A family moves across the country from South Carolina for a new job. Three months later, the marriage breaks down, and one parent returns to South Carolina with the children. Both parents file for custody in different states.

Which state gets to decide?

South Carolina has a strong basis for custody jurisdiction under these facts, but the answer requires more than counting the years the family lived here. A genuine relocation, the children’s connections to each state, and the timing of competing court proceedings all matter.

For Example: Ten Years in South Carolina, Three Months in California

Mom and Dad lived in South Carolina for ten years with their children. In January 2026, the family moved to California for Dad’s job, intending to remain there for the foreseeable future.

After three months, Mom and the children returned to South Carolina. Mom filed for divorce and custody here, while Dad filed for divorce and custody in California at approximately the same time.

For this example, assume the children lived in South Carolina before the move, are older than six months, and no court previously entered a custody order.

The custody jurisdiction question is governed by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, commonly called the UCCJEA. This article addresses custody jurisdiction only.

What Is a Child’s “Home State”?

The UCCJEA generally gives priority to the child’s home state: the state where the child lived with a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the custody proceeding began. Temporary absences count toward that period.

There is also an extended home-state rule. A former home state can retain priority for six months after the child leaves if a parent or qualifying person acting as a parent continues living there.

California does not qualify as the children’s home state merely because the parents intended to stay there. At filing, the children had lived there for only three months.

Does South Carolina Automatically Remain the Home State?

Not necessarily.

Both parents and the children left South Carolina intending to relocate. Neither parent remained behind. Mom’s later return does not automatically satisfy the requirement that a parent “continues to live” in the former home state.

A useful illustration is Matter of Valerie K. v. Thomas K., a 2024 New York Family Court decision involving competing New York and California proceedings. The court rejected the argument that a parent who moved away and later returned had continuously remained in the former home state. It also found that an intended permanent relocation was not a temporary absence simply because the marriage subsequently failed. This trial court decision is illustrative, rather than controlling South Carolina authority.

Here, the stated intention to relocate for the foreseeable future weighs against treating the California stay as a temporary absence from South Carolina. Evidence about the move could affect that determination.

On the assumed facts, neither state clearly qualifies for home-state priority when the cases begin.

South Carolina Can Have Jurisdiction Without Being the Home State

When no state qualifies for home-state jurisdiction, S.C. Code § 63-15-330(A)(2) allows South Carolina to make an initial custody determination if:

• The children and at least one parent have a significant connection with South Carolina beyond simply being physically present here; and
• Substantial evidence is available here concerning the children’s care, protection, training, and personal relationships.

The family’s long history in South Carolina provides a strong foundation for meeting these requirements. Depending on the children’s ages and circumstances, relevant evidence might include:

• Teachers, school records, and educational history;
• Pediatricians, counselors, and other care providers;
• Grandparents, relatives, and longtime caregivers;
• Friends, activities, and established community relationships.

Mom’s return matters, but the deeper basis for jurisdiction is the family’s existing connections and the evidence available here.

A California appellate decision, In re Marriage of Sareen, 153 Cal. App. 4th 371 (2007), illustrates this principle. The court recognized significant-connection jurisdiction even though the mother and child had lived in California for less than three months, because no state qualified as the home state and the necessary connections and evidence existed there. Six months of residence is not required for every form of custody jurisdiction.

Could California Also Have Jurisdiction?

Possibly.

Dad remains in California, and the children lived there with both parents. California could examine their schooling, medical care, family relationships, and other connections established during those three months.

Sareen shows why California cannot be ruled out solely because the children lived there for less than six months. But Dad’s presence and employment alone do not establish all the required connections and evidence concerning the children.

South Carolina appears to have a particularly strong factual basis given the family’s longstanding history here. Nevertheless, the information supplied does not establish that South Carolina is the only state that could qualify.

What Happens When Both Parents File?

The timing of the filings can become important when both states have a valid jurisdictional basis.

Under § 63-15-340, South Carolina generally must pause its case and communicate with the other court if a qualifying custody proceeding was already pending there when the South Carolina case began. If the other court does not defer to South Carolina as the more appropriate forum, South Carolina generally must dismiss its custody proceeding.

Filing first matters only if that court actually has jurisdiction consistent with the UCCJEA. A filing cannot create jurisdiction by itself.

Where the filings occur at approximately the same time, the lawyers should identify the precise filing sequence and promptly disclose both proceedings.

Which State Should Hear This Custody Case?

South Carolina likely meets the significant-connection requirements, assuming the children’s longstanding relationships and substantial custody evidence remain here. Mom would have a substantial argument for having custody decided in South Carolina.

The courts can also consider whether one state is an inconvenient forum under § 63-15-342, including the location of evidence, distance, financial circumstances, and any domestic violence.

Parents facing this situation should gather a precise residence timeline, records explaining the relocation, information about the children’s connections in both states, and copies of every filing or order.

Related Settlyd Reading

• Joint Custody in Contemporary South Carolina
• Divorce Mediation: You Only Get One Shot, Make It Work!

Guy Vitetta | Charleston, South Carolina