(a) A court of this state which has jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act 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 the 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 the act 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
Cited in
22
cases (
5 in the last 5 years), 2006–2024 · leading case:
Watson v. Watson, 724 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. 2006).
Watson v. Watson, 724 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. 2006).
· cites it 26× “Jurisdiction remained in the district court either until jurisdiction was lost under § 43-1239(a) or until the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under § 43-1244 for the reason of an inconvenient forum.”
Wolter v. Fortuna, 27 Neb. Ct. App. 166 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
· cites it 9× “A court of this state which has jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1244 (a) (Reissue 2016) of the UCCJEA 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…”
DeLima v. Tsevi, 301 Neb. 933 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 4× “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 (a)(1) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Stalder v. Anne T. (In Re S.T.), 300 Neb. 72 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 4× “ment 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 (a)(1) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child…”
Gonzalez v. State (In Re Carlos D.), 300 Neb. 646 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 4× “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 (a)(1) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Kee v. Gilbert, 992 N.W.2d 486 (Neb. Ct. App. 2023).
· cites it 4× “1 (2) a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subdivision (a)(1) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdic- tion on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under section 43-1244 [inconvenient…”
Mann v. Mann, 316 Neb. 910 (Neb. 2024).
· cites it 2× “Captioned “[j]urisdiction to modify determination,” that section prohibits courts of this state from modifying child custody determina- tions made by courts of other states unless a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination under…”
Bryant v. Bryant, 28 Neb. Ct. App. 362 (Neb. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 4× “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 (a)(1) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
In re Interest of Violet T., 286 Neb. 949 (Neb. 2013).
· cites it 2× “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 (a)(1) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
In re Guardianship of S.T., 300 Neb. 72 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 4× “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 (a)(1) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
In re Guardianship of Carlos D., 300 Neb. 646 (Neb. 2018).
· cites it 4× “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 (a)(1) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1244(a) — 4 cases
Watson v. Watson, 724 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. 2006).
“Jurisdiction remained in the district court either until jurisdiction was lost under § 43-1239(a) or until the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under § 43-1244 for the reason of an inconvenient forum.”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1244(b) — 4 cases
Watson v. Watson, 724 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. 2006).
“Jurisdiction remained in the district court either until jurisdiction was lost under § 43-1239(a) or until the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under § 43-1244 for the reason of an inconvenient forum.”
Wolter v. Fortuna, 27 Neb. Ct. App. 166 (Neb. Ct. App. 2019).
“A court of this state which has jurisdiction under Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1244 (a) (Reissue 2016) of the UCCJEA 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…”
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1244(b)(1) — 1 case
— Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1244(c) — 1 case
Watson v. Watson, 724 N.W.2d 24 (Neb. 2006).
“Jurisdiction remained in the district court either until jurisdiction was lost under § 43-1239(a) or until the court declined to exercise its jurisdiction under § 43-1244 for the reason of an inconvenient forum.”
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.