ÿWPC> +Ásì>^Ê&"o¥ƒÀ#­¡’Ѿ7ð×/G "c oÙ^ Ms-›†¢¼2 É£[hQl•VÂs‚iPáRð>ÊJoÏ÷¡¶ÁÁuŸ¬¼ÞR¡f" ¬L;” fÐÅÉw‘2UPw¢êªl/l®ÚÜÄÑ p彈Ã56VèËZ$£Ë $ú^Ë‘°j7(:жçvð¾¡ÖíA/Pdx(hEu‹ºš>@¹ï]™D‘0ÕGì.6¨v£u+a­T¬Oì86äC‹"tÆ¥ !3Œ’Ùñ‰0ëä©Â9¦ÀCyµ?öë¶àM¨øLOkuýê²$½4ð÷µhdàäBisÇý¿'9{ep=˜æ‚bs˜¹Y›ŠÇ³<ìNÝ“BO½Í¸R©]¹Œ¯ Äü#Ç a‘°€Õ¢e©ŽxÜwå.Œ ÍQÓ A†KœP×̆”D6xÀETzDõQ#’ó޾5ógÒAÝÿmy4gŸ~†ÚC݃pgJ`}?°18|ÓD§ømÈÓô½&O¶ûT—æ™üaí´“aöÉ¿ï(N¶Fo›Áê-HüÏ«Dºù^è"åúVtmÂn4¡ES†Ašx¯3è’{·ößv+*#!LU Nm %» 04Á 0³õb¨w@°4ðL 0D_E£bè J jb ·Ì AQƒÆÔ£šü=9U:IƃUNIIIIIN—^ ™¥ B§ mÄ 0PÛ 0P+ 0D{{ D/¿¿ Bî D3 ˜HP LaserJet 8000 DN PSØÚØÚÚØØÚ0'í€"  Z 6Times New Roman Regular¼( ¤U$¡¡Ó  Ó(c(2.¥$¤¤Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XAæX»¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó- ù- “U”D•U–—D˜™Ó€£¤¿¥EHO%3|x¥ BÝ ƒ.¥$ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XAæX»¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Florida€court€concluded€in€its€August€2,€1995€order€that€the€ð ðparties€including€theÐ ° ÐRespondent€have€had€substantial€contact€with€Florida.ðð(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó ;Ý ƒ.¥$ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XAæX»¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€Florida€court€denied€Dr.€Barnettððs€motion€to€reconsider€its€August€2,€1995€order,€andÐ ° Ðon€September€28,€1995,€directed€Dr.€Barnettððs€present€and€future€employers€to€withhold€$2,985€perÏmonth€from€his€compensation€for€ð ðdomestic€support€payments.ðð€€On€October€18,€1995,€the€FloridaÏDistrict€Court€of€Appeals€declined€to€review€the€Florida€courtððs€decisions€in€the€partiesðð€case. €SHELBYVILLETYRUSGiffinWorshamShelbyvilleWisemanSnodgrassHofferbertBernardiWamboldHobbsVoninskiKidnappingPinellasCullenKastanaPinellasUCCJA 28thChastain S.W.WisemanTyborowskiSnodgrassGreeneHofferbertBernardiNorthland Ins Mutbarnett v. barnett - opinion Î % '  0 .    ­Ý ƒ.¥$ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XAæX»¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThe€act€of€marital€misconduct€upon€which€the€divorce€was€granted€was€Ms.€BarnettððsÐ ° Ðsnatching€of€the€children€from€Dr.€Barnettððs€parentsðð€Bedford€County€home€on€December€19,€1994.€ÏThat€finding€of€marital€misconduct€is€not€at€issue€in€this€appeal."#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5 ™Ý ƒ.¥$ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XAæX»¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔThis€court€may€affirm€a€trial€courtððs€decision€that€reaches€the€correct€result,€irrespective€ofÐ ° Ðthe€trial€courtððs€reasons.€€òòSee€Continental€Ô_ÔCasÔ_Ô.€Co.€v.€Smithóó,€720€S.W.2d€48,€50€(Tenn.€1986);€òòÔ_ÔKaylorÔ_ÔÐ šê Ðv.€Bradleyóó,€912€S.W.2d€728,€735€n.6€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1995);€òòClark€v.€Metropolitan€Ô_ÔGovððtÔ_Ôóó,€827Ð „Ô ÐS.W.2d€312,€317€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1991). òÝ ƒ.