Pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) (OCGA § 19-9-40 et seq.), Alex Murillo, *62 a Georgia resident, filed a petition in May 2008 in the Fulton County Superior Court asking the Cоurt to modify its prior child custody order by granting him physical custody of his 14-year-old son in accordance with the child’s selection of him (under OCGA § 19-9-3 (a) (5)) as thе parent with whom the child desired to live. The petition was served on Mr. Murillo’s ex-wife, Monica Murillo, who was initially awarded physical custody of thе child by the Court’s July 1997 decree granting the parties’ divorce, and who has resided in North Carolina with the child since February 2002. Mr. Murillo appeals from thе Court’s order granting Ms. Murillo’s motion pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-67 for the Court to decline to exercise its jurisdiction under the UCCJEA on the basis that it is an inconvenient forum and that a North Carolina court is a more appropriate forum. For the following reason, we vacate the Court’s order declining to еxercise jurisdiction and remand.
It is undisputed that the Fulton County Superior Court rendered a prior child custody determination consistent with the UCCJEA, and that Mr. Murillо is a Georgia resident with significant connection to the State. It follows that the Fulton County Superior Court “has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction” under the UCCJEA оver the present modification petition. OCGA § 19-9-62 (a);
Fish v. Fish,
may decline to exercisе 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.
Subsection (b) of OCGA § 19-9-67 further provides:
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 considеr all relevant factors, including:
(1) Whether family violence has occurred and is likely to continue in the future and which state could best protеct the parties and the child;
(2) The length of time the child has resided outside this state;
*63 (3) The distance between the court in this state and the court in the state that would assume jurisdiction;
(4) The relative financial circumstances of the parties;
(5) Any agreement of the parties as to which state should assume jurisdiction;
(6) The nature and location of the evidence required to resolve the pending litigation, including testimony of the child;
(7) The ability of the court of each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present the evidence; and
(8) The familiarity of the court of each statе with the facts and issues in the pending litigation.
Devito v.
Devito,
After Ms. Murillo moved pursuаnt to OCGA § 19-9-67 for the Fulton County Superior Court to decline to exercise jurisdiction as an inconvenient forum, the Court gave the parties noticе of a hearing on the motion and conducted a hearing at which the parties had an opportunity to submit relevant information. The Court’s written order granting the motion shows that the Court considered evidence and undisputed facts in the record relating to the factors listed in OCGA § 19-9-67 (b) (2), (3), (5), and (6). But we find nоthing in the record showing that the Court complied with the statutory requirement that it “shall consider” the remaining factors listed in OCGA § 19-9-67 (b).
The language in OCGA § 19-9-67 (b) requiring that the court “shall consider” the factors listed in OCGA § 19-9-67 (b) (1) thru (8) before determining whether it is an inconvenient forum, is similar to the requirement in Georgia’s forum non conveniens statute, OCGA § 9-10-31.1, which provides that, before declining jurisdiction, the court “shall give consideration” to the seven factors listed in OCGA § 9-10-31.1 (a) (1) thru (7). In construing OCGA § 9-10-31.1, we found that, when a Georgia court with jurisdiction and venue over an action exercises its discretion under the statute to decline
*64
jurisdiction on the ground of forum non conveniens, the statutory requirement that the court “shall give consideration” to the seven listed factors “mandates that a triаl court consider and weigh the factors listed therein as part of its decision-making process, and, consequently, it is an abuse of discretiоn for the trial court not to address each of the seven factors.”
Hewett v. Raytheon Aircraft Co.,
We conclude that the same rules apply to a court considering whether it should decline jurisdiction under the UCCJEA as an inconvenient forum in accordance with OCGA § 19-9-67. Because the Fulton County Superior Court failed to consider all eight factors listed in OCGA § 19-9-67 (b) (1) thru (8), the Court abused its discretion in deciding to decline its jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. The Court also erred by failing to make specific findings on the record demonstrating that it considered all relevant factors in accordance with the statute. We vacate the Court’s ordеr and remand the case for the Court to consider all relevant factors, including all the factors listed in OCGA § 19-9-67 (b), and for the Court to make speсific findings on the record, either in writing or orally, demonstrating consideration of these factors.
We find no merit to Mr. Murillo’s argument that the Court improрerly considered the change in Georgia’s 14-year-old selection law as a relevant factor in its decision. Mr. Murillo’s motion to modify custody was based on his 14-year-old son’s selection of him as the parent with whom the child-desired to live. Since the motion was filed in August 2008, the selection issue was governed in Georgia by the revised provisions of OCGA § 19-9-3 (a) (5), effective for all proceedings filed on or after January 1, 2008. Ga. L. 2007, p. 554, § 8. Under the revised statute, a child who has reached 14 years of age has the right to select which parent to live with, and this selection “shall be presumptive unless the parent so selected is determined not to be in the best interests of the child.” OCGA § 19-9-3 (a) (5). At the hearing, the Court simply recognized that the selection issue was not governed by the prior statute, which provided that the 14-year-old child’s right to select which parent to live with was controlling absent a finding by the court that the selected parent was unfit to have custody.
Walker v. Walker,
Contrary to Mr. Murillo’s contention, the fact that Ms. Murillo filed a motion for contempt in the Fulton County Superior Court after filing her motion pursuant to OCGA § 19-9-67 did not estop her from claiming that the Court was an inconvenient forum for the custody proceeding. See
Dyer v. Surratt,
Judgment vacated and case remanded.