How Can You Transfer Jurisdiction Of A Divorce Or Custody Case From One State To Another?
For the most current overview and guidance on Child Support Orders click here to visit our updated Modification Of Child Support Orders page.
Introduction & Scope
Taylor: Hi, I’m Taylor Teachworth, and I’m here with family law attorney Kelly Peterson to talk about how you can transfer jurisdiction of a divorce or custody case from one state to another. Kelly, who would want to transfer their custody case to another state?
Kelly: This applies to parents or former spouses who have an existing custody order or parent-time schedule that was issued in one state, but one or both parties have moved, and now the parents and children are living somewhere else.
So in this discussion, we’ll walk through when and how jurisdiction can transfer, what the law requires, and what the process looks like if you’re trying to move jurisdiction from one state to another.
Taylor: Kelly, before we get into the roadmap, let me ask you this — why might someone want to transfer jurisdiction of their case in the first place?
Kelly: There are several reasons. The most common one is practicality: the parents and children have all moved away from the state that originally issued the decree. If nobody lives there anymore, it doesn’t make sense for that court to keep the case. The child’s new state is where the teachers, doctors, therapists, friends, and extended family are, and where all the important witnesses and records will come from.
Another reason is when a parent needs to modify custody or support. Courts can’t modify unless they have jurisdiction. If the child has lived in Utah for a significant period of time, Utah may become the home state under the UCCJEA, and it may be the right place for a modification petition.
Sometimes it’s about enforcement. If one parent is violating the orders, registering the decree in the new state allows you to bring contempt or enforcement proceedings right where the child is living, instead of having to chase the other parent back to the old state.
And then there are cases involving alienation or serious safety concerns. If a move was made because of domestic violence, abuse, or risks to the child, the new state may be the better forum to protect the child and move the case forward safely.
So in short, people transfer jurisdiction to make the case more manageable, to ensure the court with the strongest evidence and connections is hearing it, and to put themselves in a position where enforcement, modification, and child protection can actually happen in a practical and effective way.
Roadmap of Discussion
Taylor: Kelly, could you give us a roadmap for today’s discussion? What are the main things people need to understand about transferring jurisdiction of a custody or divorce case?
Kelly: You bet. There are several key areas we need to cover.
First, we’ll talk about the laws that control jurisdiction.
Second, we’ll explain when and how jurisdiction can transfer. There are really two different scenarios:
- When nobody — not the parents, not the children — still lives in the original state.
- When at least one parent or the child still does.
The law treats those situations very differently.
Third, we’ll talk about the burdens of proof and analysis that courts go through before they agree to transfer jurisdiction, especially if one party still lives in the original state.
Next, we’ll walk through the nuts and bolts of procedure: what kind of motion to file, what information you have to provide, how and when courts in different states sometimes communicate with each other about these kinds of jurisdictional issues, with each other, and what evidence matters most.
And finally, we’ll talk about the attorney’s role — how an experienced family law attorney can help make sure the right arguments are made, the right evidence is gathered, and the process goes smoothly.
Legal Framework
Taylor: Let’s start with the legal framework. Kelly, what laws actually govern whether a state keeps jurisdiction, or whether another state can take over?
Kelly: The starting point is the UCCJEA — the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. Every state has adopted it, so that they are all on the same page and don’t have conflicting and differing standards about how and when to change jurisdiction.
The UCCJEA says that once a state has made a custody determination, that state has what’s called exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. In plain terms, that means the original state keeps control over custody and parent-time issues until one of two things happens.
Either neither the child nor either parent still lives there, which allows the child’s new state to yank jurisdiction from the original state without the original state’s permission;
Or, if a parent or the child is still in the original state, the court in that state still has jurisdiction unless it decides to let go of it. The original Court undergoes what’s called an “inconvenient forum” analysis. The original court has to weigh a list of statutory factors before it decides whether the new state is better suited to take jurisdiction. But if one party or the child remains in the original state, the new state can’t just yank jurisdiction from the original state, the original state is the one that decides whether to give jurisdiction to the new state under the inconvenient forum analysis.
So the bottom line is: if no one remains, jurisdiction can often move fairly smoothly. If someone does remain, then the original state has to go through a careful analysis before letting go of jurisdiction to the new state.
Scenario A: No Party or Child Remains in the Original State
Taylor: Let’s start with the first scenario. What happens when nobody — not the parents, not the children — still lives in the original state where the order was entered?