¥$ÝÓ  ÓÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÔ€XAæX»¼Ôà ` àòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  ÝÔ_ÔòòSeeóó€Fla.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€61.1306(5)€(West€1997);€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„202(5). Ý ƒ"¾¸"ÝÓ  ÓÝ  ÝÔ€¼T­»»¼ÔÔ€  »¼T­ÔÓ  Óò òÔ Ad ÔFILEDÔ€XR X  ÔÐ  ÐÌNovember€13,€1998ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔdAtÔó ó,@ÓÐAZ‹"Arial RegularLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(ÆúI Z‹6Times New Roman Regular„›l%ä dÿU‹ÿÀÀÀ((3¾¸$¢¢Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý((3¾¸$££Ý ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó(('÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd 'ÿÿdxdÝ ƒ¤U!ÝÓ  ÓÝ  Ýñ¤ñÔ‡¼0§»»¼Ôñ¤ñÔ_ÔÑ„°ÑÒ°ÒÒX°ÒÑTR[° AØ'ÿ Legal3Ø' AØ'ÿ Legalÿ3Ø'TÑÑ€ÑÑ8€¸¼»d dÈ8ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÔ€„B „»¼0§Ôò òñ£ññ™ñßr€)<,(j 8` `€€@E ±` 8ttxPX°ð  rßñ™ññ£ñÔ_ÔÌà@¡ ¡ DàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÌñ£ñßt€)>.*jxèÿ` `€€@E‚` 8ttxP@pð  tßñ£ñà@ÜÜ)DàAT€NASHVILLEó óˆÐ pÀ ÐÔ€¼0§»„„B ÔÌÌÌÌLARRY€ROGER€BARNETT,à À àà  à)Ð  h Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àPlaintiff/Appellee,à À àà  à)Ð <Œ  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àBedford€ChanceryÐ `°  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àNo.€19,848Ð r  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àAppeal€No.Ð –æ ÐSUSAN€MARIE€BARNETT,à À àà  à)à p à01A01„9605„CH„00228Ð ¨ø Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àDefendant/Appellant.à À àà  à)Ð Ì ÐÌÌÌñ¥ñÔ‡îRÃ0§Ôñ¥ñà@  DàAPPEAL€FROM€THE€CHANCERY€COURT€FOR€BEDFORD€COUNTYˆÌà@°°#DàAT€SHELBYVILLE,€TENNESSEEˆÌÌà@ª ª DàTHE€HONORABLE€TYRUS€H.€COBB,€CHANCELLORñ¥ñÔ#†¼0§»îîRÃÕ#Ôñ¥ñˆÌÌÌÌòòFor€Plaintiff/Appelleeóó:à h àà À àà  àà p àòòFor€Defendant/Appellantóó:Ð ’#â ÐÌRonñ–ñdñ–ñalñ—ñdñ—ñ€Thomas€Wilsonà h àà À àà  àà p àMichael€E.€GiffinÐ ¶%! ÐPatricia€Diane€Cookà h àà À àà  àà p àRobertson€Worsham€Gregory€&€GiffinÐ È&" ÐShelbyville,€Tennesseeà h àà À àà  àà p àTullahoma,€TennesseeÐ Ú'*#  ÐÔ€„B „»¼0§Ôò òÌÌÌÌÌÌà@š š DàAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€VACATED€IN€PART;ˆÌà@hh)DàAND€REMANDEDó óˆÐ Œ2Ü-( ÐÔ€¼0§»„„B ÔÌÌÌÌÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÐ  j;º60 ÐѰ„ÑÔ€„B „»¼0§Ôò òòòÓ€ÓÌà@ÎÎ)DàO€P€I€N€I€O€Nóóó óˆÐ À ÐÌÔ€¼0§»„„B Ôà ` àThis€appeal€involves€two€parentsðð€interstate€competition€for€the€custody€of€theirÐ à 0 Ðchildren.€€The€husband€filed€a€divorce€complaint€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€BedfordÏCounty€two€days€after€the€wife€commenced€proceedings€for€separate€maintenance€andÏchild€support€in€Florida.€€Following€a€bench€trial,€the€Tennessee€court€granted€theÏhusband€a€divorce€and€awarded€him€sole€custody€of€the€partiesðð€three€children.