Section 822.27 - Inconvenient forum(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.The above annotation cites to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, the predecessor statute to the current Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.
Section 801.63 does not control inconvenient forum motions in custody proceedings. Mayer v. Mayer, 91 Wis. 2d 342, 283 N.W.2d 591 (Ct. App. 1979). When children were abducted from their home state to Wisconsin, the trial court properly assumed emergency jurisdiction but erred in failing to stay the proceedings under s. 822.07(5). Vorpahl v. Lee, 99 Wis. 2d 7, 298 N.W.2d 222 (Ct. App. 1980). Contempt proceedings in a visitation matter do not involve a custody determination or modification, and this section is not applicable to a jurisdictional objection. In re Paternity of J.L.V. 145 Wis. 2d 308, 426 N.W.2d 112 (Ct. App. 1988). UCCJA jurisdictional requirements must be met only at the commencement of proceedings in this state. A TPR action commenced after the entry of a guardianship decree constituted a request for modification of custody that required reexamination of jurisdiction. In Interest of A.E.H. 161 Wis. 2d 277, 468 N.W.2d 190 (1991).