(a) The issuing state or Tribal Court did not have jurisdiction over the parties and child under the laws of the issuing jurisdiction;

(b) In the case of jurisdiction over a party based on personal service, the issuing court was an unusually inconvenient forum for the trial of the action;

(c) The child custody determination sought to be registered has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so;

(d) The person contesting registration was entitled to notice, but notice was not given in the proceeding before the court that issued the determination for which registration is sought;

(e) The cause of action on which the custody order is based is repugnant to the public policy of the Tribe or would be contrary to the general welfare of the Tribe or its members; or

(f) The foreign custody determination would serve to violate any federal law or Tribal law, custom or tradition, or the laws of the issuing jurisdiction violate Yurok custom, tradition, or sense of justice. [Ord. 50 § 8.3(2)(C), adopted, 3/23/2017.]