€€OnÏthis€appeal,€the€wife€asserts€that€the€Tennessee€court€did€not€have€jurisdiction€overÏthe€husbandððs€divorce€complaint€and€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€exercisedÏjurisdiction€over€the€child€custody€and€visitation€issues.€€While€we€find€that€the€trialÏcourt€had€jurisdiction€over€the€custody€issues€in€this€case,€we€have€determined€thatÏthe€trial€court€should€not€have€exercised€its€jurisdiction€and€should€have€deferred€toÏthe€Florida€court€where€the€wifeððs€petition€for€separate€maintenance€was€pending.€ÏAccordingly,€we€vacate€the€custody€determination.ÌÌà@ÜÜ.Dàò òI.€ó óˆÐ ¿  ÐÌà ` àSusan€Marie€Barnett€and€Larry€Roger€Barnett€met€while€they€were€students€atÏthe€University€of€Tennessee€and€were€married€in€June€1978€in€Clearwater,€Florida.€ÏDr.€Barnett€had€recently€earned€his€doctorate€degree€in€electrical€engineering,€and€Ms.ÏBarnett€had€earned€a€masterððs€degree€in€agricultural€extension.€€Soon€after€theirÏwedding,€the€parties€moved€to€northern€Virginia€where€Dr.€Barnett€had€acceptedÏemployment€with€the€Naval€Research€Laboratory.€€Between€1983€and€1988,€theÏparties€had€three€children,€two€daughters€and€a€son.ÌÌà ` àThe€parties€moved€to€Salt€Lake€City€in€1983€when€Dr.€Barnett€accepted€anÏassistant€research€professorship€at€the€University€of€Utah.€€Four€years€later,€theyÏmoved€to€Westminster,€Colorado,€and€in€1988,€they€purchased€a€home€in€Bailey,ÏColorado.€€Dr.€Barnett€continued€working€at€the€University€of€Utah€but€also€beganÏconsulting€with€the€National€Aeronautics€and€Space€Administration€in€Cleveland,ÏOhio€and€with€the€Tsing€Hua€University€in€Taiwan.€One€of€Dr.€Barnettððs€consultingÏprojects€involved€the€fabrication€of€high€power€microwave€equipment€for€aÐ r9Â4@ ÐTaiwanese€company.€€Because€Dr.€Barnettððs€fatherððs€business€in€Bedford€County€wasÏbuilding€the€equipment,€Dr.€Barnett€began€to€spend€significant€amounts€of€time€inÏTennessee.€€From€February€1991€through€July€1994,€Dr.€Barnett€would€spend€severalÏweeks€in€Tennessee€interspersed€with€several€weeks€in€Colorado.ÌÌà ` àThe€lengthy€periods€of€separation€caused€the€partiesðð€marriage€to€suffer.€€TheirÏrelationship€eventually€settled€into€a€recurring€pattern€of€irritable€disagreement€andÏopen€argument.€€Dr.€Barnett€attempted€to€alleviate€the€problem€by€suggesting€that€Ms.ÏBarnett€and€the€children€move€to€Tennessee.€€Ms.€Barnett€adamantly€refused€to€moveÏto€Tennessee€because€she€did€not€care€for€Mr.€Barnettððs€family€and€did€not€wish€toÏlive€near€them.€€The€partiesðð€differences€continued€to€worsen.ÌÌà ` àDr.€Barnettððs€lengthy€stays€in€Tennessee€gave€the€parties€less€and€less€reasonÏto€continue€living€in€Colorado.€€Since€Ms.€Barnettððs€family€lived€in€Florida,€Ms.ÏBarnett€eventually€suggested€that€the€family€move€to€Florida.€€The€parties€sold€theirÏhome€in€Colorado€in€November€1994,€and€Ms.