How can a state assume jurisdiction if there is no home state for child custody matters?

In child custody matters, when there is no home state for a child—typically defined as the state where the child has lived for the last six consecutive months—the court must look at alternative bases for assuming jurisdiction. One of the key bases is the child's significant connection to the state in question.

A state can assume jurisdiction if the child has significant connections with persons in that state beyond just being temporarily present. This can be established through family ties, where relatives reside, and where other elements of the child's life are based, such as schooling or community involvement. This principle is rooted in the desire to ensure that custody decisions are made in a context where the child's relationships and experiences are most relevant, promoting stability and continuity in the child's life.

While emergency intervention may allow a court to take action in urgent situations (which is a valid basis for jurisdiction), it does not apply when the standard for long-term jurisdiction is being determined. Random assignment of cases does not provide a jurisdictional basis and is not grounded in the best interests of the child. Request from parents alone does not grant a state jurisdiction; it must be supported by substantial connections to the child as outlined in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) or similar state statutes