Minnesota Statutes

Minn. Stat. § 518D.207 (2026)

Inconvenient Forum

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MN-REVrevisor.mn.gov (official) Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) A court of this state which has jurisdiction under this chapter 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.

(b) 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:

(1) whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;

(2) the length of time the child has resided outside this state;

(3) the distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;

(4) the relative financial circumstances of the parties;

(5) any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;

(6) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;

(7) the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and

(8) the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.

(c) 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.

(d) A court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this chapter if a child custody determination is incidental to an action for marriage dissolution or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the marriage dissolution or other proceeding.

(e) In a case where the provision of gender-affirming health care for a child is at issue, a court of this state shall not determine that this state is an inconvenient forum if the law or policy of the other state that may take jurisdiction limits the ability of a parent to obtain gender-affirming health care as defined in section 543.23, paragraph (b), for the parent's child.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2011–2024 · leading case: In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S., 793 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011).
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S., 793 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 4× “” Minn.Stat. § 518D.207(a) (2010); see also Minn.”
In re the Matter of: Muhammad Rahshawn Bush v. Kelsey Anne Link (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 12× “before the commencement 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; 3 (2) a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under clause (1), or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Melissa Dawn Paisley v. Clark Davis Kratzer (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 8× “” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 518D.207, official cmt.”
In the Matter of the Welfare of the Child of: B. D. D. & D. A. A., Parents (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). · cites it 6× “202 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under section 518D.207; 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.”
Darcie Gilliard & on behalf of minor Child. v. Jacob Alton Leatherman (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 2× “202 or that a court of this State would be a more convenient forum under section 518D.207[.] Minn. Stat. § 518D.203.”
In re the Matter of: Sheikh Bilaal Muhammad Arafat v. Fadumo Noor (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “Minn. Stat. § 518D.207(a) (2014). A district court may raise this issue on its own motion.”
— Minn. Stat. § 518D.207(a) — 3 cases
In re the Welfare of the Child of R.S., 793 N.W.2d 752 (Minn. Ct. App. 2011). “” Minn.Stat. § 518D.207(a) (2010); see also Minn.”
In re the Matter of: Muhammad Rahshawn Bush v. Kelsey Anne Link (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). “before the commencement 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; 3 (2) a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under clause (1), or a court of the home state of the child has…”
In re the Matter of: Sheikh Bilaal Muhammad Arafat v. Fadumo Noor (Minn. Ct. App. 2015). “Minn. Stat. § 518D.207(a) (2014). A district court may raise this issue on its own motion.”
— Minn. Stat. § 518D.207(b) — 1 case
In re the Matter of: Muhammad Rahshawn Bush v. Kelsey Anne Link (Minn. Ct. App. 2024). “before the commencement 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; 3 (2) a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under clause (1), or a court of the home state of the child has…”
— Minn. Stat. § 518D.207(b)(1) — 1 case
Melissa Dawn Paisley v. Clark Davis Kratzer (Minn. Ct. App. 2016). “” Minn. Stat. Ann. § 518D.207, official cmt.”
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.