Also known as:significant connection jurisdiction · significant connection
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A basis for a court's authority to make an initial child-custody determination when no state qualifies as the child's home state. The court may exercise this authority if the child and at least one parent or person acting as a parent have a significant connection with the state other than mere physical presence and substantial evidence concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships is available in the state.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
6
Alternating Residence Supports Dual Jurisdiction
Sophia Singh and her six-year-old son have alternated six-month stays between State UU and State VV for two years. When the parents file competing custody petitions on the same day, neither state meets the home-state requirement. The court in State UU finds that the child and Sophia have lived substantial periods in UU, that Sophia resides there, and that school and medical records are located there, satisfying the significant-connection test and allowing UU to proceed.
Best-Interest Finding After Move
After divorce in State A, Odell relocates with Uriah to State C where the child attends school and receives medical care for two years. Paula maintains only periodic work stops in State A. When Odell seeks modification in State C, the court determines that the child's daily life, records, and Odell's residence create a significant connection in C and that substantial evidence now exists there, making it in the child's best interest for State C to assume jurisdiction.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Statutes
Uniform Acts
Dictionaries
Loss of Continuing Jurisdiction
State A entered the original custody order. Two years later the child and primary custodian have lived exclusively in State C, with all school, medical, and social records now generated in C. The State A court determines that neither the child nor the child and one parent retain a significant connection with A and that substantial evidence is no longer available there, terminating exclusive continuing jurisdiction.
Class Members' Ties to Forum
Sylvia Santos and other nonresident parents hold lease interests in gas-producing properties located in State K. When a class action is filed in State K seeking interest on suspended royalties, the court finds that the child-custody analogy of significant-connection jurisdiction does not apply because the lease interests create only attenuated contacts insufficient to support jurisdiction over the nonresidents.
Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Shutts472 U.S. 797 (USSC 1985)
Minimum Contacts Through Conduct
Scott Summers, a Nevada resident, is sued in Nevada after an alleged tortious act in Georgia. The court holds that the defendant's knowledge that the plaintiffs reside in Nevada does not by itself create a significant connection sufficient for personal jurisdiction, applying a contacts analysis parallel to the significant-connection test used in custody matters.
Walden v. Fiore(2014), 571 U.S. at p. ––, 134 S. Ct. at p. 1123.
Standing and State Interest
Stella Shapiro and other residents challenge a nuclear-plant licensing decision in federal court. The court examines whether the plaintiffs' residence and the plant's location create a significant connection to the forum sufficient to support standing, drawing on the same type of concrete ties required for significant-connection jurisdiction in custody disputes.
DUKE POWER CO. v. CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY GROUP, INC.438 U.S. 59 (1978)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
3
When does a court lose exclusive continuing jurisdiction under the significant-connection test?+
A court loses exclusive continuing jurisdiction when it determines that neither the child nor the child and one parent has a significant connection with the state and that substantial evidence concerning the child's care is no longer available there. The same result follows if all parties have ceased to reside in the state.
Supporting sources
How does significant-connection jurisdiction differ from home-state jurisdiction?+
Home-state jurisdiction requires the child to have lived in the state for at least six consecutive months immediately before the proceeding. Significant-connection jurisdiction serves as a fallback when no state qualifies as the home state and requires both a significant connection other than mere presence and the availability of substantial evidence in the state.
Supporting sources
What evidence satisfies the substantial-evidence requirement?+
School records, medical records, therapist notes, and testimony from teachers or caregivers located in the state satisfy the requirement. The evidence must concern the child's present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships.
Supporting sources
514 U.S. 549 (1995)Constitutional Law
…Upholding this legislation would do no more than simply recognize that Congress had a "rational basis" for finding a significant connection between guns in or near schools and (through their effect on education) the interstate and foreign commerce they threaten. For these reasons, I would reverse the judgment of the Court of…