Declining Child Custody Jurisdiction in Idaho

Part of my Idaho Child Custody Jurisdiction (UCCJEA) Overview.

By Ronald W. Brilliant, Attorney at Law · Licensed in Idaho, Nevada & California · Last reviewed: September 2026 against the Idaho Code as posted by the Idaho Legislature (July 1, 2026)

In This TopicIdaho Child Custody Jurisdiction (UCCJEA)Topic 4 of 6: Declining Jurisdiction

Having jurisdiction over a custody case does not always mean an Idaho court will use it. Under Idaho’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), found in Title 32, Chapter 11 of the Idaho Code, a court that has jurisdiction may decline to use it so a court in another state can hear the case (Idaho Code § 32-11-207(a)). In some situations, the court must decline (Idaho Code § 32-11-208(a)).

This page explains the two grounds for declining in the Idaho Code, an “inconvenient forum” and “unjustifiable conduct,” plus the related rules for custody cases filed in two states at once. These rules matter to parents and others in a custody case when the child, the parties, or the evidence are in more than one state.

Declining Because Idaho Is an Inconvenient Forum

An Idaho court that has jurisdiction under chapter 11 to make a child custody determination may decline to exercise it 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 (Idaho Code § 32-11-207(a)). A “forum” is the court where a case is heard.

A “child custody determination” is a judgment, decree, or other court order providing for legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child (Idaho Code § 32-11-102(c)). It does not include an order about child support or another monetary obligation (§ 32-11-102(c)).

The inconvenient forum issue may be raised by a motion of a party, by the court on its own motion, or at the request of another court (Idaho Code § 32-11-207(a)).

Factors the Court Considers

Before deciding whether it is an inconvenient forum, the court shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction (Idaho Code § 32-11-207(b)). The court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including (§ 32-11-207(b)):

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 has resided outside Idaho;
3. The distance between the court in Idaho and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;
4. The relative financial circumstances of the parties;
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 litigation, including testimony of the child;
7. The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and
8. The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.

Because the statute says “all relevant factors, including,” the court is not limited to these eight (Idaho Code § 32-11-207(b)). The statute does not rank the factors or say how much weight each one gets.

What Happens If the Court Finds Idaho Inconvenient

If the court 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 (Idaho Code § 32-11-207(c)). A “stay” puts the Idaho case on hold. The court may also impose any other condition it considers just and proper (§ 32-11-207(c)).

Custody Issues Inside a Divorce Case

An Idaho court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under chapter 11 if a child custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding, while still keeping jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding (Idaho Code § 32-11-207(d)). For how Idaho courts decide custody itself, see Idaho child custody.

Declining Because of Unjustifiable Conduct

If an Idaho court has jurisdiction because a person seeking to invoke its jurisdiction has engaged in unjustifiable conduct, the court shall decline to exercise its jurisdiction unless an exception applies (Idaho Code § 32-11-208(a)). This rule applies except as otherwise provided in the temporary emergency jurisdiction section, § 32-11-204, or by other Idaho law (§ 32-11-208(a)). Chapter 11 does not define “unjustifiable conduct.”

The court does not have to decline if any of the following is true (Idaho Code § 32-11-208(a)(1)-(3)):

• The parents and all persons acting as parents have acquiesced in (gone along with) the exercise of jurisdiction;
• A court of the state otherwise having jurisdiction under §§ 32-11-201 through 32-11-203 determines that Idaho is a more appropriate forum under § 32-11-207; or
• No court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria in §§ 32-11-201 through 32-11-203.

Remedies the Court May Order

If the court declines for unjustifiable conduct, it may fashion an appropriate remedy to ensure the safety of the child and prevent a repetition of the conduct (Idaho Code § 32-11-208(b)). This includes staying the proceeding until a child custody proceeding is commenced in a court having jurisdiction under §§ 32-11-201 through 32-11-203 (§ 32-11-208(b)).

Paying the Other Side’s Expenses

If the court dismisses a petition or stays a proceeding because it declines for unjustifiable conduct, it shall assess necessary and reasonable expenses against the party who sought to invoke its jurisdiction (Idaho Code § 32-11-208(c)). These expenses include costs, communication expenses, attorney’s fees, investigative fees, expenses for witnesses, travel expenses, and child care during the course of the proceedings (§ 32-11-208(c)).

The court does not assess these expenses if the party from whom fees are sought establishes that the assessment would be clearly inappropriate (Idaho Code § 32-11-208(c)). The court may not assess fees, costs, or expenses against the state of Idaho unless authorized by law other than chapter 11 (§ 32-11-208(c)).

