109.747
Jurisdiction to modify determination.
Except as otherwise provided in ORS 109.751, 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 ORS
109.741 (1)(a) or (b) and:
(1) The court of
the other state determines that it no longer has exclusive, continuing
jurisdiction under ORS 109.744 or that a court of this state would be a more
convenient forum under ORS 109.761; or
(2) A court of
this state or a court of the other state determines that the child, the child’s
parents and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the other
state. [1999 c.649 §15]
Note: See note under 109.701.
109.750 [1973 c.375 §5; repealed by 1999
c.649 §55]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
5
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case:
Snow v. Snow, 74 P.3d 1137 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
Snow v. Snow, 74 P.3d 1137 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 16× “As described below, we conclude that the petition sought to “modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state,” ORS 109.747, and that the jurisdictional prerequisites for such a modification were not satisfied.”
Matter of Marriage of Medill, 40 P.3d 1087 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 4× “741 or ORS 109.747 has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until: "(a) 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…”
In re the Marriage of Epler, 309 P.3d 1133 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
“”); ORS 109.747 (limiting court jurisdiction to modify child-custody determinations).”
Mayfield & Mayfield, 474 P.3d 454 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 2× “747 provides that an Oregon court may not modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state—with a limited exception for temporary emergency jurisdiction—unless the Oregon court meets the requirements for initial-custody jurisdiction and either (1) the other…”
Skaug & Skaug (Or. Ct. App. 2026).
“744] or modification jurisdiction under [ORS 109.747].”) Taken together, the UCCJEA’s structure, provi- sions, and commentary demonstrate that, to enforce a law- fully made custody determination, a court is not required to have the subject matter jurisdiction that is required to…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.747(1) — 1 case
Snow v. Snow, 74 P.3d 1137 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“As described below, we conclude that the petition sought to “modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state,” ORS 109.747, and that the jurisdictional prerequisites for such a modification were not satisfied.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.747(2) — 1 case
Snow v. Snow, 74 P.3d 1137 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“As described below, we conclude that the petition sought to “modify a child custody determination made by a court of another state,” ORS 109.747, and that the jurisdictional prerequisites for such a modification were not satisfied.”
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.