The Oklahoma Bar Journal January 2026

appropriate forum to determine the custody

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 author ity 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 juris diction 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 com petent forums should proceed, as the court in N.A. noted. There are explicit sections of the UCCJEA that deal with that issue, includ ing Section 551-207 on inconve nient 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

1. This state is the home state of the child on the date of the commence ment of the proceeding, or was the home state of the child within six

of the child under Section 19 or 20 of this act; or 4. No court of any other state would have jurisdiction under the

(6) months before the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from

criteria specified in paragraph 1, 2, or 3 of this subsection. B. Subsection A of this section is the exclusive jurisdic tional basis for making a child custody determina tion by a court of this state. C. Physical presence of, or personal jurisdiction over, a party or a child is not neces sary 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:

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 jurisdic tion 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 sig

nificant connection with this state other than mere physical presence, and b. substantial evidence is available in this

state concerning the child’s care, protection, train ing, and personal relationships; 3. All courts having juris

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?

diction under paragraph 1 or 2 of this subsection have declined to exer cise jurisdiction on the ground that a court of this state is the more

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.

JANUARY 2026 | 11

THE OKLAHOMA BAR JOURNAL