ORS 109.761¹
Inconvenient forum

(1) A court of this state that has jurisdiction under ORS 109.701 (Short title) to 109.834 (Severability clause) to make a child custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time 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. The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised upon the motion of a party, the court’s own motion or the request of another court.

(2) Before determining whether a court of this state is an inconvenient forum, the court 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 ORS 109.701 (Short title) to 109.834 (Severability clause) 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. [1999 c.649 §19]

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Subject sec­tions all sub­se­quently repealed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