Kelly: In that situation, the law is much clearer and more straightforward. Under the UCCJEA, once no parent and no child remains in the original state, that state loses what’s called exclusive continuing jurisdiction.
That means the case can be transferred to the child’s new home state — which is legally defined as the state where the child has lived with a parent for at least the last six months. If the child has been in the new state for a certain period of time – usually six months, the new state becomes the home state and can take jurisdiction to modify or enforce custody orders.
Taylor: So does that usually require a lot of litigation?
Kelly: Usually not. If both parents agree that nobody is left in the original state, it can be handled by agreement. But even if one parent doesn’t agree, the statute is very clear — if neither the parents nor the children still live in the original state, that original court has no authority to keep jurisdiction from the child’s new home state. There is one key defense to a change in jurisdiction in this scenario (which we’ll talk about shortly) but usually it is a slam dunk, a single motion to get jurisdiction transferred when neither party is in the old state, and sometimes a single hearing.
Scenario B: One Party or Child Still in the Original State
Taylor: What if one parent or the child still lives in the original state? Does jurisdiction automatically stay there?
Kelly: If one parent or the child still lives in the original state, then yes — jurisdiction usually stays there unless that court decides to let it go. That’s because under the UCCJEA, the original state keeps exclusive, continuing jurisdiction as long as a parent or the child has what the law calls a “significant connection” with that state and substantial evidence is still available there.
Taylor: So how can jurisdiction be transferred in that situation?
Kelly: The only way is if the original state finds that it has become an inconvenient forum and that another state — usually where the child has been living — is better suited.
Taylor: What does the court look at to decide if it’s an inconvenient forum?
Kelly: The law lists several specific factors, including:
- whether there’s been domestic violence and which state can best protect the parties,
- how long the child has lived outside the original state,
- the distance between the courts,
- the parents’ financial circumstances,
- whether the parents agreed on jurisdiction,
- where the evidence and witnesses are located,
- which court can decide the case more quickly, and
- which court is more familiar with the case history.
Those factors are weighed carefully before the original state will relinquish jurisdiction. And the burden of proof is on the party asking for the transfer — in other words, the moving parent has to show why the original state is inconvenient.
Taylor: So in those cases, it’s not automatic at all.
Kelly: That’s right, but it can be done, if you can demonstrate that the factors we just described weigh in favor of the old court declaring the new court is a more convenient forum.
Forum Non Conveniens / Inconvenient Forum Analysis
Taylor: You’ve mentioned “inconvenient forum” a few times. What kinds of things typically convince the old court that it is an inconvenient forum, and that the new state should have jurisdiction.
Kelly: The most common examples are when the child has been living in the new state for a significant period of time, and all of the important evidence and witnesses are now there. Think about it — the child’s teachers, doctors, therapists, coaches, friends, and other people who know the child’s daily life are in the new state. That’s where the best and most current information about the child’s well-being exists.
Another example is when the decree in the old state was entered by default or stipulation, without a trial and without much evidence being presented. In those cases, the old court doesn’t really have deep familiarity with the facts, so there isn’t much reason for that court to hang on to the case.
And then, if there was significant domestic violence, abuse, or real risk to the child, and that was the reason for the move, the new state may be a far better forum to protect the child and move the case forward safely. Or the old state may feel it is better informed because there was a trial or evidentiary hearing on those issues, and want to keep jurisdiction.
So when you combine those factors — the child’s residence and evidence being in the new state, the old decree being thin or non-litigated, and safety concerns — those are the kinds of situations where the old court often decides it is no longer the best place for the case.
Unjustifiable Conduct
Taylor: What happens if a parent tries to move a case to another state by doing something sneaky, like running away with the kids without telling the other parent where they are at?
Kelly: That’s a really important point. The UCCJEA directly addresses that kind of thing. If a parent engages in what the law calls “unjustifiable conduct” to try to create jurisdiction in another state, the new court is supposed to decline jurisdiction.
Taylor: What kind of conduct are we talking about?
Kelly: Things like concealing the children, absconding to another state, that kind of thing. Essentially, any behavior where a parent tries to manipulate jurisdiction by breaking or undermining the existing orders.
Taylor: So if one parent does that, what’s the court supposed to do?
Kelly: If the court finds that jurisdiction was invoked because of unjustifiable conduct, it must decline jurisdiction unless certain exceptions apply — like if both parents agree, or if the original state decides to let the new state proceed despite the misconduct.
