Wife did not meet her burden of proving Florida was an inconvenient forum

In Leming v. Jenkins, 39 FLW D408a (Fla 5th DCA) opinion filed February 21, 2014, wife appealed order denying her motion to transfer the child custody portion of her dissolution action to Tennessee based on Florida being an inconvenient forum.
Full opinion follows:
(GRIFFIN, Judge.) Appellant, Amy M. Leming [“Wife”], appeals the trial court's non-final order denying Wife's motion to transfer to Tennessee the child custody portion of the dissolution action, which was filed in Florida by her estranged husband, Jody D. Jenkins, based on her contention that Florida is an inconvenient forum. Wife contends that the trial court abused its discretion by denying her motion and, moreover, contends that this denial violated her due process rights.
The trial court denied the motion, filed pursuant to section 61.520, Florida Statutes (2013), after weighing the factors enumerated under that section and finding that Wife had not met her burden to establish that Tennessee is a more appropriate forum for hearing the case. The trial court's decision to retain jurisdiction over the child-custody determination did not constitute an abuse of discretion.
AFFIRMED. (EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., concur.)

61.520 Inconvenient forum.—

(1) A court of this state which has jurisdiction under this part to make a child custody determination may decline to exercise its jurisdiction at any time if it determines that it is an inconvenient forum under the circumstances and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. The issue of inconvenient forum may be raised upon motion of a party, the court’s own motion, or request of another court.

(2) Before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, a court of this state shall consider whether it is appropriate for a court of another state to exercise jurisdiction. For this purpose, the court shall allow the parties to submit information and shall consider all relevant factors, including:

(a) Whether domestic violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protect the parties and the child;

(b) The length of time the child has resided outside this state;

(c) The distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;

(d) The relative financial circumstances of the parties;

(e) Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;

(f) The nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;

(g) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and

(h) The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.

(3) If a court of this state determines that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, it shall stay the proceedings upon condition that a child custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another designated state and may impose any other condition the court considers just and proper.

(4) A court of this state may decline to exercise its jurisdiction under this part if a child custody determination is incidental to an action for divorce or another proceeding while still retaining jurisdiction over the divorce or other proceeding.

History.—s. 5, ch. 2002-65.