(a)
(1)A court of this state having jurisdiction under Section 1993 to appoint a conservator may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if it determines at any time that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum.
(2)
The issue of appropriate forum may be raised upon petition of any interested person, the court’s own motion, or the request of another court.
(3)
The petitioner, or, if there is no petitioner, the court in this state, shall give notice of the petition, motion, or request to the same persons and in the same manner as for a petition for a conservatorship under Section 1801. The notice shall
state the basis for the petition, motion, or request, and shall inform the recipients of the date, time, and place of the hearing under paragraph (4). The notice shall also advise the recipients that they have a right to object to the petition, motion, or request. The notice to the potential conservatee shall inform the potential conservatee of the right to be represented by legal counsel if the potential conservatee so chooses, and to have legal counsel appointed by the court if the potential conservatee is unable to retain legal counsel.
(4)
The court shall hold a hearing on the petition, motion, or request.
(b)
If a court of this state declines to exercise its jurisdiction under subdivision (a), it shall grant the petition, motion, or request, and either dismiss or stay any conservatorship proceeding pending in this state. The court’s order shall be based on evidence presented
to the court. The order shall be in a record and shall expressly state that the court declines to exercise its jurisdiction because a court of another state is a more appropriate forum. The court may impose any condition the court considers just and proper, including the condition that a petition for the appointment of a conservator of the person, conservator of the estate, or conservator of the person and estate be filed promptly in another state.
(c)
In determining whether it is an appropriate forum, the court shall consider all relevant factors, including all of the following:
(1)
Any expressed preference of the proposed conservatee.
(2)
Whether abuse, neglect, or exploitation of the proposed conservatee has occurred or is likely to occur and which state could best protect the proposed conservatee from the abuse,
neglect, or exploitation.
(3)
The length of time the proposed conservatee was physically present in or was a legal resident of this or another state.
(4)
The location of the proposed conservatee’s family, friends, and other persons required to be notified of the conservatorship proceeding.
(5)
The distance of the proposed conservatee from the court in each state.
(6)
The financial circumstances of the estate of the proposed conservatee.
(7)
The nature and location of the evidence.
(8)
The ability of the court in each state to decide the issue expeditiously and the procedures necessary to present evidence.
(9)
The familiarity of the court of each state with the facts and issues in the proceeding.
(10)
If an appointment were made, the court’s ability to monitor the conduct of the conservator.