WPC # VUNa % 0(U<w@ 4Y m 0L| 0l 0D4 x 0J 0T 0^ 0h| 0r 0|V 0 0X 1u U,] 0d BU, U>6B)tDC 0N AM. D3{U*. 0@F5v~ v AO[ 0Dp D/ BHP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPT0 (hH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX($-Bu Z$Arrus BT Roman &'E([)*+D,U-.Ӏ:yJ 3|x:> $Small Circle0 ((3$ !      0  (#$  0  2 0Indent123  2" 0Indent20 23  2, 0Indent30 0 23  26 0Indent40 0 0 23  2@ 0Indent50 0 0 0 23  2J 0Indent60 0 0 0 0 23  2T 0Indent70 0 0 0 0 0 23  2^ 0Indent80 0 0 0 0 0 0 23   ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)<  9p`(ModernP 8Mac DefaultMac Default ` X d<  9p`(Monaco<  9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d&&&&7Border 1dd>$"Small Circle"0  -'C << G""""'dxd<  9p`(Arial $ !  #d#%  ++   YYY FILED+X August14,1996CecilCrowson,Jr.+AppellateCourtClerk ("$      !#d#%   $       ݀ThePKPAdefinesa custodydeterminationas ajudgment,decree,orotherorderofacourtprovidingforthecustodyor visitation ofachild,andincludespermanentandtemporaryorders,andinitialordersandmodifications.28U.S.C.A.1738A(b)(3).(Emphasisadded.)  !#d#%   $       UnderthePKPAahomestateis theStateinwhich,immediatelyprecedingthetimeinvolved,thechildlivedwithhisparents,aparent,orapersonactingasparent,foratleastsixconsecutivemonths.... 28U.S.C.A.1738A(b)(4).%PtPtHH(FG(HH(d'`Styl{WP}01  HH  2$HH  Geneva  <Px443!#4$*$$*$ KK  Geneva  Geneva .,6 Monaco   BA Op Monaco  BA Op Monaco -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd ! . &$$Xd&#$$Xd#%  7=XXdd7     \RA'\    @ INTHECOURTOFAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE@ WESTERNSECTIONATJACKSON  ________________________________________________ MICHELLEYOUNG(SMITH) ,  PlaintiffAppellant,        ShelbyChanceryNo.1050752Vs.        C.A.No.02A019505CH00104L),';+'h| `  `L RODNEYSMITH,  DefendantAppellee.___________________________________________________________________________@ FROMTHECHANCERYCOURTOFSHELBYCOUNTY@ THEHONORABLEFLOYDPEETE,JR.,CHANCELLOR@ LawOfficeofDonOwens,P.A.,StuartBrianBreakstone@ ofMemphis,ForPlaintiffAppellant@ CarenB.Dantzker,Evans&PetreeofMemphis@ ForDefendantAppellee@ AFFIRMED @ Opinionfiled:        W.FRANKCRAWFORD,        PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S.CONCUR:DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGEHOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE ̛7=XXdXXd7   Thiscaseinvolvesaninterstatecustodydispute.PlaintiffAppellant,MichelleYoungSmith(Appellant),appealsthedecisionoftheShelbyCountyChanceryCourtdismissingherpetitionforlackofsubjectmatterjurisdictionandlackofpersonaljurisdictionoverRodneySmith,DefendantAppellee(Appellee). ThepartiesheretoweremarriedinOctober,1991,inArkansasanddivorcedbydecreeofthechancerycourtofRandolphCounty,Arkansas,enteredDecember23,1992.Priortothepartiesmarriage,appellanthadachild,DustinAndrewSmith,andinthedivorceproceedings,bloodtestresultsprovedthattheappelleewasnotthebiologicalfatherofthechild.Notwithstandingthelackofpaternity,appelleesoughtandwasgrantedcertainvisitationprivileges,whichproducedthepresentcontroversy. InJune,1993,theArkansascourtmodifiedappelleesvisitationrightsandinJanuary,1994,inconnectionwithacontemptcitationagainstappellant,enteredanagreedorderconcerningthedetailsofthevisitationarrangements. AppellantspetitionfiledJanuary3,1995,seekstoenrollandenforcetheArkansasdecreesdealingwithvisitationrightsgrantedtotheappellee.FilingandenforcementofforeignjudgmentsisprovidedforbyT.C.A.266101 etseq .