§ 50A-207. Inconvenient forum.

§ 50A‑207.  Inconvenientforum.

(a)        A court of thisState which has jurisdiction under this Article to make a child‑custodydetermination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if itdetermines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances, and that acourt of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of inconvenientforum may be raised upon motion of a party, the court's own motion, or requestof another court.

(b)        Before determiningwhether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this State shall considerwhether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercisejurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submitinformation and shall consider all relevant factors, including:

(1)        Whether domesticviolence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which statecould best protect the parties and the child;

(2)        The length of timethe child has resided outside this State;

(3)        The distance betweenthe court in this State and the court in the state that would assumejurisdiction;

(4)        The relativefinancial circumstances of the parties;

(5)        Any agreement of theparties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;

(6)        The nature andlocation of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, includingtestimony of the child;

(7)        The ability of thecourt of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the proceduresnecessary to present the evidence; and

(8)        The familiarity ofthe court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.

(c)        If a court of thisState determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of anotherstate is a more appropriate forum, it shall stay the proceedings upon conditionthat a child‑custody proceeding be promptly commenced in anotherdesignated state and may impose any other condition the court considers justand proper.

(d)        A court of thisState may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this Article if a child‑custodydetermination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceedingwhile still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding. (1979,c. 110, s. 1; 1999‑223, s. 3.)