452.745. Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. — 1. Except as otherwise provided in section 452.755, a court of this state that has made a child custody determination consistent with section 452.740 or 452.750 has exclusive continuing jurisdiction over the determination until:
(1) A court of this state determines that neither the child, 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
(2) A court of this state or a court of another state determines that neither the child, nor a parent, nor any person acting as a parent presently resides in this state.
2. A court of this state that has exclusive continuing jurisdiction under this section may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if the court determines that it is an inconvenient forum under section 452.770.
3. 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 452.740.
Notes of Decisions
Kelly J. Blanchette v. Steven M. Blanchette, 476 S.W.3d 273 (Mo. 2015).
· cites it 6× “740 and: (1) The court of the other state determines it no longer has exclusive continuing jurisdiction under section 452.745 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under section 452.”
Grega v. Grega, 524 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “740 and: (1) The court of the other state determines that it no longer has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under section 452.745 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under section 452.”
Timothy Scherder v. Trisha Sonntag, 450 S.W.3d 856 (Mo. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 3× “Section 452.745 supplies the answer and supports the trial court’s authority: “a court of this state that has made a child custody determination consistent with section 452.”
Jennifer L. Schutter v. Paul J. Seibold, 632 S.W.3d 820 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 17× “01(c) and (2) dismissing his family access motion and motion to quash Jennifer Schutter’s (“Mother”) garnishment of his wages under sections 452.745 and 452.770. The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded to the trial court for further…”
Jennifer L. Schutter v. Paul J. Seibold, No. WD86995 (Mo. Ct. App. May 6, 2025).
· cites it 6× ““The jurisdictional provisions of sections 452.745 and 452.770 apply to ‘child custody determination[s].”
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.