(1980).Enforcementofsuchjudgmentsconcerningchildvisitationisappropriatepursuantto28U.S.C.1738A(a).However,itappearsthatthepartiesandthetrialcourttreatedthepetitionasseekingamodificationofthepriorArkansasdecreestoeliminateappelleesvisitationwithappellantsminorchild.Intheinterestofjudicialeconomy,wewillconsiderthecaseinthesamelight. AlthoughthepetitiondoesnotstatewhenappellantbecamearesidentofTennesseewithherchild,thepartiesconcedeintheirbriefsthatpetitionerandthechildwereresidentsofTennesseeatleastsixmonthsbeforethepetitionwasfiled.Inresponsetoappellantspetition,appelleefiledamotiontodismissattackingthecourtssubjectmatterjurisdictionandalsoassertedthatthecourthadnopersonaljurisdictionoverhim.Thetrialcourtdismissedappellantspetition,andappellanthasappealedpresentingasingleissueforreview,asstatedinherbrief:8 8 WhetherthetrialcourterredindismissingPlaintiffsPetitionforRegistration,Enrollment,andEnforcementofFinalDecreewherePlaintiffandminorchildhavebeenresidentsofMemphis,ShelbyCounty,Tennessee,forsixmonthsprecedingthefilingofthePetition,andatthetimeofthefilingofthePetitiontherewasnoactionpendinginaforeignforum. Aspreviouslynoted,thepartieshavetreatedthepetitionintheinstantcaseasapetitiontomodifythepreviousArkansasdecreesconcerningvisitationwiththeminorchild.Thus,therealquestionfortheCourt,aspresentedbythebriefsoftheparties,iswhethertheTennesseecourtortheArkansascourtundertheconcededfactshasjurisdictiontoconsiderthevisitationissue. ChildcustodycasespresentjurisdictionalissueswhichrequirethisCourttorefertotheUniformChildCustodyJurisdictionalAct(UCCJA)oftheappropriatestates; see,e.g. T.C.A.366201etseq.(Michie1991);Ark.CodeAnn.913201etseq.(Michie1987&Supp.1995),andtheParentalKidnapingPreventionAct(PKPA),28U.S.C.A.1738A(West1994).򛀀WhereprovisionsofastatesUCCJAareinconflictwiththePKPA,thePKPApreemptsthelawoftheindividualstate. Brownv.Brown ,847S.W.2d496(Tenn.1993); Atkinsv.Atkins ,823S.W.2d816(Ark.1992). ThepartiesdonotdisputethatArkansashadjurisdictiontorendertheinitialchildcustodyorderatthetimeofdivorce. .   ׀ThisCourtmustdeterminewhetherArkansasretainsjurisdictiontoconsiderarequesttomodifythatdecree. AlthoughTennesseeisnowthe homestate /   ׀oftheminorchild,thePKPAprovidesthatastatewhichmakesaninitialcustodydeterminationretainsjurisdictiontomodifythatdecisionif therequirementofsubsection(c)(1)ofthissectioncontinuestobemetandsuchStateremainstheresidenceofthechildorofanycontestant.28U.S.C.A.1738A(d).Subsection(c)provides:8 8 AchildcustodydeterminationmadebyacourtofaStateisconsistentwiththeprovisionsofthissectiononlyif8 8 8 (1)suchcourthasjurisdictionunderthelawofsuchState...28U.S.C.A.1738A(c).Thus,undersubsection(c),thisCourtisrequiredtorefertoArkansasjurisdictionalrequirementstodeterminewhetherornotArkansascontinuestohavejurisdictionunderitsownlaw. ArkansasjurisdictionalstatuteprovidesthatArkansascourtshavejurisdictiontomodifyachildcustodydeterminationif,interalia:8 8 Itisinthebestinterestofthechildthatacourtofthisstateassumejurisdictionbecause(I)thechildandhisparents,orthechildandatleastone(1)contestant,haveasignificantconnectionwiththisstateand(ii)thereisavailableinthisstatesubstantialevidenceconcerningthechildspresentorfuturecare,protection,training,andpersonalrelationships.Ark.CodeAnn.913203(a)(2).AlthoughTennesseesversionoftheUCCJAwouldrequirethisCourttodeterminewhetherArkansasorTennesseeisDustins homestatebeforeconsideringthe