LD 432
pg. 36
Page 35 of 63 An Act to Adopt the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ... Page 37 of 63
Download Bill Text
LR 316
Item 1

 
State. For those cases, this section retains the "first in time"
rule of the UCCJA. Subsection (b) [Me. cite subsection 2] retains
the UCCJA's policy favoring judicial communication. Communication
between courts is required when it is determined that a proceeding
has been commenced in another State.

 
Subsection (c) [Me. cite subsection 3] concerns the problem of
simultaneous proceedings in the State with modification
jurisdiction and enforcement proceedings under Article 3 [Me.
cite subchapter III]. This section authorizes the court with
exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to stay the modification
proceeding pending the outcome of the enforcement proceeding, to
enjoin the parties from continuing with the enforcement
proceeding, or to continue the modification proceeding under such
conditions as it determines are appropriate. The court may wish
to communicate with the enforcement court. However,
communication is not mandatory. Although the enforcement State
is required by the PKPA to enforce according to its terms a
custody determination made consistently with the PKPA, that duty
is subject to the decree being modified by a State with the power
to do so under the PKPA. An order to enjoin the parties from
enforcing the decree is the equivalent of a temporary
modification by a State with the authority to do so. The
concomitant provision addressed to the enforcement court is
Section 306 [Me. cite section 1766] of this Act. That section
requires the enforcement court to communicate with the
modification court in order to determine what action the
modification court wishes the enforcement court to take.

 
The term "pending" that was utilized in the UCCJA section on
simultaneous proceeding has been replaced. It has caused
considerable confusion in the case law. It has been replaced
with the term "commencement of the proceeding" as more accurately
reflecting the policy behind this section. The latter term is
defined in Section 102(5) [Me. cite section 1732, subsection 5].

 
§1751.__Inconvenient forum

 
1.__Court of this State an inconvenient forum.__A court of
this State that has jurisdiction under this chapter 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.__Factors relevant to determining whether inconvenient
forum.__Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a
court of this State shall consider whether it is appropriate for


Page 35 of 63 Top of Page Page 37 of 63