When a victim flees domestic violence, litigation of custody in the refuge state can enhance the victim’s safety and economic welfare. Under La. R.S. 13:1819, a Louisiana court with UCCJEA jurisdiction may decline home state jurisdiction in favor of a domestic violence victim’s refuge state by conducting an “inconvenient forum” analysis. Although the inconvenient forum analysis includes a list of factors for consideration, the two factors that are most often determinative on the issue of whether a Louisiana court should decline jurisdiction are domestic violence and the length of time that the child has resided outside of Louisiana. When representing a survivor who has left Louisiana for a refuge state, lawyers should consider whether to file a motion under La. R.S. 13:1819 requesting that Louisiana decline jurisdiction.1
The leading case on applying the domestic violence factor in an inconvenient forum analysis is Stoneman v. Drollinger.2 Additionally, in an unpublished writ opinion, Kovach v. McKenna, a Louisiana appellate court ordered declination of Louisiana’s home state jurisdiction under La. R.S. 13:1819 and dismissal of the abusive party’s Louisiana custody suit. In doing so, the Kovach Court concluded that “domestic violence and residence of the child in another state for more than six months predominated over all other considerations in La. R.S. 13:1819.”3 As in Kovach, many trial courts may find an absence from the state of 6 months or more (even if it occurs after the initial filing) weighs heavily in favor of declining jurisdiction under a section 1819 “inconvenient forum” analysis. Louisiana’s courts of appeal have upheld declination as inconvenient forum when the child has been absent for a lengthy time.4 The ruling on a motion to decline as inconvenient forum is reviewable for abuse of discretion by supervisory writs.5
Additionally, if the victim of domestic violence left Louisiana after a Louisiana court issued an order regarding custody, lawyers should determine whether the previous order is an “initial custody consideration” that would give rise to continuing jurisdiction.6 If the prior order was only interim or temporary and was not a considered decree or a final judgment or consent judgment that took best interest factors into account, it may not be the kind of order that gives rise to continuing jurisdiction.7
- 1La. R.S. 13:1819(A).
- 264 P.3d 997 (Mont. 2003); see also Rainbow v. Rainbow, 990 A.2d 535 (Me. 2010) (declination of home state jurisdiction in favor of refuge state was appropriate where there was domestic violence).
- 3Kovach v. McKenna, 2011-C-0228 (La. App. 4 Cir. 4/1/11) (unpublished writ opinion).
- 4Burds v. Skidmore, 2019-0263, p. 1 (La. App. 4 Cir. 3/22/19), 267 So. 3d 192, 193 (where mother and child had been living in Georgia for 6 years, Georgia had the most significant connections and was the forum most convenient); Wootton v. Wootton, 49,00, p. 1 (La. App. 2 Cir. 5/14/14), 138 So. 3d 1253 (affirming trial court order declining to exercise continuing jurisdiction despite Louisiana consent judgment with provision indicating Louisiana would retain jurisdiction, where mother and child had lived in Mississippi for four years); Kovach, 2011-C-0228; see also Addington v. McGehee, 29729-CA (La. App. 2 Cir. 1997), 698 So. 2d 702, 704.
- 5Kovach, 2011-C-0228; see also Addington, 29729-CA, 698 So. 2d at 704.
- 6See La. R.S. 13:1802(3), (8).
- 7See Burds, 2019-0263, 267 So. 3d 192.