Wis. Stat. » CHAPTER 822 — UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT
Wisconsin Statutes

Wis. Stat. § 822.07 (2026)

Priority

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
822.07822.07 Priority. If a question of existence or exercise of jurisdiction under this chapter is raised in a child custody proceeding, the question, upon request of a party, shall be given priority on the calendar and handled expeditiously.
822.07 HistoryHistory: 2005 a. 130.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 12 cases, 1979–2003 · leading case: Mayer v. Mayer, 283 N.W.2d 591 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Mayer v. Mayer, 283 N.W.2d 591 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). · cites it 30× “Nancy argues that sec. 822.07, Stats., controls. Section 822.”
In Interest of AEH, 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). · cites it 16× “], [19] priority in time determines which court will proceed with the action, but the application of the *312 inconvenient forum principle of section 7 [sec. 822.07, Stats.] may result in the handling of the case by the other court.”
Vorpahl v. Lee, 298 N.W.2d 222 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 12× “Section 822.07 (3) (a) requires the trial court to consider whether another state is or recently was the child’s home state.”
Tammie J.C. v. Robert T.R., 2003 WI 61 (Wis. 2003). · cites it 4× “Section 822.07 also allows an out-of-state party to move the court to dismiss the action on the grounds of inconvenient forum.”
P.C. v. C.C., 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). · cites it 17× “See sec. 822.07, Stats. 17 In both situations the UCCJA calls for *308 the court of the forum state to communicate with the court of the other state and exchange information to the *309 end that the issue is litigated in the more appropriate forum.”
In Re Marriage of Davidson v. Davidson, 485 N.W.2d 450 (Wis. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “233-34 [sec. 822.07, Stats.]. The court must always act in the best interest of the child.”
Teague v. Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 2000 WI 79 (Wis. 2000). “§ 822.07(4) states: *405 Before determining whether to decline or retain jurisdiction the court may communicate with a court of another state and exchange information pertinent to the assumption of jurisdiction by either court with a view to assuring that jurisdiction will be…”
In Matter of Custody of RJG, 321 N.W.2d 354 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982). · cites it 3× “The court may also decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it is an inconvenient forum for any of the reasons listed in sec. 822.07, Stats. The court considered each of these factors 8 when exercising its discretion under this *713 section.”
Paula M. S. v. Neal A. R., 593 N.W.2d 486 (Wis. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 2× “The Act attempts to fulfill these goals by promoting cooperation and the exchange of information among the courts of various states to ensure that custody decisions are litigated in the state best equipped to determine the best interests of the child.”
Colby v. Colby, 306 N.W.2d 57 (Wis. 1981). “Such notice is provided for in sec. 822.07(4), Stats. 2 While *201 the statute states the court may communicate with another state’s court in determining jurisdiction, and here the guardian ad litem wrote to the Arizona court, the statutory purpose was fulfilled in that the…”
J.W. v. M.W.G., 426 N.W.2d 112 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “*311 The father also argues that even if the court had jurisdiction, it erred by denying his motion requesting the court to decline jurisdiction pursuant to sec. 822.07, Stats., on the grounds that Wisconsin is an inconvenient forum.”
In Re Paternity of JLV, 426 N.W.2d 112 (Wis. Ct. App. 1988). “*311 [2, 3] The father also argues that even if the court had jurisdiction, it erred by denying his motion requesting the court to decline jurisdiction pursuant to sec. 822.07, Stats., on the grounds that Wisconsin is an inconvenient forum.”
— Wis. Stat. § 822.07(1) — 2 cases
Vorpahl v. Lee, 298 N.W.2d 222 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “Section 822.07 (3) (a) requires the trial court to consider whether another state is or recently was the child’s home state.”
Mayer v. Mayer, 283 N.W.2d 591 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). “Nancy argues that sec. 822.07, Stats., controls. Section 822.”
— Wis. Stat. § 822.07(3) — 5 cases
Mayer v. Mayer, 283 N.W.2d 591 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). “Nancy argues that sec. 822.07, Stats., controls. Section 822.”
Vorpahl v. Lee, 298 N.W.2d 222 (Wis. Ct. App. 1980). “Section 822.07 (3) (a) requires the trial court to consider whether another state is or recently was the child’s home state.”