Comparing the Two Grounds

Question	Inconvenient forum (§ 32-11-207)	Unjustifiable conduct (§ 32-11-208)
Must the court decline?	No. The court “may decline” (§ 32-11-207(a)).	Yes, the court “shall decline” unless an exception applies (§ 32-11-208(a)).
Who can raise it?	A party, the court on its own, or another court (§ 32-11-207(a)).	The section does not say.
What happens next?	The court shall stay the case on condition that a custody case be promptly commenced in a designated state, and may add other just and proper conditions (§ 32-11-207(c)).	The court may fashion a remedy to protect the child and prevent repeat conduct, including a stay (§ 32-11-208(b)).
Expenses	Not addressed in § 32-11-207.	The court shall assess necessary and reasonable expenses against the party who invoked jurisdiction, unless clearly inappropriate (§ 32-11-208(c)).

How Declining Connects to Other Jurisdiction Rules

A decision by another state’s court to decline can give an Idaho court jurisdiction over an initial custody case. This can happen when a court of the child’s home state has declined on the ground that Idaho is the more appropriate forum under § 32-11-207 or § 32-11-208, and the significant-connection and substantial-evidence requirements are met (Idaho Code § 32-11-201(a)(2)). It can also happen when all courts having jurisdiction under § 32-11-201(a)(1) or (2) have declined on the ground that an Idaho court is the more appropriate forum (§ 32-11-201(a)(3)). See home state jurisdiction.

Declining also matters for changing an existing order. An Idaho court that has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under § 32-11-201(a)(1) or (2) may modify another state’s custody determination if the other state’s court determines that an Idaho court would be a more convenient forum under § 32-11-207 (Idaho Code § 32-11-203(a)). The statute also lists other ways this can happen (§ 32-11-203). See continuing jurisdiction and modification.

Custody Cases Filed in Two States at Once

An Idaho court may not exercise its jurisdiction under part 2 of chapter 11 if, when the Idaho proceeding was commenced, a custody proceeding had already been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with chapter 11 (Idaho Code § 32-11-206(a)). The exception is when that other proceeding has been terminated, or is stayed by the other court because an Idaho court is a more convenient forum under § 32-11-207 (§ 32-11-206(a)). “Commencement” means the filing of the first pleading in a proceeding (Idaho Code § 32-11-102(e)).

Before hearing a custody proceeding, the Idaho court shall examine the court documents and other information supplied by the parties under § 32-11-209 (Idaho Code § 32-11-206(b)). If it finds that a custody proceeding has been commenced in another state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with chapter 11, the Idaho court shall stay its proceeding and communicate with the other court (§ 32-11-206(b)). If the other court does not determine that the Idaho court is a more appropriate forum, the Idaho court shall dismiss its proceeding (§ 32-11-206(b)).

Both of these rules apply except as otherwise provided in the temporary emergency jurisdiction section, § 32-11-204 (Idaho Code § 32-11-206(a)-(b)). See temporary emergency jurisdiction.

Information Each Party Must Give the Court

In a custody proceeding, each party must give certain information under oath, if reasonably ascertainable, in its first pleading or an attached affidavit (Idaho Code § 32-11-209(a)). This includes the child’s present address or whereabouts, the places the child has lived during the last five years, and the names and present addresses of the people the child lived with during that period (§ 32-11-209(a)).

The pleading or affidavit must also state whether the party has taken part in any other custody or visitation proceeding about the child, knows of any proceeding that could affect the current one (including enforcement, domestic violence, protective order, termination of parental rights, and adoption proceedings), and knows of any non-party who has physical custody of the child or claims custody or visitation rights, with identifying details for each (Idaho Code § 32-11-209(a)(1)-(3)).

If this information is not provided, the court may stay the proceeding until it is, on a party’s motion or its own motion (Idaho Code § 32-11-209(b)). Each party has a continuing duty to inform the court of any proceeding in Idaho or any other state that could affect the current proceeding (§ 32-11-209(d)).

Communication Between Courts and Priority

An Idaho court may communicate with a court in another state about a proceeding under chapter 11 (Idaho Code § 32-11-110(a)). The court may allow the parties to take part. If the parties are not able to take part, they must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made (§ 32-11-110(b)).

Communications about schedules, calendars, court records, and similar matters may occur without informing the parties, and no record is required (Idaho Code § 32-11-110(c)). For other communications, a record must be made, and the parties must be informed promptly and given access to the record (§ 32-11-110(d)).

If a question about the existence or exercise of jurisdiction is raised in a custody proceeding, it must, upon request of a party, be given priority on the calendar and handled expeditiously (Idaho Code § 32-11-107).

How I Can Help

When a custody case involves more than one state, I review the facts against the Idaho Code to identify whether there are grounds to ask an Idaho court to decline jurisdiction, or to keep it, and I help prepare the sworn information the court requires about the child and other proceedings. I can also explain how a decision by a court in another state may affect your Idaho case. Request a consultation to discuss your situation.

This page provides general information about Idaho’s Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, based on the Idaho Code, and is not legal advice. Court rules (including the Idaho Child Support Guidelines), regulations, and case law also affect family law matters. Every situation is different; consult an attorney about yours. Reading this page does not create an attorney-client relationship.