What constitutes a significant connection for jurisdiction in child custody if no home state exists?

When determining jurisdiction for child custody in situations where there is no home state for the child, courts often look for a significant connection to establish legal authority over custody matters. A significant connection implies that there are substantial ties between the child, at least one parent, and the particular jurisdiction.

In this context, the existence of evidence regarding the child’s situation—such as where they have spent significant time or where their personal and familial relationships are established—can indicate that a state is an appropriate forum for deciding custody issues. When at least one parent has a substantial connection to the state, it strengthens the case for jurisdiction there, as it's essential that the court has relevant information to make informed decisions about the child's welfare.

The other options do not capture this necessary legal standard. A legal connection to a parent alone might be too broad and not necessarily indicate a deep enough bond to the jurisdiction. The residence of grandparents, while relevant, typically does not carry enough weight on its own to dictate jurisdiction unless it directly affects the child's situation. Financial ties to the state might not pertain to the child’s specific circumstances, which are critical in custody determinations. Thus, option B accurately reflects the necessary connection required for jurisdiction in child custody cases when no home state exists.