Ch. 822: Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act · Last amended 2005 · Last verified July 15, 2026
In one sentenceSection 822.21 gives a Wisconsin court authority to make an initial custody determination only if Wisconsin is the child’s home state, or, when no state qualifies or the home state has stepped aside, if Wisconsin has a significant connection and substantial evidence, or if all courts with a better claim declined jurisdiction, or if no other state would qualify at all, and physical presence or personal jurisdiction over a party is neither required nor enough on its own.
(1)Except as provided in s. 822.24, a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial determination only if any of the following applies:
(a)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 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.
(b)A court of another state does not have jurisdiction under par. (a), or a court of the home state of the child has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that this state is the more ap- propriate forum under s. 822.27 or 822.28, and all of the following apply: 1. 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. 2. Substantial evidence is available in this state concerning the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships.
(c)All courts having jurisdiction under par. (a) or (b) 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 s. 822.27 or 822.28.
(d)No court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria specified in par. (a), (b), or (c).
(2)Subsection (1) is the exclusive jurisdictional basis for making a child custody determination by a court of this state.
(3)Physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child custody determination.
Official Notes
NOTE: The above annotations cite to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, the predecessor statute to the current Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. Under prior law, there were four different bases for initial jurisdiction, which conceivably could allow more than one state initial jurisdiction. The current uniform act changed this rule. Under the uniform act, home state jurisdiction always receives priority, and other jurisdictional bases are available only when there is no home state, or when the home state declines jurisdiction. Hatch v. Hatch, 2007 WI App 136, 302 Wis. 2d 215, 733 N.W.2d 648, 06-2259. A claim must be affirmatively asserted by the caretaker in the context of a custody proceeding in order for the caretaker’s residence to drive a jurisdictional determination of the child’s home state under sub. (1). A grandparent who had physical custody of a child for a period of six consecutive months within one year of the commencement of the proceedings, but had never been awarded and did not claim a right to legal custody, no longer cared for the child, and had no plans to resume caring for the child was not a “person acting as a parent,” as defined in s. 822.02 (13). Stephen R. v. Ilana C., 2011 WI App 13, 331 Wis. 2d 108, 794 N.W.2d 533, 10-0363.
Plain-English Summary
Section 822.21 sets out the exclusive bases on which a Wisconsin court can make an initial custody determination, subject to the temporary emergency jurisdiction in section 822.24. Four bases appear in subsection (1). Under paragraph (a), Wisconsin qualifies if it is the child’s home state when the proceeding starts, or was the home state within the six months before that, so long as the child is absent from Wisconsin but a parent or a person acting as a parent still lives here.
Paragraph (b) applies only when no other state has home-state jurisdiction under paragraph (a), or the home-state court has declined jurisdiction because Wisconsin is the more appropriate forum under sections 822.27 or 822.28. Even then, Wisconsin needs both a significant connection with the child and at least one parent or person acting as a parent beyond mere physical presence, and substantial evidence here about the child’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships. Paragraph (c) applies when every court with jurisdiction under paragraph (a) or (b) has declined it in favor of Wisconsin as the more appropriate forum. Paragraph (d) is the last resort: no court of any other state would have jurisdiction under any of the first three criteria.
This is a strict hierarchy, not four equal options. Home-state jurisdiction comes first; the other three bases become available only when there is no home state, or the home state has stepped aside. That priority order is what lets chapter 822 avoid the jurisdictional competition section 822.01 identifies as its central concern -- under the chapter’s approach, at most one state typically has a live claim to jurisdiction at any given time. The significant-connection basis in paragraph (b) also depends on a genuine caretaking relationship: someone who once had physical custody of a child but no longer cares for the child and has never claimed a right to legal custody does not count as a person acting as a parent for this purpose, even if they had physical custody for six consecutive months at some point.
Subsection (2) makes subsection (1) the exclusive jurisdictional basis for an initial determination; there is no separate route around it. Subsection (3) clarifies that physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or the child is neither necessary nor sufficient to establish jurisdiction. Having the child physically in Wisconsin, or being able to personally sue a parent here, does not by itself create or defeat jurisdiction under this section.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the first basis Wisconsin uses to decide whether it can make an initial custody determination?
Home state. Section 822.21(1)(a) gives Wisconsin jurisdiction if it is the child’s home state at the start of the proceeding, or was the home state within the prior six months while a parent or person acting as a parent continues to live here.
If Wisconsin isn’t the child’s home state, can it still take the case?
Yes, but only under section 822.21(1)(b), which applies when no other state has home-state jurisdiction or the home state has declined it in Wisconsin’s favor, and only if Wisconsin has a significant connection with the child and at least one parent or caretaker, plus substantial evidence here about the child’s care and relationships.
Is having the child physically present in Wisconsin enough for a Wisconsin court to decide custody?
No. Section 822.21(3) states that physical presence of a party or the child is not necessary or sufficient to make a child custody determination.
Can Wisconsin take jurisdiction just because a parent lives here and can be personally sued here?
No. Section 822.21(3) also says personal jurisdiction over a party is not necessary or sufficient for jurisdiction under this section.
What if no other state would qualify under any of the other bases?
Section 822.21(1)(d) lets Wisconsin take jurisdiction if no court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the criteria in paragraphs (a), (b), or (c).
Amendment History
History: 2005 a. 130.
Source & verification. Section text and official notes are
reproduced verbatim from the Wisconsin Statutes, published by the
Wisconsin Legislature (Legislative Reference Bureau). Last verified July 15, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as:wisconsin home state custody jurisdictioninitial child custody determination wisconsinwis stat 822.21significant connection jurisdiction child custody wisconsinuccjea home state rule wisconsin