Inconvenient forum.§ 61.520
7 opinions cite § 61.520
-
Burgos v. Sequeira 2D2024-0385 · 2nd DCA 2024
…9, 2024, the trial court sua sponte issued an order relinquishing jurisdiction of this custody proceeding to the North Carolina court based on section 61.520(1), Florida Statutes (2024), ruling that North Carolina was a more convenient forum—no mention was made in the order to the Aunt's emergency or expedited…
-
K.I. v. Department of Children & Families 70 So. 3d 749 · 4D11-298 · 4th DCA 2011
· cited by 8 in all courts
Virginia's emergency jurisdiction and the inconvenient-forum transfer were upheld under the UCCJEA, but remand required because the mother got no notice of the Virginia hearing.
…if the court “determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.” § 61.520(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). 3 The transfer of a case from one jurisdiction to another on the ground of inconvenient forum may be raised in a motion from…
-
Department of Children & Families v. M.N. 199 So. 3d 452 · 3D16-1111 · 3rd DCA 2016
· cited by 2 in all courts
Order closing the case and informally transferring it to Puerto Rico reversed; Florida retained home-state jurisdiction and the court made no inconvenient-forum findings.
…Rico was warranted. A Florida trial court does have the ability to transfer a case when it determines that another forum is more convenient. Section 61.520, “Inconvenient Forum,” in subpart (1), permits a court of this state which has jurisdiction to decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines that it…
-
N.B. v. Dep't of Children of Families 274 So. 3d 1163 · 3D18-2525 · 3rd DCA 2019
Termination affirmed; Florida, the home state, properly exercised UCCJEA jurisdiction after California's emergency proceeding was transferred to Florida.
…... 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 s. 61.520."). We agree that, under the broad statutory definition promulgated in section 61.503(4), Florida Statutes (2018), the temporary emergency proceeding…
-
Baker v. Tunney 201 So. 3d 1235 · 5D15-4139 · 5th DCA 2016
· cited by 5 in all courts
…home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521, and: 1. The child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a…
-
Haugabook v. Jeffcoat-Hultberg 219 So. 3d 65 · 4D16-2951 · 4th DCA 2016
· cited by 4 in all courts
…and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.’ ” K.I. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 70 So.3d 749, 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting § 61.520(1), Fla. Stat. (2010)). However, an order declining to exercise jurisdiction requires the court to .follow specific statutory' procedures and consider^ ations. …
-
Johnson v. Johnson 88 So. 3d 335 · 2D11-1102 · 2nd DCA 2012
· cited by 3 in all courts
…two to avoid opposite outcomes). A dissolution action can, and usually does, subsume a child custody determination but the reverse does not hold true. See § 61.520(4) (providing that “[a] court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this part if a child custody determination is incidental to an action…
No opinion cites this provision by number.
0 admin code rules cite § 61.520
DCF's rules in Chapter 65C, Florida Administrative Code, that cite it or name it as the law they implement.
No admin code rule cites § 61.520.
0 CFOPs cite § 61.520
How DCF carries it out. A page opens in the CFOP reader with the citation highlighted.
No CFOP cites § 61.520.
Shading shows how often opinions cite each provision: rarely sometimes often most. Click a provision to list the opinions citing it.
(1) A court of this state which has jurisdiction under this part 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 request of another court.
(2) 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:
(a) Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;
(b) The length of time the child has resided outside this state;
(c) The distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;
(d) The relative financial circumstances of the parties;
(e) Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;
(f) The nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;
(g) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and
(h) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.
(3) 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.
(4) A court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this part 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.
History. s. 5, ch. 2002-65.