Wash. Rev. Code » Title 26 · Chapter 26.27
Revised Code of Washington

Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.261 (2026)

Inconvenient forum

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A court of this state which has jurisdiction under this chapter 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 motion of a party, the court's own motion, or request of another court.
(2) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state 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 this chapter if a child custody determination is incidental to an action for dissolution or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the dissolution or other proceeding.
[ 2001 c 65 s 207.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 24 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2004–2026 · leading case: In re the Marriage of McDermott, 307 P.3d 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In re the Marriage of McDermott, 307 P.3d 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 3× “e 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; (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under (a) of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Ruff v. Knickerbocker, 275 P.3d 1175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 5× “e 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; (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under (a) of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
In Re Custody of AC, 200 P.3d 689 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 2× “211 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under RCW 26.27.261; 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.”
Nagel v. Cork, 165 Wash. 2d 568 (Wash. 2009). · cites it 2× “211 or that *575 a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under RCW 26.27.261; 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.”
In re the Marriage of Hamilton, 84 P.3d 259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “continues to live in this state; (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under (a) 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 RCW 26.27.261…”
In Re Marriage of Hamilton, 84 P.3d 259 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 3× “continues to live in this state; "(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under (a) 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 RCW 26.27.261…”
In Re Parentage, Parenting, & Support of Arkk, 174 P.3d 160 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “¶ 22 The UCCJEA does indeed address the problems faced by parents who flee domestic violence across state lines, and permits a state to decline jurisdiction if the court determines it is an inconvenient forum and a court of another state is more appropriate.”
In Re Custody of AC, 153 P.3d 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.27.261 provides that a Washington court may decline jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum and a court in another state is a more appropriate forum.”
David N. v. Holly Marie C., 137 Wash. App. 245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “RCW 26.27.261 provides that a Washington court may decline jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum and a court in another state is a more appropriate forum.”
Klein v. Kelly, 142 Wash. App. 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “This argument is misdirected. ¶22 The UCCJEA does indeed address the problems faced by parents who flee domestic violence across state lines and permits a state to decline jurisdiction if the court determines it is an inconvenient forum and a court of another state is more…”
In re Long, 421 P.3d 989 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “e 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; (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under (a) of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
Tostado v. Tostado, 151 P.3d 1060 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “211 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under RCW 26.27.261; 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.”
Show all 24 citing cases →
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.261(1) — 10 cases
In re the Marriage of McDermott, 307 P.3d 717 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “e 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; (b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under (a) of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has…”
In Re Parentage, Parenting, & Support of Arkk, 174 P.3d 160 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “¶ 22 The UCCJEA does indeed address the problems faced by parents who flee domestic violence across state lines, and permits a state to decline jurisdiction if the court determines it is an inconvenient forum and a court of another state is more appropriate.”
In Re Custody of AC, 153 P.3d 203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 26.27.261 provides that a Washington court may decline jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum and a court in another state is a more appropriate forum.”
David N. v. Holly Marie C., 137 Wash. App. 245 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “RCW 26.27.261 provides that a Washington court may decline jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum and a court in another state is a more appropriate forum.”
Klein v. Kelly, 142 Wash. App. 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “This argument is misdirected. ¶22 The UCCJEA does indeed address the problems faced by parents who flee domestic violence across state lines and permits a state to decline jurisdiction if the court determines it is an inconvenient forum and a court of another state is more…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.261(2) — 3 cases
Sergio E. Herrera v. Sandra Villaneda, 416 P.3d 733 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
In Re The Marriage Of Tomi L Ingersoll v. John P Ingersoll (Wash. Ct. App. 2019).
In Re The Marriage Of Tomi L Ingersoll v. John P Ingersoll (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.261(2)(a) — 2 cases
In Re Parentage, Parenting, & Support of Arkk, 174 P.3d 160 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “¶ 22 The UCCJEA does indeed address the problems faced by parents who flee domestic violence across state lines, and permits a state to decline jurisdiction if the court determines it is an inconvenient forum and a court of another state is more appropriate.”
Klein v. Kelly, 142 Wash. App. 297 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007). “This argument is misdirected. ¶22 The UCCJEA does indeed address the problems faced by parents who flee domestic violence across state lines and permits a state to decline jurisdiction if the court determines it is an inconvenient forum and a court of another state is more…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.261(2)(g) — 1 case
Sergey Y. Manashirov v. Alexandra R. Manashirova (Wash. Ct. App. 2020).
— Wash. Rev. Code § 26.27.261(3) — 1 case
Sergio E. Herrera v. Sandra Villaneda, 416 P.3d 733 (Wash. Ct. App. 2018).
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.