A court which has jurisdiction under this subchapter to make an initial or modification decree may decline to exercise its jurisdiction any time before making a decree if it finds that it is an inconvenient forum to make a custody determination under the circumstances of the case and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. In determining if it is an inconvenient forum, the court shall consider if it is in the interest of the child that another state assume jurisdiction. 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 exercised by the more appropriate court and that a forum will be available to the parties. If the court finds that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, it may dismiss the proceedings, or it may stay the proceedings upon condition that a custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another named state, or upon any other conditions which may be just and proper, including the condition that a moving party stipulate his consent and submission to the jurisdiction of the other forum. The court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this subchapter if a custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding while retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceedings.
Payment is to be made to the clerk of the court for remittance to the proper party.
Any communication received from another state informing this state of a finding of inconvenient forum because a court of this state is the more appropriate forum shall be filed in the custody registry of the appropriate court. Upon assuming jurisdiction, the court of this state shall inform the original court of this fact. In Snisky , supra , an Arkansas chancellor declined to exercise continuing jurisdiction over a custody issue, deferring to a Texas court that was the current home state of the child. We found no abuse of discretion. We likewise find none in this case.