ORS 109.741¹
Initial child custody jurisdiction

(1) Except as otherwise provided in ORS 109.751 (Temporary emergency jurisdiction), a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination only if:

(a) This state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or 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;

(b) A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under subsection (1)(a) of this section, 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 ORS 109.761 (Inconvenient forum) or 109.764 (Jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct), 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;

(c) All courts having jurisdiction under subsection (1)(a) or (b) of this section 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 ORS 109.761 (Inconvenient forum) or 109.764 (Jurisdiction declined by reason of conduct); or

(d) No court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in subsection (1)(a), (b) or (c) of this section.

(2) Subsection (1) of this section is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child custody determination by a court of this state.

(3) Physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child custody determination. [1999 c.649 §13]

Note: See note under 109.701 (Short title).

Law Review Cita­tions

80 OLR 301 (2001)

Note

Subject sec­tions all sub­se­quently repealed

Notes of Decisions

Habeas corpus is permissible pro­ce­dure to enforce custody decrees in conjunc­tion with these sec­tions. State ex rel Butler v. Morgan, 34 Or App 393, 578 P2d 814 (1978)

Long-term abduc­tion of child can result in jurisdic­tion vesting in state where child is located. Grubs v. Ross, 291 Or 263, 630 P2d 353 (1981)

In abduc­tion cases, jurisdic­tion of decree state continues for reasonable period of time following abduc­tion. Grubs v. Ross, 291 Or 263, 630 P2d 353 (1981)

Where Oregon court rendered original decree and had continuing jurisdic­tion, court was not re­quired to defer to court of an­oth­er state where modifica­tion was already pending. Fenn and Fenn, 63 Or App 506, 664 P2d 1143 (1983)

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdic­tion Act did not apply to paternity ac­tion, because ac­tion was not "custody determina­tion" for purposes of UCCJA. State ex rel Baldwin v. Hale, 86 Or App 361, 738 P2d 1016 (1987)

Filing of peti­tion under Revised Uniform Reciprocal Enforce­ment of Support Act that included request for determina­tion of custody and visita­tion could not confer jurisdic­tion by con­sent where Uniform Child Custody Jurisdic­tion Act jurisdic­tional require­ments were not met. State ex rel State of Washington v. Bue, 117 Or App 477, 844 P2d 278 (1992)

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdic­tion Act applies to adop­tion pro­ceed­ings. State ex rel Torres v. Mason, 315 Or 386, 848 P2d 592 (1993)

Where supple­mental pleading alleges con­duct that could not have been alleged in initial peti­tion, other than new jurisdic­tional basis, jurisdic­tion is measured from time filing of supple­mental pleading commences ac­tion. Stubbs v. Weathersby, 320 Or 620, 892 P2d 991 (1995)

Except in unusual circumstances, Oregon law applies to issues arising out of adop­tion peti­tion properly filed in Oregon, including ques­tions of con­sent signed in an­oth­er state. Stubbs v. Weathersby, 320 Or 620, 892 P2d 991 (1995)

Federal Parental Kidnaping Preven­tion Act preempts state law with regard to modifica­tion of foreign state decrees. Henry and Keppel, 326 Or 166, 951 P2d 135 (1997)

Law Review Cita­tions

12 WLJ 629-641 (1976)

Chapter 109

Law Review Cita­tions

12 WLJ 569-589 (1976)

1 Legislative Counsel Committee, CHAPTER 109—Parent and Child Rights and Relationships, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­109.­html (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
2 Legislative Counsel Committee, Annotations to the Oregon Revised Stat­utes, Cumulative Supplement - 2007, Chapter 109, https://­www.­oregonlegislature.­gov/­bills_laws/­ors/­109ano.­htm (2007) (last ac­cessed Feb. 12, 2009).
 
3 OregonLaws.org assembles these lists by analyzing references between Sections. Each listed item refers back to the current Section in its own text. The result reveals relationships in the code that may not have otherwise been apparent. Currency Information