A. The general purposes of this act are to:
1. Avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody that have in the past resulted in the shifting of children from state to state with harmful effects on their well-being;
2. Promote cooperation with the courts of other states to the end that a custody decree is rendered in that state that can best decide the case in the interest of the child;
3. Ensure that litigation concerning the custody of a child take place ordinarily in the state with which the child and his family have the closest connection and where significant evidence concerning his care, protection, training, and personal relationships is most readily available, and that courts of this state decline the exercise of jurisdiction when the child and his family have a closer connection with another state;
4. Discourage continuing controversies over child custody in the interest of greater stability of home environment and of secure family relationships for the child;
5. Deter abductions and other unilateral removals of children undertaken to obtain custody awards;
6. Avoid relitigation of custody decisions of other states in this Commonwealth insofar as feasible;
7. Facilitate the enforcement of custody decrees of other states;
8. Promote and expand the exchange of information and other forms of mutual assistance between the courts of this Commonwealth and those of other states concerned with the same child; and
9. Make uniform the law of those states that enact it.
B. This act shall be construed to promote the general purposes stated in this section.
2001, c. 305.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2004–2024 · 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 2× “” Code § 20-146.38(A)(9). 8 . In light of this resolution, we need not address father's alternative contention that the trial court erred, under Code § 20-146.”
Swalef v. Anderson, 646 S.E.2d 458 (Va. Ct. App. 2007).
· cites it 2× “13(A); see Code § 20-146.38 (listing the purposes of the Act); see also Middleton v.”
Soudabeh White v. Malcolm White (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
· cites it 4× “Code § 20-146.38(A) states that the UCCJEA’s general purposes include “[a]void[ing] jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody”; “[p]romot[ing] cooperation with the courts of other states”; “[a]void[ing] relitigation of…”
Alison Helena Moroney v. Kelly Lynn Majerus (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 2× “” Code § 20-146.38(A). Under the UCCJEA, Virginia courts may not exercise jurisdiction over a child custody matter if such a proceeding has already commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA.”
Foster v. Foster, 664 S.E.2d 525 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” Code § 20-146.38(A)(l),(2). 2 . "Home state” is defined in the UCCJEA as "the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.”
Andrea Catherine Williams Key v. James Darren Key, II (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
“” (emphasis added)); Code § 20-146.38(A)(3) (noting Act’s goal is to hold proceeding “in the state with which the child and his family have the closest connection and where significant evidence concerning his case, ________________________ may be made in the same manner as…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-146.38(A) — 2 cases
Alison Helena Moroney v. Kelly Lynn Majerus (Va. Ct. App. 2024).
“” Code § 20-146.38(A). Under the UCCJEA, Virginia courts may not exercise jurisdiction over a child custody matter if such a proceeding has already commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction in substantial conformity with the UCCJEA.”
Soudabeh White v. Malcolm White (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
“Code § 20-146.38(A) states that the UCCJEA’s general purposes include “[a]void[ing] jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody”; “[p]romot[ing] cooperation with the courts of other states”; “[a]void[ing] relitigation of…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-146.38(A)(3) — 1 case
Andrea Catherine Williams Key v. James Darren Key, II (Va. Ct. App. 2004).
“” (emphasis added)); Code § 20-146.38(A)(3) (noting Act’s goal is to hold proceeding “in the state with which the child and his family have the closest connection and where significant evidence concerning his case, ________________________ may be made in the same manner as…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-146.38(A)(9) — 1 case
Tyszcenko v. Donatelli, 670 S.E.2d 49 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“” Code § 20-146.38(A)(9). 8 . In light of this resolution, we need not address father's alternative contention that the trial court erred, under Code § 20-146.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-146.38(A)(l) — 1 case
Foster v. Foster, 664 S.E.2d 525 (Va. Ct. App. 2008).
“” Code § 20-146.38(A)(l),(2). 2 . "Home state” is defined in the UCCJEA as "the state in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 20-146.38(B) — 1 case
Soudabeh White v. Malcolm White (Va. Ct. App. 2015).
“Code § 20-146.38(A) states that the UCCJEA’s general purposes include “[a]void[ing] jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody”; “[p]romot[ing] cooperation with the courts of other states”; “[a]void[ing] relitigation of…”
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.