Understanding UCCJEA Jurisdiction in Custody and Parenting Time Cases
Every paternity or dissolution case involving child custody or parenting time requires an analysis under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, commonly referred to as the UCCJEA. While the statute is essential to custody litigation, it is also one of the most complex jurisdictional frameworks family courts apply.
The UCCJEA was drafted in 1997 to replace its predecessor, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (“UCCJA”). Indiana adopted the UCCJEA[1] in 2007, and today, every state —with the exception of Massachusetts—has enacted the law.
At its core, the UCCJEA answers a foundational question: which state has the authority to decide a child custody matter when more than one state (or country) is involved? While the “best interest” standard is the framework used to make custody determinations, “best interest” analysis is excluded from the UCCJEA. To promote consistency, the UCCJEA requires courts to treat foreign countries as if they were U.S. states and to apply the Act unless the foreign country’s custody laws violate fundamental principles of human rights.
Why the UCCJEA Matters
The primary goals of the UCCJEA are to:
- Deter parental kidnapping
- Discourage forum shopping
- Prevent conflicting custody orders
- Avoid jurisdictional disputes between courts in different states or countries
In short, the UCCJEA determines which court has jurisdiction to make custody decisions—and which courts must step aside.
How Courts Determine Jurisdiction
When analyzing jurisdiction under the UCCJEA, courts typically ask the following questions, in order:
- Does an emergency exist?
- Is there an existing custody order or pending proceeding in another state?
- If not, does the court have jurisdiction to make an initial custody determination?
To answer these questions, the UCCJEA establishes four possible exclusive bases for jurisdiction.
The Four Bases for Jurisdiction Under the UCCJEA
1. Home State Jurisdiction: The child’s “home state” is the state where the child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six (6) consecutive months immediately before the custody action was filed. For children under six months old, the home state is the state where the child has lived since birth.
2. Significant Connections Jurisdiction: If no home state exists, a court may exercise jurisdiction if:
- The child and at least one parent have significant connections with the state beyond mere physical presence; and
- Substantial evidence exists in the state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships.
3. More Appropriate Forum: When neither home-state nor significant-connections jurisdiction applies—or when another state has declined jurisdiction—a court may assume jurisdiction if it is the more appropriate forum to decide the case.
4. No Other State Jurisdiction: This is a fallback provision allowing a court to exercise jurisdiction when no other state qualifies under the first three bases. This situation often arises when parents and children have lived outside the United States for extended periods or when a marriage was dissolved abroad.
Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction
The UCCJEA also allows courts to exercise temporary emergency jurisdiction in limited circumstances. An Indiana court may do so if: The child is physically present in Indiana and the child has been abandoned, or emergency intervention is necessary to protect the child, a sibling, or a parent from mistreatment or abuse.
Emergency jurisdiction is temporary by design and intended for urgent situations involving immediate safety concerns.
When a Court May Decline Jurisdiction
Even if a court has jurisdiction under one of the four bases, it may decline to exercise that jurisdiction if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum and another state is better suited to hear the case. In making this determination, courts consider factors such as:
- Whether domestic violence has occurred or is likely to continue
- The length of time the child has lived outside the state
- The distance between the competing courts
- The parties’ financial circumstances
- Any agreement between the parties regarding jurisdiction
- The nature and location of relevant evidence
- Each court’s ability to resolve the matter efficiently
- Each court’s familiarity with the facts and issues
A court may also decline jurisdiction if it finds that a party engaged in unjustified misconduct, such as parental kidnapping.
Why UCCJEA Cases Are Especially Complex
Jurisdiction under the UCCJEA is highly fact-sensitive. When jurisdiction is disputed, the court must resolve the issue before the case can proceed. In many situations, judges are required to communicate directly with courts in other states or countries—a critical step, particularly in emergency situations.
While jurisdiction is often straightforward when both parents live in the same county or state, UCCJEA disputes commonly arise when parents file custody actions in different states at the same time, a parent relocates a child to or from Indiana, a survivor of domestic violence flees to Indiana and seeks emergency protection, or a parent seeks to enforce or modify an out-of-state custody order.
In some cases, UCCJEA issues overlap with federal and international laws, including the Hague Convention, the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (“ICARA”), the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (“PKPA”), and the Violence Against Women Act (“VAWA”), further increasing the complexity of the case.
Because UCCJEA cases involve nuanced statutory analysis, interstate or international coordination, and strict jurisdictional rules, early involvement of an attorney experienced in UCCJEA litigation is essential. A misstep at the jurisdictional stage can delay proceedings, increase costs, or even result in dismissal of a case altogether.
If your custody matter involves more than one state—or raises questions about which court has authority—consulting a knowledgeable family law attorney can make all the difference.
About the Author:
Kayte L. Geist is a member of the Family Law team at Barrett McNagny and assists clients with dissolutions, prenuptial agreements, custody and parent time modifications, and child support issues. She was selected for inclusion in the 2026 Best Lawyers in America: Ones to Watch publication. She received her J.D. from the University of Toledo School of Law, magna cum laude, where she was a member of the Civil Advocacy Clinic and was published in the Toledo Law Review.
A representative listing of Attorney, Kayte Geist’s UCCJA Appellate Cases:
- Gard-Holm v. Holm, 258 N.E.3d 289, (Ind. Ct. App. 2025)
- Winchester v. Winchester, 271 N.E.3d 160 (Ind. Ct. App 2025)
[1] Indiana’s enactment of the national law is referred to as the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (“UCCJA”), rather than the UCCJEA, and is codified at Indiana Code § 31-21 et seq. Although the letter “E” is omitted from the title of Indiana’s statute, the enforcement provisions contained in the national law are nonetheless incorporated into Indiana law. Accordingly, while it is ironic and somewhat confusing to use a state-specific name for a “uniform” act, best practice is to use the term “UCCJA” when referring to Indiana Code § 31-21 and “UCCJEA” when referring to the uniform law as adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws.