Anchorage Child Custody Jurisdiction Lawyer
Alaska decides whether or not it has jurisdiction (the power) to decide issues of child custody based on its version of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. This act has been passed in the same form in most states in the United States. The statute states that a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if:
(1) this state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding;
(2) this state was the home state of the child within six months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state;
(3) a court of another state does not have jurisdiction under provisions substantially similar to (1) or (2) of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under provisions substantially similar to AS 25.30.360 or 25.30.370, and
(A) the child and the child's parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence; and
(B) substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships;
(4) all courts having jurisdiction under the criteria specified in (1) - (3) of this subsection have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under provisions substantially similar to AS 25.30.360 or 25.30.370; or
(5) no court of another state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in (1) - (4) of this subsection.
The provisions of (a) of this section are the exclusive jurisdictional bases for making a child custody determination by a court of this state. Physical presence of or personal jurisdiction over a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child custody determination.
Except as otherwise provided in AS 25.30.330 , a court of this state may not exercise its jurisdiction under AS 25.30.300 - 25.30.390 if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child had been previously commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this chapter unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under provisions substantially similar to AS 25.30.360 .
A court of this state that has jurisdiction under this chapter 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 on motion of a party, the court's own motion, or request of another court.
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) an 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.
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 on 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. The decision to decline jurisdiction if the court is an inconvenient forum is a discretionary one. The relative hardship in appearing in non-local forums is a relevant consideration, the central focus of a forum non-conveniens inquiry is which forum is best in light of the child's best interests.
Contact Attorney Kenneth M. Wasche for a Free Initial Consultation
Consultations can be scheduled on-site at attorney Kenneth M. Wasche's Anchorage office or off-site as necessary. As a licensed pilot and member of the Alaska Airman's Association Mr. Wasche can visit many of Alaska's road inaccessible locations by air.
To schedule a free initial consultation with an Alaska family law lawyer, call 907-980-1223 or send an e-mail.