€Barnett€traveled€to€Clearwater,€FloridaÏwith€the€expectation€that€Dr.€Barnett€and€the€children€would€join€her€after€the€closing.€ÏHowever,€instead€of€traveling€to€Florida€following€the€closing€on€December€14,€1994,ÏDr.€Barnett€and€the€children€went€to€his€parentsðð€home€in€Bedford€County.€€It€wasÏonly€after€arriving€in€Bedford€County€that€Dr.€Barnett€informed€Ms.€Barnett€that€heÏand€the€children€would€not€be€coming€to€Florida.€€This€news€upset€Ms.€Barnett,€andÏshe€informed€Dr.€Barnett€that€she€was€coming€to€Tennessee€immediately€to€pick€upÏthe€children.ÌÌà ` àMs.€Barnett€and€her€sister€arrived€at€Dr.€Barnettððs€parentsðð€home€in€BedfordÏCounty€on€December€19,€1994.€€When€Dr.€Barnettððs€father€stopped€Ms.€Barnett€fromÏentering€the€house,€Ms.€Barnett€demanded€that€the€children€be€brought€out€of€theÏhouse€so€she€could€see€them.€€The€children€were€ushered€outside€without€shoes€andÏcoats,€and€Ms.€Barnett€directed€them€to€get€into€her€automobile€without€any€of€theirÏclothes€or€other€belongings€because€she€was€taking€them€back€to€Florida€with€her.€ÏAfter€Dr.€Barnett€refused€to€accompany€his€wife€and€children€to€Florida,€Ms.€BarnettÏdeparted€with€the€children,€leaving€Dr.€Barnett€behind€at€his€parentsðð€house.Ìâ âÐ 8`3@ Ðà ` àOne€week€later,€Dr.€Barnett€traveled€to€Florida€to€visit€his€children€forÏâ âChristmas€and€to€talk€with€Ms.€Barnett.€€Ms.€Barnett€and€the€children€were€living€withÏMs.€Barnettððs€parents€in€Clearwater.€€He€returned€to€Clearwater€in€January€1995€withÏthe€childrenððs€belongings€and€school€records.€€When€the€parties€were€unable€toÏreconcile,€Dr.€Barnett€returned€to€Tennessee€on€February€2,€1995.ÌÌà ` àOn€March€8,€1995,€Ms.€Barnett€filed€a€petition€seeking€separate€maintenanceÏand€child€support€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Pinellas€County,€Florida.€€In€her€petition,ÏMs.€Barnett€requested€the€Florida€court€to€order€Dr.€Barnett€to€pay€her€support€duringÏthe€separation€and€to€approve€their€agreement€regarding€the€temporary€custody€ofÏtheir€children.€€Two€days€later,€Dr.€Barnett€filed€a€complaint€for€divorce€in€theÏChancery€Court€for€Bedford€County€seeking€an€equitable€division€of€the€maritalÏproperty€and€custody€of€the€partiesðð€children.€€Ms.€Barnett€later€amended€her€petitionÏafter€Dr.€Barnett€declined€to€sign€the€draft€custody€and€support€agreement.ÌÌà ` àThe€legal€maneuvering€began€in€earnest€once€the€competing€proceedings€inÏFlorida€and€Tennessee€got€under€way.€€On€March€30,€1995,€Ms.€Barnett€obtained€anÏex€parte€injunction€from€the€Florida€court€preventing€Dr.€Barnett€and€his€parents€fromÏremoving€the€children€from€her€custody.€€Armed€with€this€injunction,€reciting€that€theÏFlorida€court€had€taken€jurisdiction€over€the€subject€matter€and€the€parties,€Ms.ÏBarnett€moved€to€dismiss€Dr.