RulesofCivilProcedure.com Civil Procedure · Every State

822.27.Inconvenient forum.

Ch. 822: Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act · Last amended 2005 · Last verified July 15, 2026

In one sentenceSection 822.27 lets a Wisconsin court with jurisdiction step aside if it decides, after weighing factors like domestic violence, distance, and each state’s familiarity with the case, that another state is a more appropriate forum, and it can stay the case on the condition that a new proceeding start promptly there.

Full Text of Section 822.27

Text sizeJump to: (1) (2) (3) (4)

(1) 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 the motion of a party, the court’s own motion, or the request of another court.
(2) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including all of the following:
(a) Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child.
(b) The length of time that the child has resided outside this state.
(c) The distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction.
(d) The relative financial circumstances of the parties.
(e) Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction.
(f) The nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child.
(g) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence.
(h) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.
(3) If a court of this state determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, the court shall stay the proceedings upon condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state and may impose any other condition that the court considers just and proper.
(4) A court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this chapter if a child custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding.

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.

Plain-English Summary

Section 822.27 gives a Wisconsin court a way to decline jurisdiction it otherwise has, when another state is a better fit for the case. Subsection (1) allows the court to decline jurisdiction at any time it determines it is an inconvenient forum and another state is more appropriate, and the issue can be raised by a party’s motion, the court’s own motion, or a request from another court.

Subsection (2) requires the court to weigh a list of factors before deciding whether it is inconvenient, after letting the parties submit information. Those factors include whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue, and which state could best protect the parties and the child; how long the child has lived outside Wisconsin; the distance between the Wisconsin court and the court that would take over; the parties’ relative financial circumstances; any agreement between the parties about which state should take jurisdiction; the location of the evidence needed to resolve the case, including the child’s testimony; how quickly each court could decide the issue and what procedures it would need; and how familiar each court already is with the facts and issues.

Subsection (3) tells the court what to do once it decides another state is the more appropriate forum: stay the Wisconsin proceeding on the condition that a custody proceeding be commenced promptly in the other state, and impose whatever other conditions it considers just and proper. Subsection (4) covers a related but distinct situation: the court may decline jurisdiction over a custody determination that is incidental to a divorce or other proceeding, while still keeping jurisdiction over that other proceeding.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a Wisconsin court that otherwise has jurisdiction still refuse to hear a custody case?

Yes. Section 822.27(1) lets it decline jurisdiction at any time it determines that Wisconsin is an inconvenient forum and another state is more appropriate.

Who can raise the inconvenient forum issue?

Section 822.27(1) allows it to come from a party’s motion, the court’s own motion, or a request from another court.

What factors does the court weigh in deciding whether it’s an inconvenient forum?

Section 822.27(2) lists domestic violence and which state can best protect the parties and child, how long the child has lived outside Wisconsin, the distance between courts, the parties’ financial circumstances, any agreement on forum, the location of evidence including the child’s testimony, how quickly each court can decide the case, and each court’s familiarity with the facts and issues.

If Wisconsin steps aside as an inconvenient forum, does the case just disappear?

No. Section 822.27(3) requires the court to stay the proceedings on the condition that a custody proceeding be promptly commenced in the other designated state, and it may impose other conditions it considers just and proper.

Can a Wisconsin court decline to decide custody while still handling a related divorce case?

Yes. Section 822.27(4) allows the court to decline jurisdiction over a custody determination incidental to a divorce or other proceeding while retaining jurisdiction over that other proceeding.

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 inconvenient forum custody casemoving a custody case to another state wisconsinwis stat 822.27domestic violence factor custody jurisdiction wisconsin