significantconnectiontest,Arkansaslawsallowthecourtsofthatstatetoassertjurisdictionbasedoneitherhomestatestatusoronthebasisofasignificantconnectionofthechildandonecontestanttothestate. UnderthePKPA,thisCourtisrequiredtodefertothejurisdictionalstandardsestablishedbytheArkansascourts.WefindthatunderArkansaslaw,thatstatehascontinuingjurisdictionbecause,one,RodneySmith,acontestant,isaresidentofArkansasandbyvirtueofthatfacthassignificantconnectionswiththatstateandtwo,DustinSmith,thechild,wasbornthereandcontinuestovisitArkansasonaregularbasis.UnderArkansaslaw,Dustinsvisitsconstituteasignificantconnectionwiththatstate. See,e.g.Brownv.Brown ,663S.W.2d190,191(Ark.Ct.App.1984)(findingthatchildrenhad significantconnectionunder913203(a)(2)[formerArk.CodeAnn.342703(a)(2)]withArkansasbasedonthefactthatchildrenvisitedtheirfatherinArkansasfor reasonableweekendvisitations...andtwoweeks...duringthesummer); ODanielv.Walker ,686S.W.2d805.80607(Ark.Ct.App.1985)(findingthatArkansashadcontinuingjurisdictiontomodifyacustodydecreebecausethechildren,whoresidedwiththeirmotherinTennesseebutvisitedtheirfatherinArkansas,wherehewasaresident,hada significantconnectionwithArkansasasrequiredby913203(a)(2)[formerArk.CodeAnn.342703(a)(2)]).Furthermore,thereisevidenceintheinstantcasethattheArkansascourtshavehadnumerousdealingswiththepartiesandthushave substantialevidenceconcerningthechildspresentorfuturecare,protection,training,andpersonalrelationships,asrequiredbythestatute.Ark.CodeAnn.913203(a)(2). AlthoughArkansaslawcontrolsinthecaseatbar,theexamplecitedbytheTennesseeSupremeCourtin Stateexrel.Cooperv.Hamilton isinstructiveinexplainingtheconceptofcontinuingjurisdictionunderthePKPA:8 8 AtypicalexampleisthecaseofthecouplewhoaredivorcedinStateA,theirmatrimonialhomestate,andwhosechildrenareawardedtothewife,subjecttovisitationrightsofthehusband.WifeandchildrenmovetostateB,withorwithoutpermissionofthecourttoremovethechildren.StateAhascontinuingjurisdictionandthecourtsinstateBmaynothearthewifespetitiontomakeherthesolecustodian,eliminatevisitationrights,ormakeanyothermodificationofthedecree,eventhoughstateBhasinthemeantimebecomethehomestateundersection3[oftheUCCJA].ThejurisdictionofstateAcontinuesandisexclusiveaslongasthehusbandlivesinstateAunlesshelosescontactwiththechildren,forexample,bynotusinghisvisitationprivilegesforthreeyears. Id .,688S.W.2d821,826(Tenn.1985). BecauseArkansashascontinuingjurisdictionunderthePKPA,thecourtsofthisStatemaynotassertjurisdictiontoaffecttheArkansascustodydetermination.ThePKPAprovides:8 8 (f)AcourtofaStatemaymodifyadeterminationofthecustodyofthesamechildmadebyacourtofanotherState,if8 8 8 (1)ithasjurisdictiontomakesuchachildcustodydetermination;and8 8 8 (2)thecourtoftheotherStatenolongerhasjurisdiction,orithasdeclinedtoexercisesuchjurisdictiontomodifysuchdetermination.8 8 (g)AcourtofaStateshallnotexercisejurisdictioninanyproceedingforacustodydeterminationcommencedduringthependencyofaproceedinginacourtofanotherStatewheresuchcourtofthatotherStateisexercisingjurisdictionconsistentlywiththeprovisionsofthissectiontomakeacustodydetermination.28U.S.C.A.1738A.Clearly,Arkansashasnotdeclinedtoexercisejurisdictioninthiscase.Thecourtsofthisstatearethereforewithoutsubjectmatterjurisdictiontorenderacustodydecision.28U.S.C.A.1738A(f),(g). Theorderofthetrialcourtisaffirmed.Costsofappealareassessedagainsttheappellant.       _________________________________       W.FRANKCRAWFORD,       PRESIDINGJUDGE,W.S. CONCUR:_________________________________DAVIDR.FARMER,JUDGE _________________________________ HOLLYKIRBYLILLARD,JUDGE ̜