€Barnettððs€Tennessee€divorce€action€because€he€did€notÏsatisfy€the€statutory€residency€requirement€and€because€Tennessee€was€not€theÏchildrenððs€home€state.€€The€trial€court€denied€Ms.€Barnettððs€motion€in€April€1995,€andÏin€June€1995€denied€her€motions€to€amend€its€April€1995€order€and€for€summaryÏjudgment.ÌÌà ` àThe€trial€court€heard€the€evidence€in€November€1995,€and€on€December€8,Ï1995,€entered€a€final€judgment€granting€Dr.€Barnett€a€divorce€on€the€ground€ofÏinappropriate€conduct.€€Based€on€its€concern€about€Ms.€Barnettððs€ð ðemotionalÏstability,ðð€the€trial€court€awarded€Dr.€Barnett€custody€of€the€partiesðð€three€childrenÏand€directed€that€the€physical€change€of€custody€take€place€on€December€26,€1995.€ÏThe€trial€court€also€provided€Ms.€Barnett€with€defined€visitation€and€relieved€her€fromÏpaying€child€support€because€she€was€unable€to€do€so.€€Ms.€Barnett€has€appealed€fromÏthis€decision.Ð «9û4B Їà@ËË.Dàò òII.ó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àMs.€Barnett€first€asserts€that€the€trial€court€lacked€subject€matter€jurisdictionÏto€grant€Dr.€Barnett€a€divorce€because€he€was€not€a€bona€fide€resident€of€TennesseeÏwhen€he€first€filed€his€divorce€complaint€as€required€by€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„¼104(a)€(1996).€€On€April€28,€1995,€the€trial€court€denied€Ms.€Barnettððs€motion€toÏdismiss€based€on€this€ground€after€concluding€that€Dr.€Barnett€was€a€resident€ofÏTennessee€when€he€filed€the€complaint€and€that€the€conduct€on€which€Dr.€BarnettððsÏdivorce€complaint€was€based€occurred€in€Bedford€County.€€The€evidence€does€notÏpreponderate€against€these€findings.ÌÌà@ÓÓ.Dàò òA.ó óˆÐ \¬ ÐÌà ` àThe€substantive€law€governing€divorce€in€this€state€is€purely€statutory.€€òòSeeÐ •å ÐChastain€v.€Chastainóó,€559€S.W.2d€933,€934€(Tenn.€1977);€òòCarter€v.€Carteróó,€28€Tenn.Ð 0€ ÐApp.€478,€480,€191€S.W.2d€451,€452€(1944).€€Thus,€a€trial€courtððs€subject€matterÏjurisdiction€over€a€particular€divorce€action€must€be€based€upon€the€applicableÏdivorce€statutes.€€òòSee€Turner€v.€Bellóó,€198€Tenn.€232,€248,€279€S.W.2d€71,€78€(1955).€Ð  Q" ÐTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„104(a)€provides€that,€ð ða€divorce€may€be€granted€.€.€.€if€theÏacts€complained€of€were€committed€while€the€plaintiff€was€a€bona€fide€resident€of€thisÏstate€.€.€..ðð׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú1Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€statute€makes€Tennessee€residency€by€the€party€seeking€divorce€aÐ Ò$" ( Ðcondition€precedent€to€granting€a€divorce.€€òòSee€Carter€v.€Carteróó,€113€Tenn.€509,€512,Ð m&½!* Ð82€S.W.€309,€309€(1904).ÌÌà ` àThe€residency€requirement€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„104(a)€is€intended€toÏassure€that€Tennessee€has€a€sufficient€relationship€with€the€parties€and€their€marriageÏto€make€it€reasonable€for€the€courts€of€this€state€to€affect€the€partiesðð€martial€status.