(A) The court having jurisdiction pursuant to Section 62-5-707 to appoint a guardian or issue a protective order may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines at any time that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.
(B) If the court declines to exercise its jurisdiction pursuant to subsection (A), it either shall dismiss or stay the proceeding. The court may impose any condition the court considers just and proper, including the condition that a petition for the appointment of a guardian or issuance of a protective order be filed promptly in another state.
(C) In determining whether it is an appropriate forum, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including:
(1) the expressed preference of the alleged incapacitated individual;
(2) whether abuse, neglect, or exploitation of the alleged incapacitated individual has occurred or is likely to occur and which state could best protect the alleged incapacitated individual from the abuse, neglect, or exploitation;
(3) the length of time the alleged incapacitated individual was physically present in or was a legal resident of this or another state;
(4) the distance of the alleged incapacitated individual from the court in each state;
(5) the financial circumstances of the alleged incapacitated individual's estate;
(6) the nature and location of the evidence;
(7) the ability of the court in each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present evidence;
(8) the familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the proceeding; and
(9) if an appointment is made, the court's ability to monitor the conduct of the guardian or conservator.
HISTORY: 2010 Act No. 213, Section 1, eff January 1, 2011; 2017 Act No. 87 (S.415), Section 5.B, eff January 1, 2019.
Editor's Note
2010 Act No. 213, Section 4, provides as follows:
"The provisions of this act take effect on January 1, 2011, and apply to guardianship and protective proceedings begun on or after that date."
Effect of Amendment
2017 Act No. 87, Section 5.B, in (B), substituted "either shall dismiss" for "shall either dismiss"; in (C)(1) through (C)(4), substituted "alleged incapacitated individual" for "respondent"; and in (C)(5), substituted "alleged incapacitated individual's" for "respondent's".