In Interest of AEH, 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). “], [19] priority in time determines which court will proceed with the action, but the application of the *312 inconvenient forum principle of section 7 [sec. 822.07, Stats.] may result in the handling of the case by the other court.”
P.C. v. C.C., 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). “See sec. 822.07, Stats. 17 In both situations the UCCJA calls for *308 the court of the forum state to communicate with the court of the other state and exchange information to the *309 end that the issue is litigated in the more appropriate forum.”
In Matter of Custody of RJG, 321 N.W.2d 354 (Wis. Ct. App. 1982). “The court may also decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it is an inconvenient forum for any of the reasons listed in sec. 822.07, Stats. The court considered each of these factors 8 when exercising its discretion under this *713 section.”
— Wis. Stat. § 822.07(3)(a) — 2 cases
In Interest of AEH, 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). “], [19] priority in time determines which court will proceed with the action, but the application of the *312 inconvenient forum principle of section 7 [sec. 822.07, Stats.] may result in the handling of the case by the other court.”
P.C. v. C.C., 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). “See sec. 822.07, Stats. 17 In both situations the UCCJA calls for *308 the court of the forum state to communicate with the court of the other state and exchange information to the *309 end that the issue is litigated in the more appropriate forum.”
— Wis. Stat. § 822.07(3)(b) — 2 cases
In Interest of AEH, 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). “], [19] priority in time determines which court will proceed with the action, but the application of the *312 inconvenient forum principle of section 7 [sec. 822.07, Stats.] may result in the handling of the case by the other court.”
P.C. v. C.C., 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). “See sec. 822.07, Stats. 17 In both situations the UCCJA calls for *308 the court of the forum state to communicate with the court of the other state and exchange information to the *309 end that the issue is litigated in the more appropriate forum.”
— Wis. Stat. § 822.07(3)(c) — 1 case
In Interest of AEH, 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). “], [19] priority in time determines which court will proceed with the action, but the application of the *312 inconvenient forum principle of section 7 [sec. 822.07, Stats.] may result in the handling of the case by the other court.”
— Wis. Stat. § 822.07(3)(d) — 2 cases
In Interest of AEH, 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). “], [19] priority in time determines which court will proceed with the action, but the application of the *312 inconvenient forum principle of section 7 [sec. 822.07, Stats.] may result in the handling of the case by the other court.”
P.C. v. C.C., 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). “See sec. 822.07, Stats. 17 In both situations the UCCJA calls for *308 the court of the forum state to communicate with the court of the other state and exchange information to the *309 end that the issue is litigated in the more appropriate forum.”
— Wis. Stat. § 822.07(3)(e) — 2 cases
In Interest of AEH, 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). “], [19] priority in time determines which court will proceed with the action, but the application of the *312 inconvenient forum principle of section 7 [sec. 822.07, Stats.] may result in the handling of the case by the other court.”
P.C. v. C.C., 468 N.W.2d 190 (Wis. 1991). “See sec. 822.07, Stats. 17 In both situations the UCCJA calls for *308 the court of the forum state to communicate with the court of the other state and exchange information to the *309 end that the issue is litigated in the more appropriate forum.”
— Wis. Stat. § 822.07(4) — 2 cases
Teague v. Bad River Band of the Lake Superior Tribe of Chippewa Indians, 2000 WI 79 (Wis. 2000). “§ 822.07(4) states: *405 Before determining whether to decline or retain jurisdiction the court may communicate with a court of another state and exchange information pertinent to the assumption of jurisdiction by either court with a view to assuring that jurisdiction will be…”
Colby v. Colby, 306 N.W.2d 57 (Wis. 1981). “Such notice is provided for in sec. 822.07(4), Stats. 2 While *201 the statute states the court may communicate with another state’s court in determining jurisdiction, and here the guardian ad litem wrote to the Arizona court, the statutory purpose was fulfilled in that the…”
— Wis. Stat. § 822.07(6) — 1 case
Mayer v. Mayer, 283 N.W.2d 591 (Wis. Ct. App. 1979). “Nancy argues that sec. 822.07, Stats., controls. Section 822.”
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.