Minnesota § 518D.207 INCONVENIENT FORUM

Minnesota Statutes

§ 518D.207 — INCONVENIENT FORUM

Minnesota § 518D.207

PartDOMESTIC RELATIONS

Ch. 518DUNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT

This text of Minnesota § 518D.207 (INCONVENIENT FORUM) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Minnesota primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Minn. Stat. § 518D.207 (2026).

Text

(a)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.

(b)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:

(1)whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the f

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

(a) 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.
(b) 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:
(1) whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;
(2) the length of time the child has resided outside this state;
(3) the distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;
(4) the relative financial circumstances of the parties;
(5) any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;
(6) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;
(7) the ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and
(8) the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.
(c) 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.
(d) 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 marriage dissolution or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the marriage dissolution or other proceeding.
(e) In a case where the provision of gender-affirming health care for a child is at issue, a court of this state shall not determine that this state is an inconvenient forum if the law or policy of the other state that may take jurisdiction limits the ability of a parent to obtain gender-affirming health care as defined in section543.23, paragraph (b), for the parent's child.