Bronson v. Bronson

Fairfax County Circuit Court

Bronson v. Bronson

22 Va. Cir. 299, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 339

CourtFairfax County Circuit Court

DecidedDecember 12, 1990

DocketCase No. (Chancery) 106301

StatusPublished

This text of 22 Va. Cir. 299 (Bronson v. Bronson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Fairfax County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bronson v. Bronson, 22 Va. Cir. 299, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 339 (Va. Super. Ct. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

By JUDGE JACK B. STEVENS

This matter has been under advisement by the Court to consider Mrs. Coyle’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Change in Custody and Visitation in Virginia. Pursuant to §§ 20-129 and 20-130, Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, the Court has contacted Judge Richtel of the Boulder County, Colorado, District Court. For the reasons that follow, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction and defers to the jurisdiction of the Colorado court system.

Both courts are in agreement that jurisdiction is most appropriate in the Colorado court system. An action concerning the custody of this child is already pending in Colorado. At this point, Colorado has the most significant contacts with the child. Finally, Virginia is an inconvenient forum because Colorado is the child’s present home and is where evidence regarding the child’s present and future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is more readily available.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

By JUDGE JACK B. STEVENS

This matter has been under advisement by the Court to consider Mrs. Coyle’s Motion to Dismiss the Petition for Change in Custody and Visitation in Virginia. Pursuant to §§ 20-129 and 20-130, Code of Virginia (1950) as amended, the Court has contacted Judge Richtel of the Boulder County, Colorado, District Court. For the reasons that follow, this Court declines to exercise jurisdiction and defers to the jurisdiction of the Colorado court system.

Both courts are in agreement that jurisdiction is most appropriate in the Colorado court system. An action concerning the custody of this child is already pending in Colorado. At this point, Colorado has the most significant contacts with the child. Finally, Virginia is an inconvenient forum because Colorado is the child’s present home and is where evidence regarding the child’s present and future care, protection, training, and personal relationships is more readily available.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

22 Va. Cir. 299, 1990 Va. Cir. LEXIS 339, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bronson-v-bronson-vaccfairfax-1990.