109.761
Inconvenient forum.
(1) A court of this state that has jurisdiction under ORS 109.701 to 109.834 to
make a child custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at
any time if the court 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 motion of a party, the
court’s own motion or the request of another court.
(2) Before
determining whether a court of this state is an inconvenient forum, the court
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:
(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 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 the court considers just
and proper.
(4) A court of
this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under ORS 109.701 to
109.834 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. [1999 c.649 §19]
Note: See note under 109.701.
Notes of Decisions
Matter of Marriage of Medill, 40 P.3d 1087 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
· cites it 26× “the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or *1095 person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; "(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Campbell v. Tardio, 323 P.3d 317 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “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; “(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subsection (l)(a) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. M. H., 300 P.3d 1262 (Or. Ct. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “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; “(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subsection (l)(a) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Mayfield & Mayfield, 474 P.3d 454 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
· cites it 10× “744(1)(a), on the basis that the chil- dren do not have a significant connection with Oregon and that substantial evi- dence is no longer available in Oregon, and second, under ORS 109.761, on the basis that Oregon is an inconvenient forum and that Washington is a more appro-…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. A. G., 344 Or. App. 511 (Or. Ct. App. 2025).
· cites it 2× “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; “(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Dept. of Human Servs. v. J. S., 303 Or. App. 324 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“See ORS 109.761 (pro- viding that, if an Oregon court has initial-custody jurisdic- tion but decides that a court of another state is a more appro- priate forum, the Oregon court “shall stay the proceedings Cite as 303 Or App 324 (2020) 337 upon condition that a child custody…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. G. G., 229 P.3d 621 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“One purpose of the UCCJEA is to grant Oregon temporary emergency jurisdiction to protect a child in this state. ORS 109.751. Another purpose of the UCCJEA is to determine whether this state is an inconvenient forum and whether another state is a more appropriate forum.”
Espinoza v. Evergreen Helicopters, Inc., 337 P.3d 169 (Or. Ct. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “110(l)(c), and when, in a child custody case, the court determines “that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum,” ORS 109.761. Because the legislature has not adopted a more broadly applicable…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. R. M. S., 383 P.3d 417 (Or. Ct. App. 2016).
· cites it 2× “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; *809 “(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subsection (l)(a) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Snow v. Snow, 74 P.3d 1137 (Or. Ct. App. 2003).
“744 or that a court of this state would be amore 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.”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. T.F. (In re M.L.F.), 425 P.3d 480 (Or. Ct. App. 2018).
· cites it 2× “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; "(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Dep't of Human Servs. v. S. C. S., 290 P.3d 903 (Or. Ct. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “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; “(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subsection (l)(a) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.761(1) — 5 cases
Dep't of Human Servs. v. G. G., 229 P.3d 621 (Or. Ct. App. 2010).
“One purpose of the UCCJEA is to grant Oregon temporary emergency jurisdiction to protect a child in this state. ORS 109.751. Another purpose of the UCCJEA is to determine whether this state is an inconvenient forum and whether another state is a more appropriate forum.”
Mayfield & Mayfield, 474 P.3d 454 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“744(1)(a), on the basis that the chil- dren do not have a significant connection with Oregon and that substantial evi- dence is no longer available in Oregon, and second, under ORS 109.761, on the basis that Oregon is an inconvenient forum and that Washington is a more appro-…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.761(2) — 1 case
Mayfield & Mayfield, 474 P.3d 454 (Or. Ct. App. 2020).
“744(1)(a), on the basis that the chil- dren do not have a significant connection with Oregon and that substantial evi- dence is no longer available in Oregon, and second, under ORS 109.761, on the basis that Oregon is an inconvenient forum and that Washington is a more appro-…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.761(2)(b) — 1 case
Matter of Marriage of Medill, 40 P.3d 1087 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or *1095 person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; "(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 109.761(2)(g) — 1 case
Matter of Marriage of Medill, 40 P.3d 1087 (Or. Ct. App. 2002).
“the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or *1095 person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; "(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
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.