No Minor Children
1) Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;
2) The length of time the child has resided outside this state;
3) The distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;
4) The relative financial circumstances of the parties;
5) Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;
6) the nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including the testimony of the child;
7) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and
8) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues of the pending litigation.
Once Utah has jurisdiction over a child custody issue, Utah retains jurisdiction and has exclusive continuing jurisdiction until a court in Utah determines that neither the child nor one parent have significant connection with Utah, or none of the parties live in Utah any longer.
In order for a child custody or visitation determination to be consistent with the PKPA, the state court must have jurisdiction under the law of that state (in Utah the UCCJEA, and one of the following must be met:
1) The state must be the home state of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or had been the child's home state within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from such state because of the child's removal or retention by a contestant or for other reasons, and a contestant continues to live in the state.
2) No other state would have jurisdiction under 1 and it is in the best interest of the child that the court of a state assume jurisdiction because the child and parents, or the child and at least one contestant have a significant connection with the state other than mere physical presence, and there is available in the state substantial evidence concerning the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships.
3) The child is physically present in the state and the child has been abandoned or it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, a sibling, or parent of the child has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse.
4) No other state would have jurisdiction under 1, 2, 3, or 5 or another state has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the state whose jurisdiction is in issue is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody or visitation of the child, and it is in the best interest of the child that such court assume jurisdiction.
5) The court has continuing jurisdiction because it made a child custody or visitation determination consistent with the PKPA, and the provisions of the PKPA continue to be met, and the state remains the residence of the child or any contestant.
It is apparent that the PKPA has a clear preference for home state jurisdiction in determining which state has jurisdiction.