Taylor: And what’s the practical takeaway for parents?
Kelly: The takeaway is that you usually can’t gain a jurisdictional advantage by breaking the rules. If you try to run to another state or keep the kids away to file there first, that could very well backfire under the statute. Courts want stability and integrity in jurisdiction, not gamesmanship.
Enforcement
Taylor: We’ve talked about how jurisdiction can be transferred. But what about enforcement in the new state?
Kelly: That’s a key point. Even if jurisdiction hasn’t officially been transferred yet, a decree order from one state can still be registered in the new state. Once it’s registered, the new state usually has authority to enforce it, depending on a few other jurisdictional issues. That means you can usually file for contempt or other enforcement proceedings in the new state’s court, and the orders will be treated just like local orders for enforcement purposes. So absent a few exceptions dealing with “personal jurisdiction,” the person in the new state can force the other party to litigate some enforcement or contempt issues in the new state. Of course, contempt or enforcement proceedings can also happen in the original state also, so long as that state retains jurisdiction.
Taylor: So the new state in that circumstance can enforce orders, but not change them?
Kelly: Exactly. The orders remain enforceable anywhere once registered, but they cannot be modified until jurisdiction has formally been transferred under the UCCJEA. That’s the key distinction: enforcement can happen right away through registration, but modification has to wait until the old state either lets go of jurisdiction or no one remains there anymore.
Taylor: That makes sense. So parents aren’t left powerless if the other side is violating the orders, even while jurisdiction questions are pending.
Kelly: Correct. Enforcement can happen in either state. Please take a look at my website’s other videos on contempt if that is something you are interested in.
Procedure / Nuts and Bolts
Taylor: Let’s talk about the nuts and bolts. If someone wants to transfer jurisdiction of their case, what do they actually have to do?
Kelly: The process starts by filing a motion to transfer jurisdiction. Where you file, and which state you file in depends on whether there is anyone living in the old state. If a parent or the child still resides in the old state, you file a motion in BOTH states. In the motion you give both courts the other court’s contact information, and ask them to talk to each other so they can do the inconvenient forum analysis together over the phone or video conference. That’s called a UCCJEA conference
If the child has a new home state and neither the parent nor the child live in the old state, you file the motion with just the new state, who can yank jurisdiction from the olds state unilaterally – without the old state’s permission.
In the motion you do have to provide a residence history for the child going back at least five years. If the other party disputes your history, you can prove this with things like leases, school records, medical records, and declarations from people who can confirm where the children have been living.
Taylor: So it’s not necessarily just filing paperwork — you need proof.
Kelly: Exactly. And if the other side fights it, the court will look very closely at the statutory factors, so you want to have your ducks in a row from the start.
Attorney’s Role
Taylor: Kelly, this sounds like it could get complicated. What role does an attorney play in making sure a jurisdiction transfer is handled correctly?
Kelly: It can be complicated, especially if it is contested. Also, drafting the right motions, in the right way, citing to the right statutes and making the right arguments is not something the typical non-lawyer has an easy time of. An experienced attorney makes sure the right motions are filed, the correct statutes are cited, and the evidence is organized so the court can see where the children have been living, which state has the stronger connections, and whether there’s been any unjustifiable conduct.
We also coordinate with out-of-state attorneys when needed, and even help facilitate UCCJEA conferences between judges in different states. That way, the courts talk to each other and avoid conflicting rulings.
And just as important, an attorney helps parents avoid mistakes. For example, a parent who files in the wrong state or tries to run ahead of the process might actually weaken their case, because the court could view it as unjustifiable conduct.
Taylor: So this is not something a parent should try to avoid handling on their own, if possible.
Kelly: That’s right. The stakes can be high. Having the right legal guidance can be the difference between keeping jurisdiction in the correct state or losing valuable ground because the motion wasn’t done properly.
Conclusion
Taylor: I’m here with experienced family law attorney Kelly Peterson, who assists clients in transferring or changing jurisdiction on custody cases to and from Utah. If this is an issue for you or someone you love, don’t hesitate to contact Kelly Peterson’s office to see how he can help. He can be reached at the contact information listed on this site.
If you’re interested in learning more about related issues, we have additional videos on how to enforce custody orders, how to modify custody or support, and how to handle cases involving alienation or relocation. Those are all available also on this site.
