E.N. v. E.S., 852 N.E.2d 1104 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006). · cites it 6ד486, 488-489 (1996) (although Massachusetts was the home State pursuant to G. L. c. 209B, § 2, the Probate and Family Court was precluded from exercising jurisdiction under the PKPA, where a Florida court had continuing jurisdiction).”
Umina v. Malbica, 538 N.E.2d 53 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989). · cites it 4דSee G. L. c. 209B, § 2(a), and § 3(a) of the UCCJA.”
Caplan v. Donovan, 879 N.E.2d 117 (Mass. 2008). · cites it 2דUnder G. L. c. 209B, § 2 (a) (3) *469 (Massachusetts Child Custody Jurisdiction Act), “a Massachusetts court can award temporary emergency custody of a child to a parent fleeing to Massachusetts from an allegedly abusive situation in another State, thereby acting without…”
Umina v. Malbica, 538 N.E.2d 53 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989). “See G. L. c. 209B, § 2(a), and § 3(a) of the UCCJA.”
Guardianship of Zeke, 663 N.E.2d 815 (Mass. 1996). “See G. L. c. 209B, § 2 (a) (3) (1994 ed.). The judge also reasoned that no other State could exercise home State jurisdiction over Zeke and that it was in Zeke’s best interests for a Massachusetts court to assume jurisdiction.”
Charara v. Yatim, 937 N.E.2d 490 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010). “209B, § 2(a)(1), that is, unless the children had resided with a parent in Lebanon for at least six consecutive months “immediately preceding the date of commencement of the custody proceeding” in Lebanon. G. L. c. 209B, § 1, inserted by St.”
Adoption of Yvette, 881 N.E.2d 1159 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “209B, § 2(a)(1); Massachusetts could not assert jurisdiction by default or necessity where Maryland had home State jurisdiction and had not declined it, see § 2(a)(2) and (4); Massachusetts could not exercise jurisdiction where Maryland was doing so consistently with the…”
Umina v. Malbica, 538 N.E.2d 53 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989). “See G. L. c. 209B, § 2(a), and § 3(a) of the UCCJA.”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209B, § 2(a)(2) — 6 cases
Charara v. Yatim, 937 N.E.2d 490 (Mass. App. Ct. 2010). “209B, § 2(a)(1), that is, unless the children had resided with a parent in Lebanon for at least six consecutive months “immediately preceding the date of commencement of the custody proceeding” in Lebanon. G. L. c. 209B, § 1, inserted by St.”
Adoption of Anisha, 55 N.E.3d 986 (Mass. App. Ct. 2016). “See G. L. c. 209B, § 2(a)(1); Custody of Victoria, supra at 70.”
Umina v. Malbica, 538 N.E.2d 53 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989). “See G. L. c. 209B, § 2(a), and § 3(a) of the UCCJA.”
Adoption of Yvette, 881 N.E.2d 1159 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “209B, § 2(a)(1); Massachusetts could not assert jurisdiction by default or necessity where Maryland had home State jurisdiction and had not declined it, see § 2(a)(2) and (4); Massachusetts could not exercise jurisdiction where Maryland was doing so consistently with the…”
E.N. v. E.S., 852 N.E.2d 1104 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006). “486, 488-489 (1996) (although Massachusetts was the home State pursuant to G. L. c. 209B, § 2, the Probate and Family Court was precluded from exercising jurisdiction under the PKPA, where a Florida court had continuing jurisdiction).”
Umina v. Malbica, 538 N.E.2d 53 (Mass. App. Ct. 1989). “See G. L. c. 209B, § 2(a), and § 3(a) of the UCCJA.”
Adoption of Yvette, 881 N.E.2d 1159 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008). “209B, § 2(a)(1); Massachusetts could not assert jurisdiction by default or necessity where Maryland had home State jurisdiction and had not declined it, see § 2(a)(2) and (4); Massachusetts could not exercise jurisdiction where Maryland was doing so consistently with the…”
E.N. v. E.S., 852 N.E.2d 1104 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006). “486, 488-489 (1996) (although Massachusetts was the home State pursuant to G. L. c. 209B, § 2, the Probate and Family Court was precluded from exercising jurisdiction under the PKPA, where a Florida court had continuing jurisdiction).”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209B, § 2(a)(l)(ii) — 1 case
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209B, § 2(ti)(3)(ii) — 1 case
E.N. v. E.S., 852 N.E.2d 1104 (Mass. App. Ct. 2006). “486, 488-489 (1996) (although Massachusetts was the home State pursuant to G. L. c. 209B, § 2, the Probate and Family Court was precluded from exercising jurisdiction under the PKPA, where a Florida court had continuing jurisdiction).”
— Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 209B, § 2(ti)(l)(z) — 1 case
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.