The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)
|
||||||
|
. . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . . See § 61.520(2), Fla. Stat. (2018). . . .
. . . . § 61.520(1), (4)(a). . . .
. . . Our analysis is directed by sections 61.515 and 61.520, Florida Statutes (2015). . . . We now address the specific forum non conveniens provision under the UCCJEA, section 61.520. . . . Section 61.520(2) requires the court to consider all relevant factors, but lists several factors that . . . Section 61.520(2) provides as follows: (2) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a . . . See § 61.520(2)(e). . . .
. . . Dep’t of Children & Families, 70 So.3d 749, 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting § 61.520(1), Fla. . . .
. . . declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 . . . See §§ 61.514, 61.520, Fla. Stat. (2015). . . .
. . . Section 61.520, “Inconvenient Forum,” in subpart (1), permits a court of this state which has jurisdiction . . . Section 61.520(3) specifically contemplates that the transferring court “shall stay the proceedings upon . . . Section 61.520(2) sets forth the matters to be considered as the trial court exercises its discretion . . . court may conduct a hearing and enter findings regarding the “relevant factors” set forth in section 61.520 . . .
. . . . §§ 61.510(3) and 61.520(1) and is therefore void.” . . .
. . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . .
. . . . § 61.520. . . . K.R.S. § 61.510(5) and § 61.520 do not themselves contain any criteria limiting or defining the discretion . . . The result was that K.R.S. § 61.520(1) and (4) were modified to include requirements that an employer . . . must be qualified to begin participation, K.R.S. § 61.520(1), and may continue participation only so . . . K.R.S. § 61.520(4). . . .
. . . The trial court denied the motion, filed pursuant to section 61.520, Florida Statutes (2013), after weighing . . .
. . . The mother’s argument that the trial court properly refused jurisdiction pursuant to section 61.520, . . .
. . . See § 61.520, Fla. Stat. . . . At the hearing on the husband’s motions, the court heard evidence on the factors in section 61.520(2) . . .
. . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . .
. . . and it ordered both parties to file affidavits addressing the statutory factors listed under section 61.520 . . . a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 . . . paragraph of its order, the court references section 61.514(l)(a) in this paragraph and not section 61.520 . . . clearly directed both parties to address the relevant inconvenient forum factors listed in section 61.520 . . . may still decline to exercise jurisdiction after considering the statutory factors listed in section 61.520 . . .
. . . See § 61.520(4) (providing that “[a] court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under . . .
. . . .” § 61.520(1), Fla. Stat. (2010). . . . See § 61.520(1), (2)(a)-(h). . . . Section 61.520(2), Florida Statutes, provides the following factors to be considered by the trial court . . . ) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation. § 61.520 . . .
. . . declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 . . . a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 . . .
. . . jurisdiction under s. 61.515 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . . The UCCJEA defines the term “inconvenient forum” in section 61.520. . . . . § 61.520(2). . In one of the French court proceedings, Mr. . . .
. . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . . declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 . . . a courL of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 . . .
. . . jurisdiction under s. 61.515 or that a court of this state would be a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . . declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 . . .
. . . whether Florida or some other State would be a more appropriate forum as discussed in Florida Statute § 61.520 . . .
. . . propriate forum under s. 61.520 or s. 61.521, and: 1. . . . a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under s. 61.520 . . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . .
. . . forum was now inconvenient and should not exercise further jurisdiction, in accordance with section 61.520 . . .
. . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . .
. . . conduct a hearing to determine jurisdiction under the inconvenient forum factors enumerated in section 61.520 . . . Under section 61.520, any party may raise the issue of inconvenient forum. . . . Section 61.520(2) provides that “[b]efore determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of . . . While it is unclear whether the trial court considered the relevant factors enumerated in section 61.520 . . .
. . . See § 61.520, Fla. Stat. (2005); Winton-Ibanez v. . . .
. . . declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 . . .
. . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . .