(a) Except as otherwise provided in section 518D.204, a court of this state which has made a child custody determination consistent with section 518D.201 or 518D.203 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until:
(1) a court of this state determines that the child, the child's parents, and any person acting as a parent do not 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
(2) 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.
(b) A court of this state which 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 518D.201.
Notes of Decisions
Stone v. Stone, 636 N.W.2d 594 (Minn. Ct. App. 2001).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 518D.202. A Minnesota court may modify South Dakota’s determination if Minnesota is currently the child’s home state and South Dakota no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.”
In Re Welfare of Child. of D.M.T.-r., 802 N.W.2d 759 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 518D.202(a). Under the UCCJEA, a “child custody determination” includes determinations made in both CHIPS and TPR proceedings; and a child’s “home state” is the state where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before a…”
Gerber v. Eastman, 673 N.W.2d 854 (Minn. Ct. App. 2004).
· cites it 2× “At that time, Minnesota had jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination under Minn.”
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S., 793 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “Minn.Stat. § 518D.202(a) (2010). But the GAL ignores the fact that, even in those cases in which a juvenile court has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, UCCJEA also allows the juvenile court to "decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an…”
Darcie Gilliard & on behalf of minor Child. v. Jacob Alton Leatherman (Minn. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 4× “201, paragraph (a), clause (1) or (2), and: (1) the court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under section 518D.202 or that a court of this State would be a more convenient forum under section 518D.”
— Minn. Stat. § 518D.202(a) — 4 cases
In Re Welfare of Child. of D.M.T.-r., 802 N.W.2d 759 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).
“Minn.Stat. § 518D.202(a). Under the UCCJEA, a “child custody determination” includes determinations made in both CHIPS and TPR proceedings; and a child’s “home state” is the state where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before a…”
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S., 793 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).
“Minn.Stat. § 518D.202(a) (2010). But the GAL ignores the fact that, even in those cases in which a juvenile court has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, UCCJEA also allows the juvenile court to "decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an…”
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.