Opinion ID: 1350743
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Appropriate forum

Text: The superior court refused to designate an alternative forum to hear Clyde's petition to modify the custody decree. Clyde argues that the superior court must designate an alternative forum when the court sua sponte declines jurisdiction on the ground of inconvenient forum. [4] The superior court may decline jurisdiction if it is an inconvenient forum and the court of another state is a more appropriate forum. AS 25.30.060(e). The court may communicate with the court of another state before declining jurisdiction to assure a forum will be available to the parties. AS 25.30.060(d)-(e). [5] The trial court concluded that subsections (d) and (e) do not require the court to designate an appropriate forum. The court found that Colorado, Arizona or both had a closer connection with the child and the custodial parent. The UCCJA is intended to facilitate cooperation between jurisdictions so the appropriate forum decides custody issues. [6] Cf. Rexford v. Rexford, 631 P.2d 475, 479 (Alaska 1980) (proper to stay proceedings and communicate with California court). We conclude that when a court declines to exercise its jurisdiction by its own motion, it must designate a specific state which will assume jurisdiction. This is necessary so that the trial court will not dismiss a case when there is no court of another state available which is more convenient and able to assert jurisdiction. The trial court abused its discretion in failing to designate an alternative forum. [7] This is especially true since it is not clear from the record whether another state could have exercised jurisdiction in accordance with the UCCJA, given the conflicting evidence concerning Vicki's residency.