JANUARY 2026 | 11 THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL Statements or opinions expressed in the Oklahoma Bar Journal are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the Oklahoma Bar Association, its officers, Board of Governors, Board of Editors or staff. 1. This state is the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six (6) months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from this state, but a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live in this state; 2. A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under paragraph 1 of this subsection, or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more appropriate forum under Section 19 or 20 of this act, and: a. the child and the child’s parents, or the child and at least one parent or a person acting as a parent, have a significant connection with this state other than mere physical presence, and b. substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships; 3. All courts having jurisdiction under paragraph 1 or 2 of this subsection have declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this state is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody of the child under Section 19 or 20 of this act; or 4. No court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in paragraph 1, 2, or 3 of this subsection. B. Subsection A of this section is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child custody determination by a court of this state. C. Physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child custody determination. The UCCJEA is designed to bring order out of the chaos that had been the nature of interstate child custody litigation, which was first attempted to be resolved by the act’s predecessor, the UCCJA. That act was revised by the UCCJEA to take account of the federal enactment of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA).10 The jurisdictional section of the UCCJEA is set out in two parts: 1) to tell a state court when it has the authority to adjudicate a child custody case and 2) when it should exercise that authority. This coincides with the decision of Holt v. District Court, which noted that there are two questions in any interstate case: 1) whether a state has jurisdiction and 2) whether it should exercise that jurisdiction. Section 551-201 uses the term “jurisdiction.” It means the authority or ability of a court to make a custody determination. It is not personal jurisdiction, since that is explicitly not required by Subsection C of Section 551-201. If, indeed, subject matter jurisdiction flows from the Oklahoma Constitution, then what is the purpose of Section 551-201 of the UCCJEA? It is not simply a matter of determining which of two competent forums should proceed, as the court in N.A. noted. There are explicit sections of the UCCJEA that deal with that issue, including Section 551-207 on inconvenient forum and Section 551-208 on declining jurisdiction due to conduct. The UCCJEA itself does not say that the ability of the court to decide a case is subject matter The Holt case noted there are always two questions in a child custody case: First, does an Oklahoma court have jurisdiction? Second, should an Oklahoma court exercise its jurisdiction?
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTk3MQ==