Iowa Code 598B.207 – Inconvenient forum
Current as of: 2024 | Check for updates
|
Other versions
Terms Used In Iowa Code 598B.207
- Child: includes child by adoption. See Iowa Code 4.1
- 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.
- following: when used by way of reference to a chapter or other part of a statute mean the next preceding or next following chapter or other part. See Iowa Code 4.1
- 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: when applied to the different parts of the United States, includes the District of Columbia and the territories, and the words "United States" may include the said district and territories. See Iowa Code 4.1
- Testimony: Evidence presented orally by witnesses during trials or before grand juries.
598B.207 Inconvenient forum.
1. A court of this state which 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 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 all of the following:
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.
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 chapter if a child-custody determination is incidental to an action for dissolution of marriage or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the dissolution of marriage or other proceeding.
99 Acts, ch 103, §19
Referred to in §598B.201, 598B.203, 598B.206, 598B.208
1. A court of this state which 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 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 all of the following:
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.
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 chapter if a child-custody determination is incidental to an action for dissolution of marriage or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the dissolution of marriage or other proceeding.
99 Acts, ch 103, §19
Referred to in §598B.201, 598B.203, 598B.206, 598B.208