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

Wis. Stat. § 822.26 (2026)

Simultaneous proceedings

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WI-LEGdocs.legis.wisconsin.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
822.26822.26 Simultaneous proceedings.
822.26(1)(1) Except as provided in s. 822.24, a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction under this subchapter if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child has been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this chapter, unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 822.27.
822.26(2)(2) Except as provided in s. 822.24, a court of this state, before hearing a child custody proceeding, shall examine the court documents and other information supplied by the parties under s. 822.29. If the court determines that a child custody proceeding has been commenced in a court in another state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this chapter, the court of this state shall stay its proceeding and communicate with the court of the other state. If the court of the state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this chapter does not determine that the court of this state is a more appropriate forum, the court of this state shall dismiss the proceeding.
822.26(3)(3) In a proceeding to modify a child custody determination, a court of this state shall determine whether a proceeding to enforce the determination has been commenced in another state. If a proceeding to enforce a child custody determination has been commenced in another state, the court may do any of the following:
822.26(3)(a)(a) Stay the proceeding for modification pending the entry of an order of a court of the other state enforcing, staying, denying, or dismissing the proceeding for enforcement.
822.26(3)(b)(b) Enjoin the parties from continuing with the proceeding for enforcement.
822.26(3)(c)(c) Proceed with the modification under conditions it considers appropriate.
822.26 HistoryHistory: 2005 a. 130.
822.26 AnnotationAn Indian tribal court custody order is given full force and effect under the doctrine of comity. Sengstock v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 165 Wis. 2d 86, 477 N.W.2d 310 (Ct. App. 1991).
822.26 NoteNOTE: The above annotation cites to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, the predecessor statute to the current Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 2007–2025 · leading case: In Re Custody of Kalbes, 2007 WI App 136 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
In Re Custody of Kalbes, 2007 WI App 136 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 22× “§ 822.26, which has rules expressly dealing with simultaneous proceedings.”
In re A. P., 928 N.W.2d 813 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). · cites it 9× “§ 822.26(2), which provides: Except as provided in s.”
Rosa Albina Rodriguez Vargas v. Jorge Isael Nolla (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 5× “§ 822.26 (2023-24).1 Vargas argues that the court erred in concluding that Mexico has primary jurisdiction based on the child’s father, Jorge Isael Nolla, having filed his custody petition in Mexico before Vargas petitioned the Wisconsin court.”
Emma Ekstrand v. Maxsonn Marsh (Wis. Ct. App. 2021). “§ 822.26. The court therefore stayed the proceedings and conducted an on-the-record conversation with the North Dakota judge to determine whether North Dakota would accept jurisdiction.”
— Wis. Stat. § 822.26(1) — 2 cases
In Re Custody of Kalbes, 2007 WI App 136 (Wis. Ct. App. 2007). “§ 822.26, which has rules expressly dealing with simultaneous proceedings.”
Rosa Albina Rodriguez Vargas v. Jorge Isael Nolla (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 822.26 (2023-24).1 Vargas argues that the court erred in concluding that Mexico has primary jurisdiction based on the child’s father, Jorge Isael Nolla, having filed his custody petition in Mexico before Vargas petitioned the Wisconsin court.”
— Wis. Stat. § 822.26(2) — 2 cases
In re A. P., 928 N.W.2d 813 (Wis. Ct. App. 2019). “§ 822.26(2), which provides: Except as provided in s.”
Rosa Albina Rodriguez Vargas v. Jorge Isael Nolla (Wis. Ct. App. 2025). “§ 822.26 (2023-24).1 Vargas argues that the court erred in concluding that Mexico has primary jurisdiction based on the child’s father, Jorge Isael Nolla, having filed his custody petition in Mexico before Vargas petitioned the Wisconsin court.”
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.