(a) A court of this state which has jurisdiction under the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act 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's home state is or recently was another 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 with respect to travel arrangements;

(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 custody litigation, including testimony of the child;

(7) the ability of the court of each state to decide the custody issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and

(8) whether another state has a closer connection with the child or with the child and one or more of the parties, including whether the court of the other state is more familiar 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 the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act 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: Laws 2001, ch. 114, § 207.

Determination of jurisdiction should ordinarily be made as preliminary matter, but where neither side offered affidavits or other evidence that would have enabled the trial court to rule on the jurisdictional question before the hearing, a later decision was justified. Hester v. Hester, 1984-NMCA-002, 100 N.M. 773, 676 P.2d 1338.

New Mexico held to be most convenient forum. — New Mexico was properly ruled to be a convenient forum for an action by a biological mother's lesbian domestic partner for time sharing and custody of children because of the lack of an adequate forum in California. Barnae v. Barnae, 1997-NMCA-077, 123 N.M. 583, 943 P.2d 1036.

Certain factors must be considered when declining jurisdiction. — In a domestic relations case, where petitioner and respondent were in a domestic relationship and decided to raise a child together, and where respondent was artificially inseminated by an anonymous donor and gave birth to child, and where petitioner initiated an action in district court to establish parentage and determine custody and timesharing with regard to child when the domestic relationship began to fall apart, and where respondent filed an objection to the district court's jurisdiction over the case after respondent and child left the state of New Mexico, the district court erred in declining jurisdiction, because it was undisputed that child and respondent lived in New Mexico for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding, and therefore at the time the petition was filed, New Mexico was child's home state and the district court had jurisdiction to make the initial child custody determination, and declining jurisdiction would only have been appropriate if the district court determined that another state was a more appropriate forum. Tomlinson v. Weatherford, 2017-NMCA-055.

Standard of appellate review. — A court's determination under this section is discretionary, and will not be reversed unless the decision is contrary to the reason, logic, evidence, and equities in the case. Meier v. Davignon, 1987-NMCA-030, 105 N.M. 567, 734 P.2d 807.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Inconvenience of forum as ground for declining jurisdiction under § 7 of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), 21 A.L.R.5th 396.