Home
Menu
Call attorney Graham Syfert at 904-383-7448
Personal Injury Lawyer
Florida Statute 61.520 | Lawyer Caselaw & Research
F.S. 61.520 Case Law from Google Scholar
Statute is currently reporting as:
Link to State of Florida Official Statute Google Search for Amendments to 61.520

The 2023 Florida Statutes (including Special Session C)

Title VI
CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Chapter 61
DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE; SUPPORT; TIME-SHARING
View Entire Chapter
F.S. 61.520
61.520 Inconvenient forum.
(1) A court of this state which has jurisdiction under this part 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.
(2) 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:
(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 this part 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.
History.s. 5, ch. 2002-65.

F.S. 61.520 on Google Scholar

F.S. 61.520 on Casetext

Amendments to 61.520


Arrestable Offenses / Crimes under Fla. Stat. 61.520
Level: Degree
Misdemeanor/Felony: First/Second/Third

Current data shows no reason an arrest or criminal charge should have occurred directly under Florida Statute 61.520.



Annotations, Discussions, Cases:

Cases from cite.case.law:

N. B. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN OF FAMILIES,, 274 So. 3d 1163 (Fla. App. Ct. 2019)

. . . 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). . . .

KENTUCKY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. SEVEN COUNTIES SERVICES, INC., 901 F.3d 718 (6th Cir. 2018)

. . . . § 61.520(1), (4)(a). . . .

DESTEFANIS, v. HAN MING TAN,, 231 So. 3d 537 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2017)

. . . 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). . . .

L. HAUGABOOK, v. JEFFCOAT- HULTBERG,, 219 So. 3d 65 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . Dep’t of Children & Families, 70 So.3d 749, 753 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011) (quoting § 61.520(1), Fla. . . .

BAKER, v. TUNNEY,, 201 So. 3d 1235 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . 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). . . .

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES, v. M. N. O. C. S., 199 So. 3d 452 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2016)

. . . 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 . . .

KENTUCKY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT SYSTEM v. SEVEN COUNTIES SERVICES, INC., 550 B.R. 741 (W.D. Ky. 2016)

. . . . §§ 61.510(3) and 61.520(1) and is therefore void.” . . .

McINDOO, v. ATKINSON,, 159 So. 3d 227 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2015)

. . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . .

In SEVEN COUNTIES SERVICES, INC. v., 511 B.R. 431 (Bankr. W.D. Ky. 2014)

. . . . § 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). . . .

M. LEMING, v. D. JENKINS,, 132 So. 3d 1216 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2014)

. . . The trial court denied the motion, filed pursuant to section 61.520, Florida Statutes (2013), after weighing . . .

BARNES, v. M. BARNES,, 124 So. 3d 994 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . The mother’s argument that the trial court properly refused jurisdiction pursuant to section 61.520, . . .

RUDEL, v. E. RUDEL,, 111 So. 3d 285 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2013)

. . . 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) . . .

DURHAM, v. BUTLER,, 89 So. 3d 1023 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . .

M. A. C. v. M. D. H., 88 So. 3d 1050 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . 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 . . .

H. JOHNSON, III, v. JOHNSON,, 88 So. 3d 335 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2012)

. . . See § 61.520(4) (providing that “[a] court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under . . .

K. I. v. DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND FAMILIES,, 70 So. 3d 749 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . .” § 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 . . .

SARPEL f k a v. EFLANLI,, 65 So. 3d 1080 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2011)

. . . 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 . . .

LONDON, v. LONDON,, 32 So. 3d 107 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . 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. . . .

KARAM, v. KARAM,, 6 So. 3d 87 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2009)

. . . 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 . . .

McGHEE, v. BIGGS a k a, 974 So. 2d 524 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2008)

. . . 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 . . .

E. SCHMITT, v. MAILE,, 946 So. 2d 60 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . whether Florida or some other State would be a more appropriate forum as discussed in Florida Statute § 61.520 . . .

ARJONA a k a v. TORRES a k a, 941 So. 2d 451 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . 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 . . .

DILEO, Sr. v. DILEO,, 939 So. 2d 181 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . forum was now inconvenient and should not exercise further jurisdiction, in accordance with section 61.520 . . .

B. STAATS, v. E. McKINNON, f k a E., 924 So. 2d 82 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . .

S. STECKLER, v. E. STECKLER,, 921 So. 2d 740 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . 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 . . .

L. COLLAR, v. M. COLLAR,, 919 So. 2d 608 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2006)

. . . See § 61.520, Fla. Stat. (2005); Winton-Ibanez v. . . .

M. BENSON, v. EVANS,, 901 So. 2d 893 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2005)

. . . declined to exercise jurisdiction on the grounds that this state is the more appropriate forum under s. 61.520 . . .

HIRVONEN, v. FILSINGER,, 866 So. 2d 1273 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

. . . stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this state is a more convenient forum under s. 61.520 . . .