INITIAL CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION A. Except as otherwise provided in Section 16 of this act, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if: 1. This state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six (6) months before the commencement 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 paragraph 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 19 or 20 of this act, and: a. the child and the child's parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence, and b. substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships; 3. All courts having jurisdiction under paragraph 1 or 2 of this subsection have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under Section 19 or 20 of this act; or 4. No court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in paragraph 1, 2, or 3 of this subsection. B. Subsection A of this section is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child custody determination by a court of this state. C. Physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child custody determination. Added by Laws 1998, c. 407, § 13, eff. Nov. 1, 1998.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
10
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2000–2025 · leading case:
Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
Antini v. Antini, 440 P.3d 57 (Okla. 2019).
“On March 17, 2015, the court found that "pursuant to the Oklahoma Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, 43 O.S. §§ 551-201 et.seq. the [S]tate of Oklahoma has no jurisdiction in this matter and that this action should be dismissed.”
Antini v. Antini, 2019 OK 20 (Okla. 2019).
“On March 17, 2015, the court found that "pursuant to the Oklahoma Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, 43 O.S. §§ 551-201 et. seq. the [S]tate of Oklahoma has no jurisdiction in this matter and that this action should be dismissed.”
In Re the Marriage of Jones, 2018 OK CIV APP 68 (Okla. Civ. App. 2018).
“¶8 On October 21, 2015, Mother filed a Motion to Vacate Custody and Support Order, contending "Oklahoma lacks jurisdiction pursuant to 43 O.S. § 551-201," because "the minor children were not residents of Oklahoma for six months before the commencement of the proceeding" and…”
Rector v. Kimes, 60 P.3d 1068 (Okla. Civ. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “§ 551-204 (temporary emergency jurisdiction)] a court of this state may not modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state unless a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under paragraph 1 or 2 of subsection A of Section 13…”
McCullough v. McCullough, 14 P.3d 576 (Okla. Civ. App. 2000).
“1998 § 551-204], a court of this state which has made a custody determination consistent with [43 O.S.Supp.1998 § 551-201] or [43 O.S.Supp.”
Jones v. Pack, 2018 OK CIV APP 3 (Okla. Civ. App. 2017).
· cites it 3× “The trial court rejected this argument finding "that the 'date of commencement of the proceeding' (See 43 O.S. § 551-201), is May 5, 2016, the date [Father] filed his Petition for Visitation.”
In Re: N.a.; State of Oklahoma v. Maldonado, 2025 OK 22 (Okla. 2025).
· cites it 3× “See 43 O.S., § 551-201 "Home state" means the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six (6) consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.”
Dept. of Human Servs. Child Support Servs. v. Coldwater, 2014 OK CIV APP 56 (Okla. Civ. App. 2014).
“2011 §308a with 43 O.S. 2011 §551-201. 13 In Hernandez , 2003 OK CIV APP 35, ¶1, the putative father appealed an administrative order to the district court which affirmed the administrative order establishing paternity of the child but leaving unresolved the issue of support…”
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.