Terminating Custody Jurisdiction in New Jersey

Once New Jersey has jurisdiction in a custody matter, which generally happens as a result of New Jersey Courts having made the initial determination of custody. After making that determination, New Jersey is considered to have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, meaning that New Jersey and only New Jersey has the right to make custody determinations for that child or those children. How that continuing, exclusive jurisdiction ends depends on the specifics of the case, more specifically:

  • A New Jersey court determines that neither the child, the child and one parent, nor the child and a person acting as a parent have significant connection with New Jersey and that substantial evidence is no longer available in New Jersey concerning the child’s care, protection, training and personal relationships, or

  • A New Jersey Court or the court of another state determines that neither the child, nor a parent, nor any person acting as a parent presently reside in New Jersey. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-66; or

  • New Jersey is found to be an inconvenient forum, meaning that a New Jersey Court does have jurisdiction but declines to exercise that jurisdiction because the court of another state is more appropriate to exercise jurisdiction over a particular case considering relevant factors, including but not limited to:

    • Whether there has been domestic violence, which state it was in and could best protect the parties and child;
    • Amount of time the child has resided out of state;
    • Relative financial circumstances of the parties;
    • Any agreement between the parties about state jurisdiction;
    • Nature and location of evidence required to resolve the litigation including the child’s testimony;
    • The court’s ability of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and
    • The familiarity of each court with the facts and issue of the pending litigation. N.J.S.A. 2A:34-71a & b.

The case of Griffith v. Tressel interpreted the application of the cessation of continuing, exclusive jurisdiction by making abundantly clear that both the elements of no significant connection with New Jersey and no substantial evidence within New Jersey concerning the case would serve to divest New Jersey of custody jurisdiction. Griffith v. Tressel, 392 N.J. Super. 128, 142-3 (App. Div. 2007).

Though determination that New Jersey is an inconvenient forum can divest it of jurisdiction, the principle is separate and distinct from application of the significant connection and substantial evidence standards and is, rather determined based on the considerations set forth above. If the New Jersey court determines that it is an inconvenient forum, it stays the proceeding in New Jersey conditioned upon the action being promptly commenced in another, more appropriate state, but there must be a court of another state willing to take jurisdiction of the matter. N.J.S.A. 2A:34:71c.

What is important to remember is that the laws have been set up to prevent jurisdiction in custody matters in multiple states at the same time. This, in turn, avoids multiple custody orders from multiple jurisdictions on the same case. Therefore, to bring a custody action in a state other than New Jersey, it is always necessary to terminate New Jersey’s continuing, exclusive jurisdiction over the case under the principles set forth above.

If you need to discuss terminating custody jurisdiction in New Jersey, call the Law Offices of Peter Van Aulen for a free 30 minute in office consultation at 201-845-7400.

Peter has integrity, and values his relationships with his clients beyond his financial relationship with them. For me to say this about any lawyer is really saying something. He is compassionate, straightforward and knowledgeable. I would easily recommend him to anybody.
Peter Van Aulen handled my case with great diligence and integrity. He is also a compassionate individual who realizes what a difficult time divorce can be emotionally. Peter works hard and doesn't take any shortcuts in preparing for a case… I highly recommend Mr. Van Aulen and his staff. Chuck Solomon
Peter is an exceptionally great attorney. He handled my child custody case and was able to ease any of my concerns with honest answers. He always took the time to explain the pros/cons and was always available to answer any questions that I had… I would highly recommend this attorney to anyone who is looking for one. Jessica Cruz
Peter Van Aulen is a very compassionate, honest and straightforward person. He was there for me at my lowest point with a genuine concern not only for my situation, but for me and my child's well being above all… He is fair and he is strong and when push comes to shove he is there for you. Cathy Dodge
Our cousin used Peter's law office to help with a sticky custody situation. He was extremely responsive, very nice and most importantly did an awesome job with the court! He is awesome. Lawrence Polsky

*Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances