| | | 2. Significant connection jurisdiction. This jurisdictional | | basis has been amended in four particulars from the UCCJA. | | First, the "best interest" language of the UCCJA has been | | eliminated. This phrase tended to create confusion between the | | jurisdictional issue and the substantive custody determination. | | Since the language was not necessary for the jurisdictional | | issue, it has been removed. |
|
| | | Second, the UCCJA based jurisdiction on the presence of a | | significant connection between the child and the child's parents | | or the child and at least one contestant. This Act requires that | | the significant connections be between the child, the child's | | parents or the child and a person acting as a parent. |
|
| | | Third, a significant connection State may assume jurisdiction | | only when there is no home State or when the home State decides | | that the significant connection State would be a more appropriate | | forum under Section 207 or 208 [Me. cite section 1751 or 1752]. | | Fourth, the determination of significant connections has been | | changed to eliminate the language of "present or future care." | | The jurisdictional determination should be made by determining | | whether there is sufficient evidence in the State for the court | | to make an informed custody determination. That evidence might | | relate to the past as well as to the "present or future." |
|
| | | Emergency jurisdiction has been moved to a separate section. | | This is to make it clear that the power to protect a child in | | crisis does not include the power to enter a permanent order for | | that child except as provided by that section. |
|
| | | Paragraph (a)(3) [Me. cite subsection 1, paragraph C] provides | | for jurisdiction when all States with jurisdiction under | | paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) [Me. cite subsection 1, paragraphs A | | and B] determine that this State is a more appropriate forum. | | The determination would have to be made by all States with | | jurisdiction under subsection (a)(1) and (2) [Me. cite subsection | | 1, paragraphs A and B]. Jurisdiction would not exist under this | | paragraph because the home State determined it is a more | | appropriate place to hear the case if there is another State that | | could exercise significant connection jurisdiction under | | subsection (a)(2) [Me. cite subsection 1, paragraph B]. |
|
| | | Paragraph (a)(4) [Me. cite subsection 1, paragraph D] retains | | the concept of jurisdiction by necessity as found in the UCCJA | | and in the PKPA. This default jurisdiction only occurs if no | | other State would have jurisdiction under subsections (a)(1) | | through (a)(3) [Me cite subsection 1, paragraphs A to C]. |
|
|
