Mont. Code Ann. » TITLE 40. FAMILY LAW · CHAPTER 7. UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT · Part 1. General Provisions
Montana Code Annotated

Mont. Code Ann. § 40-7-108 (2026)

Inconvenient Forum

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MT-LEGleg.mt.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. MCA Contents
  2. TITLE 40
  3. CHAPTER 7
  4. Part 1
  5. 40-7-108 Inconvenient forum

TITLE 40. FAMILY LAW

CHAPTER 7. UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT

Part 1. General Provisions

Inconvenient Forum

40-7-108. Inconvenient forum. (1) A court of this state that 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 the court's own motion, request of another court, or motion of a party.

(2) Before determining whether it 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:

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

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

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

(d) the relative financial circumstances of the parties;

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

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

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

(h) the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in 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, 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 that the court considers just and proper.

(4) 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 divorce or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding.

History: En. 61-408 by Sec. 8, Ch. 537, L. 1977; R.C.M. 1947, 61-408; amd. Sec. 8, Ch. 91, L. 1999.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1979–2026 · leading case: Marriage of Stoneman v. Drollinger, 2003 MT 25 (Mont. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Marriage of Stoneman v. Drollinger, 2003 MT 25 (Mont. 2003). · cites it 98× “However, the UCCJEA significantly altered the earlier provisions of § 40-7-108, MCA. For example, as noted in B.”
In re E.Y.R., 446 P.3d 1117 (Mont. 2019). · cites it 6× “¶9 The District Court then reviewed the statutory factors set forth in § 40-7-108, MCA, to determine which jurisdiction-Montana or California-was the most convenient forum.”
Lewis v. Sowers, 1998 MT 190 (Mont. 1998). · cites it 20× “Sowers asked that the court decline “to exercise continuing jurisdiction in this matter for the reasons that this state is an inconvenient forum, pursuant to Section 40-7-108, MCA, and the child’s home state of North Dakota is a more appropriate forum for this case.”
In Re the Marriage of Bolton, 690 P.2d 401 (Mont. 1984). · cites it 8× “The second tier is found in Section 40-7-108, MCA, which grants the trial court discretionary authority to “decline to *217 exercise its jurisdiction” upon a determination that it is an “inconvenient forum” and that a court of another state is a “more appropriate forum.”
Wenz v. Schwartze, 598 P.2d 1086 (Mont. 1979). · cites it 6× “The second tier of the initial jurisdictional test is found in section 40-7-108 MCA, a complex section describing inconvenient forum considerations.”
In Re the Marriage of Myrland, 2010 MT 286 (Mont. 2010). · cites it 12× “The District Court also failed to consider the factors mandated by § 40-7-108 (2)(a)-(h) in dismissing this case.”
In re A.R.B., 2013 MT 310 (Mont. 2013). · cites it 9× “Whether the District Court erred by not staying proceedings on the ground that Montana was an inconvenient forum under §40-7-108, MCA. ¶5 We affirm. PROCEDURAL AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ¶6 M.”
Custody of N.G.H. v. Amundsen, 2004 MT 162 (Mont. 2004). · cites it 7× “” Section 40-7-108(1), MCA. ¶17 However, before determining that the forum is inconvenient, a court must first consider whether exercising its jurisdiction is appropriate.”
Application of Bertelson, 617 P.2d 121 (Mont. 1980). · cites it 3× “We also note that the legislative history of the Indian Child Welfare Act specifies that state courts are to apply a “modified doctrine of forum non conveniens, in appropriate cases, to insure that the rights of the child as an Indian, the Indian parents or custodian, are fully…”
In Re the Marriage of Fontenot, 2003 MT 242 (Mont. 2003). · cites it 19× “See § 40-7-108, MCA; Stoneman , ¶ 18. Section 40-7-108, MCA, now provides that a Montana court with jurisdiction over a child custody matter may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if the court determines it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and a court of…”
In Re the Marriage of Irwin, 855 P.2d 525 (Mont. 1993). · cites it 12× “Robert Joseph Irwin appeals from a July 13, 1992, order of the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, in which the court reaffirmed its decision that Montana is an inconvenient forum for child custody determinations pursuant to § 40-7-108, MCA, and…”
In Re the Marriage of Cook, 725 P.2d 562 (Mont. 1986). · cites it 3× “According to Section 40-7-108, MCA: “(1) A court which has jurisdiction under this chapter to make an initial or modification decree may decline to exercise its jurisdiction any time before making a decree if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum to make a custody…”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-7-108(1) — 5 cases
Marriage of Stoneman v. Drollinger, 2003 MT 25 (Mont. 2003). “However, the UCCJEA significantly altered the earlier provisions of § 40-7-108, MCA. For example, as noted in B.”
