Neb. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 43
Nebraska Revised Statutes

Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1239 (2026)

Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction

✓ text as last checked Oct. 2026 (this copy records no edition or section history)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section NE-LEGnebraskalegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except as otherwise provided in section 43-1241, a court of this state which has made a child custody determination consistent with section 43-1238 or 43-1240 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until:

(1) a court of this state determines that neither the child, nor 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 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 43-1238.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 16 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2006–2022 · leading case: Watson v. Watson, 724 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. 2006).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Watson v. Watson, 724 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. 2006). · cites it 23× “See § 43-1239. Accord Shanoski v. Miller, 780 A.”
Heiden v. Norris, 912 N.W.2d 758 (Neb. 2018). “See § 43-1239. Brief for appellant at 7. See § 43-1801.”
State v. Victoria F. (In Re Interest of Kirsten H.), 915 N.W.2d 815 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 6× “") A court which makes an initial child custody determination (in this case, North Dakota) will have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over child custody until certain determinations are made pursuant to § 43-1239. The parties suggest Kirsten's "home state" status impacts…”
DeLima v. Tsevi, 921 N.W.2d 89 (Neb. 2018). “See § 43-1239. Because the analysis required to determine whether a court has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination differs from the analysis required to determine whether a court can exercise its continuing jurisdiction after making an initial…”
Hogan v. Hogan, 954 N.W.2d 868 (Neb. 2021). · cites it 25× “Rev. Stat. § 43-1239 (Reissue 2016), a state’s exclusive and continuing jurisdiction is relinquished when both parties and the children no longer reside in the state.”
SUSAN L. v. Steven L., 729 N.W.2d 35 (Neb. 2007). · cites it 2× “The UCCJEA, § 43-1240, provides that except for temporary emergency jurisdiction under § 43-1241, a court of this state may not modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state unless this state would otherwise have jurisdiction under § 434238(a)(1) or (2)…”
Williams v. Williams, 975 N.W.2d 523 (Neb. 2022). · cites it 2× “In so ruling, the court noted that there was no dispute that Ted was the adjudicated father of the minor child and that it was also clear that Ted had not been joined as a party and had not been given notice of the action.”
In re Interest of Kirsten H., 25 Neb. Ct. App. 909 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 7× “§ 43-1239 (Reissue 2016). 7. ____: ____. A court with exclusive and continuing jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act may decline to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis that it is an inconvenient forum.”
Mann v. Mann, 956 N.W.2d 318 (Neb. Ct. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “MANN (1) a court of this state determines that neither the child, nor 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…”
Floerchinger v. Floerchinger, No. A-15-833 (Neb. Ct. App. June 21, 2016). · cites it 14× “Exclusive and continuing jurisdic- tion remains with the district court under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act either until jurisdiction is lost under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1239 (a) (Reissue 2008) or until the court declines to exercise jurisdiction…”
Brian M. v. Cynthia A., No. A-15-114 (Neb. Ct. App. Jan. 19, 2016). · cites it 4× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1239 (a) (Reissue 2008).”
Herrera v. Herrera, No. A-21-450 (Neb. Ct. App. Mar. 22, 2022). · cites it 4× “Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1239 (Reissue 2016).”
Show all 16 citing cases →
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1239(a): 6 cases
Watson v. Watson, 724 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. 2006). “See § 43-1239. Accord Shanoski v. Miller, 780 A.”
State v. Victoria F. (In Re Interest of Kirsten H.), 915 N.W.2d 815 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). “") A court which makes an initial child custody determination (in this case, North Dakota) will have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over child custody until certain determinations are made pursuant to § 43-1239. The parties suggest Kirsten's "home state" status impacts…”
In re Interest of Kirsten H., 25 Neb. Ct. App. 909 (Neb. Ct. App. 2018). “§ 43-1239 (Reissue 2016). 7. ____: ____. A court with exclusive and continuing jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act may decline to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis that it is an inconvenient forum.”
Hogan v. Hogan, 954 N.W.2d 868 (Neb. 2021). “Rev. Stat. § 43-1239 (Reissue 2016), a state’s exclusive and continuing jurisdiction is relinquished when both parties and the children no longer reside in the state.”
Floerchinger v. Floerchinger, No. A-15-833 (Neb. Ct. App. June 21, 2016). “Exclusive and continuing jurisdic- tion remains with the district court under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act either until jurisdiction is lost under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1239 (a) (Reissue 2008) or until the court declines to exercise jurisdiction…”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1239(a)(1): 2 cases
Hogan v. Hogan, 954 N.W.2d 868 (Neb. 2021). “Rev. Stat. § 43-1239 (Reissue 2016), a state’s exclusive and continuing jurisdiction is relinquished when both parties and the children no longer reside in the state.”
Floerchinger v. Floerchinger, No. A-15-833 (Neb. Ct. App. June 21, 2016). “Exclusive and continuing jurisdic- tion remains with the district court under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act either until jurisdiction is lost under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1239 (a) (Reissue 2008) or until the court declines to exercise jurisdiction…”
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1239(a)(2): 3 cases
Watson v. Watson, 724 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. 2006). “See § 43-1239. Accord Shanoski v. Miller, 780 A.”
Hogan v. Hogan, 954 N.W.2d 868 (Neb. 2021). “Rev. Stat. § 43-1239 (Reissue 2016), a state’s exclusive and continuing jurisdiction is relinquished when both parties and the children no longer reside in the state.”
Beckman v. McAndrew, 742 N.W.2d 778 (Neb. Ct. App. 2007).
Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1239(a)(l): 1 case
Watson v. Watson, 724 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. 2006). “See § 43-1239. Accord Shanoski v. Miller, 780 A.”
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.