Neb. Rev. Stat. § 43-1244 — NE Code / Chapter 43 / Section 43-1244
View Statute 43-1244
Status: in_force

(a) A court of this state which has jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act 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 the request of another court.

(b) 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:

(1) whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;

(2) the length of time the child has resided outside this state;

(3) the distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;

(4) the relative financial circumstances of the parties;

(5) any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;

(6) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;

(7) the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and

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

(c) 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.

(d) A court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under the act if a child custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding.

Laws 2003, LB 148, § 19.

When North Dakota made the initial child custody determination concerning a child in the parents' divorce, exclusive and continuing jurisdiction remained with that court under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, either until a determination was made under subsection (a) of section 43-1239 or until the court declined to exercise jurisdiction under this section on the basis of being an inconvenient forum. In re Interest of Kirsten H., 25 Neb. App. 909, 915 N.W.2d 815 (2018).

When North Dakota made the initial child custody determination concerning a child in the parents' divorce, exclusive and continuing jurisdiction remained with that court under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, either until a determination was made under subsection (a) of section 43-1239 or until the court declined to exercise jurisdiction under this section on the basis of being an inconvenient forum. In re Interest of Kirsten H., 25 Neb. App. 909, 915 N.W.2d 815 (2018).

Exclusive and continuing jurisdiction remains with the district court under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act either until jurisdiction is lost under section 43-1239(a) or until the court declines to exercise jurisdiction under this section on the basis of being an inconvenient forum. Floerchinger v. Floerchinger, 24 Neb. App. 120, 883 N.W.2d 419 (2016).

Exclusive and continuing jurisdiction remains with the district court under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act either until jurisdiction is lost under section 43-1239(a) or until the court declines to exercise jurisdiction under this section on the basis of being an inconvenient forum. Floerchinger v. Floerchinger, 24 Neb. App. 120, 883 N.W.2d 419 (2016).

Overruling a motion to decline jurisdiction under this section as an inconvenient forum does not affect a substantial right and is not a final, appealable order. Meadows v. Meadows, 18 Neb. App. 333, 789 N.W.2d 519 (2010).

Overruling a motion to decline jurisdiction under this section as an inconvenient forum does not affect a substantial right and is not a final, appealable order. Meadows v. Meadows, 18 Neb. App. 333, 789 N.W.2d 519 (2010).