Also known as: significant connections
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A statutory basis for a court to exercise jurisdiction over child custody matters. The child and at least one parent or person acting as a parent maintain ties to the state beyond mere physical presence, and substantial evidence concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships is available in the state.
Simone Sanders and her six-year-old son have alternated six-month stays between State UU and State VV for two years. When custody petitions are filed simultaneously in both states, each court finds that the child and one parent maintain ties to the state beyond mere presence and that records of the child's schooling and medical care exist locally. Both states therefore proceed under the significant connection basis.
After a State B custody order, Jennifer relocates with the child to State C for an eighteen-month project. Seven months later Taylor petitions in State B while Jennifer files in State C. The State C court determines that the child's new school enrollment, therapy, and daily routines together with Jennifer's residence satisfy the significant connection test and that current care records are now located there.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Two years after Odell and Uriah move from State A to State C, Odell seeks modification in State C. The State C court finds that Uriah now attends school, receives medical care, and maintains all daily relationships in State C. Because neither the child nor the child and one parent retains a significant connection with State A and substantial evidence no longer exists there, State A has lost exclusive continuing jurisdiction.
After a State A custody order, Marcus moves with the child to State D for a nine-month family placement. When a modification petition is filed in State D, that court finds the child's enrollment in local school, ongoing medical treatment, and daily contact with relatives satisfy the significant connection test together with the presence of current care records.
Following a State X order, Lisa and the child relocate to State Y under military orders for fourteen months. When competing petitions are filed, the State Y court determines that school records, pediatric care, and the child's established relationships in State Y meet the significant connection standard and that substantial evidence now exists locally.
After living in State M for three years with grandparents under a State L order, the child remains in State M when a new petition is filed. The State M court finds that the child's schooling, medical providers, and personal relationships constitute a significant connection and that all current evidence concerning care is located in State M.
A state loses exclusive continuing jurisdiction when a court of that state determines that neither the child nor the child and one parent maintains a significant connection with the state and that substantial evidence is no longer available there concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships.
Supporting sources
The home state test requires the child to have lived with a parent in the state for at least six consecutive months immediately before the proceeding. The significant connection test applies when no state qualifies as the home state and requires only that the child and at least one parent have ties beyond mere presence together with substantial evidence available in the state.
Supporting sources
Courts look for records and witnesses concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships. School, medical, and therapeutic records located in the state, together with testimony from current caregivers, ordinarily satisfy the requirement.
Supporting sources
…the action and given an opportunity to “opt out”; and second, whether a forum state may apply its own law to claims that have no significant connection to the forum. 469 U. S. 879 (1984). We affirm. I The Kansas courts applied Kansas law to all of the royalty owners’ claims, even though the gas leases were located in other States…