A. A court of this Commonwealth that has jurisdiction under this 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 the motion of a party, the court's own motion, or request of another court.
B. Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this Commonwealth 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 present evidence 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 Commonwealth;
3. The distance between the court in this Commonwealth 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 Commonwealth 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 Commonwealth may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this 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.
1979, c. 229, § 20-130; 2001, c. 305.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
22
cases (
6 in the last 5 years), 2002–2026 · leading case:
Tyszcenko v. Donatelli, 670 S.E.2d 49 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
Tyszcenko v. Donatelli, 670 S.E.2d 49 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 36× “33(A) 4 because she prevailed on her motion under Code § 20-146.18 and because the requested attorney’s fees were not “clearly inappropriate.”
Prizzia v. Prizzia, 707 S.E.2d 461 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 33× “12(A)(l); and (2) the Virginia trial court did not decline to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the Hungarian court was the more appropriate forum in accordance with the requirements of Code § 20-146.18 or Code § 20-146.19. See Code § 20-146.”
Swalef v. Anderson, 646 S.E.2d 458 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 10× “4 Even assuming that Virginia has jurisdiction over the custody of these children, either under the Code or by application of full faith and credit to the Minnesota order, appellant’s argument fails because he misconstrues the ruling of the Minnesota Court and misunderstands…”
Prizzia v. Prizzia, 610 S.E.2d 326 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
· cites it 4× “Finally, husband contends that the trial court erred in limiting the evidence presented at the jurisdictional hearing, thereby violating Code § 20-146.18. Neither party initially addressed the issue of whether the order entered by the trial court was an appealable order pursuant…”
McNabb Ex Rel. Foshee v. McNabb, 65 P.3d 1068 (Kan. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 4× “38-1354; see also Va. Code Ann. § 20-146.18 McNabb argues that Virginia was the child’s home state under 38-1348(a) because the child lived there within 6 months before the commencement of the Virginia proceeding, and because the Virginia court elected to retain jurisdiction by…”
Andrea S. Morrison v. Adam Morrison, 704 S.E.2d 617 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“14 determines that this Commonwealth is a more appropriate forum under § 20-146.18; or 3. No court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in subsection B.”
Jones v. Davis, 87 Va. Cir. 126 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2013).
· cites it 33× “At the outset of the trial, Melissa Davis, by counsel, moved the Court, pursuant to Va. Code § 20-146.18, to decline to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis that the Roanoke Circuit Court is an inconvenient forum.”
Foster v. Foster, 664 S.E.2d 525 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 14× “On appeal of “a determination [of whether Virginia is an ‘inconvenient forum’] made pursuant to [Code § 20-146.18], we consider whether the [circuit] court abused its discretion in making its ruling.”
Mark Bennett & Lisa Bennett v. Elizabeth Ann Bennett-Smith (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 8× “On August 9, 2006, the Bennetts filed a motion asking the trial court to decline jurisdiction pursuant to Code § 20-146.18 on the ground that Virginia was an “inconvenient forum” under the UCCJEA.”
Linda Gail Headley v. Wendell Gary Jewell (Va. Ct. App. 2003).
· cites it 6× “Code § 20-146.18(A) provides: A court of this Commonwealth that has jurisdiction under this 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…”
J.M. v. A.A. (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subdivision 1, or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this Commonwealth is the more appropriate forum under § 20-146.18 or § 20-146.19, and (i) the child and the…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-146.18(A) — 8 cases
Tyszcenko v. Donatelli, 670 S.E.2d 49 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“33(A) 4 because she prevailed on her motion under Code § 20-146.18 and because the requested attorney’s fees were not “clearly inappropriate.”
Prizzia v. Prizzia, 707 S.E.2d 461 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“12(A)(l); and (2) the Virginia trial court did not decline to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the Hungarian court was the more appropriate forum in accordance with the requirements of Code § 20-146.18 or Code § 20-146.19. See Code § 20-146.”
Prizzia v. Prizzia, 610 S.E.2d 326 (Va. Ct. App. 2005).
“Finally, husband contends that the trial court erred in limiting the evidence presented at the jurisdictional hearing, thereby violating Code § 20-146.18. Neither party initially addressed the issue of whether the order entered by the trial court was an appealable order pursuant…”
Jones v. Davis, 87 Va. Cir. 126 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2013).
“At the outset of the trial, Melissa Davis, by counsel, moved the Court, pursuant to Va. Code § 20-146.18, to decline to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis that the Roanoke Circuit Court is an inconvenient forum.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-146.18(B) — 8 cases
Prizzia v. Prizzia, 707 S.E.2d 461 (Va. Ct. App. 2011).
“12(A)(l); and (2) the Virginia trial court did not decline to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the Hungarian court was the more appropriate forum in accordance with the requirements of Code § 20-146.18 or Code § 20-146.19. See Code § 20-146.”
Tyszcenko v. Donatelli, 670 S.E.2d 49 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“33(A) 4 because she prevailed on her motion under Code § 20-146.18 and because the requested attorney’s fees were not “clearly inappropriate.”
Swalef v. Anderson, 646 S.E.2d 458 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
“4 Even assuming that Virginia has jurisdiction over the custody of these children, either under the Code or by application of full faith and credit to the Minnesota order, appellant’s argument fails because he misconstrues the ruling of the Minnesota Court and misunderstands…”
Jones v. Davis, 87 Va. Cir. 126 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2013).
“At the outset of the trial, Melissa Davis, by counsel, moved the Court, pursuant to Va. Code § 20-146.18, to decline to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis that the Roanoke Circuit Court is an inconvenient forum.”
Foster v. Foster, 664 S.E.2d 525 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“On appeal of “a determination [of whether Virginia is an ‘inconvenient forum’] made pursuant to [Code § 20-146.18], we consider whether the [circuit] court abused its discretion in making its ruling.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-146.18(B)(2) — 1 case
Jones v. Davis, 87 Va. Cir. 126 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2013).
“At the outset of the trial, Melissa Davis, by counsel, moved the Court, pursuant to Va. Code § 20-146.18, to decline to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis that the Roanoke Circuit Court is an inconvenient forum.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-146.18(C) — 1 case
Jones v. Davis, 87 Va. Cir. 126 (Roanoke County Cir. Ct. 2013).
“At the outset of the trial, Melissa Davis, by counsel, moved the Court, pursuant to Va. Code § 20-146.18, to decline to exercise its jurisdiction on the basis that the Roanoke Circuit Court is 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.