Wyoming Statutes

Wyo. Stat. § 20-5-302 (2026)

Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section WY-LEGwyoleg.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Except as provided in W.S. 20-5-304, a court of this
state which has made a child custody determination consistent
with W.S. 20-5-301 or 20-5-303 has exclusive, continuing
jurisdiction over the determination until:

          (i) A court of this state determines that the child,
the child's parents and any person acting as a parent do not
have a significant connection with this state and that
substantial evidence is no longer available in this state
concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal
relationships; or
          (ii) A court of this state or a court of another
state determines that the child, the child's parents and any
person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this state.

     (b) A court of this state which has made a child custody
determination and does not have exclusive, continuing
jurisdiction under this section may modify that determination
only if it has jurisdiction to make an initial determination
under W.S. 20-5-301.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2022 · leading case: Prickett v. Prickett, 2007 WY 153 (Wyo. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Prickett v. Prickett, 2007 WY 153 (Wyo. 2007). · cites it 10× “Because the divorce decree originated in Wyoming, the district court must initially determine if it retains exclusive, continuing jurisdiction pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-302 . If the court concludes that it has jurisdiction, it must then decide whether it should decline…”

Boyd Van Fleet v. Marceline A. Guyette, 2020 WY 78 (Wyo. 2020). · cites it 3× “See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-302 (a)(i). 3. [Mother and the child] do not reside, and they have not recently resided, in this State since December 11, 2016.”

Waldron v. Waldron, 349 P.3d 974 (Wyo. 2015). · cites it 3× “6 He also suggested that the court's exclusive continuing jurisdiction under Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 20-5-302 precluded it from resorting to the forum non convemiens provisions of Wyo.”

Brett L. Ruiz v. Phoenix A. Fribourg, 2022 WY 157 (Wyo. 2022). · cites it 5× “Both courts agreed Wyoming maintained continuing jurisdiction under Wyoming Statute § 20-5-302 (LexisNexis 2019), and Wyoming was not an inconvenient forum under Wyoming Statute § 20-5-307 (LexisNexis 2019).”

Michael G. Hays v. Shanna Hays, 49 N.E.3d 1030 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016). “at 167-68 (citing Wyo. Stat. Ann. §§ 20-5-302 , - 307). Then, in September 2011, Father filed a petition for modification of child custody and visitation in a Wisconsin court.”

— Wyo. Stat. § 20-5-302(a) — 1 case

Brett L. Ruiz v. Phoenix A. Fribourg, 2022 WY 157 (Wyo. 2022). “Both courts agreed Wyoming maintained continuing jurisdiction under Wyoming Statute § 20-5-302 (LexisNexis 2019), and Wyoming was not an inconvenient forum under Wyoming Statute § 20-5-307 (LexisNexis 2019).”

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.