452.770. Inconvenient forum. — 1. A court of this state that has jurisdiction under sections 452.700 to 452.930 to make a child custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if the court 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 the court's own motion, at the request of another court or upon motion of a party.
2. Before determining whether the court is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate that a court of another state 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 the 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 of the pending litigation.
3. 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, the court shall stay the proceedings on the 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.
4. A court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under sections 452.700 to 452.930 if a child custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding.
Notes of Decisions
Kelly J. Blanchette v. Steven M. Blanchette, 476 S.W.3d 273 (Mo. 2015).
· cites it 6× “745 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under section 452.770;' or (2) A court of this state or a court of the other state determines that neither the child, nor a parent, nor any person acting as a parent presently resides in the other state.”
Arnold v. Arnold, 532 S.W.3d 712 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 4× “t 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; (2) A court of another state does' not have jurisdiction under subdivision (1) of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Grega v. Grega, 524 S.W.3d 150 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017).
· cites it 6× “745 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under section 452.770; or (2) A court of this state or a court of the other state determines that neither child, nor a parent, nor any person acting as a parent presently resides in the other state.”
Al-Hawarey v. Al-Hawarey, 388 S.W.3d 237 (Mo. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “nt 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; (2) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subdivision (1) of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
DeWitt v. Lechuga, 393 S.W.3d 113 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 4× “] (2) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subdivision (1) of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under section 452.770 or 452.775, and:…”
Steven Andrew Schaeffer v. Jasmine Renee Schaeffer, 471 S.W.3d 367 (Mo. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “ent 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; (2)A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subdivision (1) of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Jennifer L. Schutter v. Paul J. Seibold, 632 S.W.3d 820 (Mo. Ct. App. 2021).
· cites it 8× “1(1), and that even if it did have jurisdiction, jurisdiction should be declined under section 452.770, and that Tarrant County, Texas, was a more appropriate forum for the issues concerning the care, visitation, custody, and control of Son.”
Jennifer L. Schutter v. Paul J. Seibold, 713 S.W.3d 718 (Mo. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 4× “745 to make a child custody determination may, however, decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under section 452.770,” considering the factors listed in section 452.”
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.