Custody of N.G.H. v. Amundsen, 2004 MT 162 (Mont. 2004). “” Section 40-7-108(1), MCA. ¶17 However, before determining that the forum is inconvenient, a court must first consider whether exercising its jurisdiction is appropriate.”
In Re the Marriage of Myrland, 2010 MT 286 (Mont. 2010). “The District Court also failed to consider the factors mandated by § 40-7-108 (2)(a)-(h) in dismissing this case.”
In Re the Marriage of Fontenot, 2003 MT 242 (Mont. 2003). “See § 40-7-108, MCA; Stoneman , ¶ 18. Section 40-7-108, MCA, now provides that a Montana court with jurisdiction over a child custody matter may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if the court determines it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and a court of…”
The Parenting of: A.H.S., 2025 MT 57 (Mont. 2025).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-7-108(2) — 6 cases
Marriage of Stoneman v. Drollinger, 2003 MT 25 (Mont. 2003). “However, the UCCJEA significantly altered the earlier provisions of § 40-7-108, MCA. For example, as noted in B.”
In Re the Marriage of Fontenot, 2003 MT 242 (Mont. 2003). “See § 40-7-108, MCA; Stoneman , ¶ 18. Section 40-7-108, MCA, now provides that a Montana court with jurisdiction over a child custody matter may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if the court determines it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and a court of…”
In Re the Marriage of Myrland, 2010 MT 286 (Mont. 2010). “The District Court also failed to consider the factors mandated by § 40-7-108 (2)(a)-(h) in dismissing this case.”
Marriage of Ramsey, 2026 MT 123N (Mont. 2026).
In Re the Parenting of M.M.K., 2016 MT 81 (Mont. 2016).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-7-108(2)(a) — 3 cases
Marriage of Stoneman v. Drollinger, 2003 MT 25 (Mont. 2003). “However, the UCCJEA significantly altered the earlier provisions of § 40-7-108, MCA. For example, as noted in B.”
Custody of N.G.H. v. Amundsen, 2004 MT 162 (Mont. 2004). “” Section 40-7-108(1), MCA. ¶17 However, before determining that the forum is inconvenient, a court must first consider whether exercising its jurisdiction is appropriate.”
In Re the Marriage of Myrland, 2010 MT 286 (Mont. 2010). “The District Court also failed to consider the factors mandated by § 40-7-108 (2)(a)-(h) in dismissing this case.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-7-108(2)(b) — 1 case
Marriage of Stoneman v. Drollinger, 2003 MT 25 (Mont. 2003). “However, the UCCJEA significantly altered the earlier provisions of § 40-7-108, MCA. For example, as noted in B.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-7-108(2)(c) — 1 case
Marriage of Stoneman v. Drollinger, 2003 MT 25 (Mont. 2003). “However, the UCCJEA significantly altered the earlier provisions of § 40-7-108, MCA. For example, as noted in B.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-7-108(2)(d) — 1 case
Marriage of Stoneman v. Drollinger, 2003 MT 25 (Mont. 2003). “However, the UCCJEA significantly altered the earlier provisions of § 40-7-108, MCA. For example, as noted in B.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-7-108(2)(e) — 1 case
Marriage of Stoneman v. Drollinger, 2003 MT 25 (Mont. 2003). “However, the UCCJEA significantly altered the earlier provisions of § 40-7-108, MCA. For example, as noted in B.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-7-108(2)(f) — 1 case
Marriage of Stoneman v. Drollinger, 2003 MT 25 (Mont. 2003). “However, the UCCJEA significantly altered the earlier provisions of § 40-7-108, MCA. For example, as noted in B.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-7-108(2)(g) — 1 case
Marriage of Stoneman v. Drollinger, 2003 MT 25 (Mont. 2003). “However, the UCCJEA significantly altered the earlier provisions of § 40-7-108, MCA. For example, as noted in B.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-7-108(3) — 7 cases
Marriage of Stoneman v. Drollinger, 2003 MT 25 (Mont. 2003). “However, the UCCJEA significantly altered the earlier provisions of § 40-7-108, MCA. For example, as noted in B.”
Lewis v. Sowers, 1998 MT 190 (Mont. 1998). “Sowers asked that the court decline “to exercise continuing jurisdiction in this matter for the reasons that this state is an inconvenient forum, pursuant to Section 40-7-108, MCA, and the child’s home state of North Dakota is a more appropriate forum for this case.”
Wenz v. Schwartze, 598 P.2d 1086 (Mont. 1979). “The second tier of the initial jurisdictional test is found in section 40-7-108 MCA, a complex section describing inconvenient forum considerations.”
In Re the Marriage of Irwin, 855 P.2d 525 (Mont. 1993). “Robert Joseph Irwin appeals from a July 13, 1992, order of the District Court for the Fourth Judicial District, Missoula County, in which the court reaffirmed its decision that Montana is an inconvenient forum for child custody determinations pursuant to § 40-7-108, MCA, and…”
In Re the Marriage of Myrland, 2010 MT 286 (Mont. 2010). “The District Court also failed to consider the factors mandated by § 40-7-108 (2)(a)-(h) in dismissing this case.”
— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-7-108(4) — 1 case
Pierce v. Pierce, 640 P.2d 899 (Mont. 1982).
— Mont. Code Ann. § 40-7-108(a) — 1 case
In Re the Marriage of Myrland, 2010 MT 286 (Mont. 2010). “The District Court also failed to consider the factors mandated by § 40-7-108 (2)(a)-(h) in dismissing this 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.