Arizona Laws 25-1037. Inconvenient forum
A. 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.
Terms Used In Arizona Laws 25-1037
- Action: includes any matter or proceeding in a court, civil or criminal. See Arizona Laws 1-215
- Court: means an entity authorized under the law of a state to establish, enforce or modify a child custody determination. See Arizona Laws 25-1002
- Evidence: Information presented in testimony or in documents that is used to persuade the fact finder (judge or jury) to decide the case for one side or the other.
- including: means not limited to and is not a term of exclusion. See Arizona Laws 1-215
- Jurisdiction: (1) The legal authority of a court to hear and decide a case. Concurrent jurisdiction exists when two courts have simultaneous responsibility for the same case. (2) The geographic area over which the court has authority to decide cases.
- Litigation: A case, controversy, or lawsuit. Participants (plaintiffs and defendants) in lawsuits are called litigants.
- State: means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. See Arizona Laws 25-1002
- Testimony: Evidence presented orally by witnesses during trials or before grand juries.
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.
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 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.
D. A court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this chapter 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.