€ÏòòSee€Wiseman€v.€Wisemanóó,€216€Tenn.€702,€706„07,€393€S.W.2d€892,€894€(1965).€Ð 0_+6 ÐHence,€the€residency€requirement€constitutes€one€of€the€elements€making€up€aÏTennessee€courtððs€jurisdiction€over€any€asserted€divorce€complaint.€€òòSee€TyborowskiÐ E3•.: Ðv.€Tyborowskióó,€28€Tenn.€App.€583,€585,€192€S.W.2d€231,€232€(1945).Ð à400< Їà ` àAs€used€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„104(a),€the€term€ð ðresidenceðð€€meansÏdomicile.€€òòSee€Wiseman€v.€Wisemanóó,€216€Tenn.€at€711,€393€S.W.2d€at€896;€òòBrown€v.Ð K› ÐBrownóó,€150€Tenn.€89,€91,€261€S.W.€959,€959€(1924).€€Our€courts€have€describedÐ æ6 Ðdomicile€as:ÌÓ€Óà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àThe€place€where€a€person€has€his€principal€home€and€placeÏof€enjoyment€of€his€fortunes;€which€he€does€not€expect€toÏleave,€except€for€a€purpose;€from€which€when€absent,€heÏseems€to€himself€a€wayfarer;€to€which€when€he€returns,€heÏceases€to€travel.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓòòSnodgrass€v.€Snodgrassóó,€49€Tenn.€App.€607,€611,€357€S.W.2d€829,€831€(1961).€€ToÐ ˆØ  Ðcreate€domicile€in€Tennessee,€a€person€ordinarily€must€not€only€intend€to€establish€aÏpersonal€home€in€this€state€but€must€also€act€consistently€with€this€intention.€€òòSeeÐ ¾ ÐGreene€v.€Greeneóó,€43€Tenn.€App.€411,€429,€309€S.W.2d€403,€411€(1957).€€To€acquireÐ Y© Ðdomicile€here,€the€person€must€also€have€no€present€intention€or€expectation€ofÏchanging€his€or€her€residence€to€some€other€state.€€òòSee€Tate€v.€Collinsóó,€622€F.€Supp.Ð ß Ð1409,€1412€(W.D.€Tenn.€1985).ÌÌà ` àExcept€when€a€personððs€domicile€is€fixed€as€a€matter€of€law,€òòseeóó,€òòe.g.óó,€Tenn.Ð `° ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€67„8„504€(1998)€(determining€a€decedentððs€domicile€for€inheritance€taxÏpurposes);€Restatement€(Second)€Conflict€of€Laws€ðð€14(2)€(1971)€(determining€theÏbirth€domicile€of€children),€the€person€claiming€domicile€in€a€particular€state€mustÏestablish€his€or€her€claim€by€a€preponderance€of€the€evidence.€€òòSee€Hofferbert€v.€CityÐ Ì$ & Ðof€Knoxvilleóó,€470€F.€Supp.€1001,€1002€(E.D.€Tenn.€1979)òòóó.€€Where€domicile€has€beenÐ g&·!( Ðcontested€and€proved,€our€review€of€the€trial€courtððs€determination€is€de€novo€uponÏthe€record€with€a€presumption€that€the€trial€court€was€correct,€unless€the€evidenceÏotherwise€preponderates.€€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€13(d);€òòsee€also€Bernardi€v.€Bernardióó,€42Ð 8+ˆ&. ÐTenn.€App.€282,€291,€302€S.W.2d€63,€68€(1956).€€In€reviewing€such€questions,€weÏconsider€not€only€a€personððs€declarations€and€conduct€but€also€all€other€relevant€factsÏand€circumstances.€€òòSee€Wiseman€v.€Wisemanóó,€216€Tenn.€at€708,€393€S.W.2d€at€895.€ñ“ñÐ  0Y+4 Ðñ“ñÌà@ÙÙ.Dàò òB.ó óˆÐ ?3.8 ÐÌà ` àMs.€Barnett€insists€that€Dr.€Barnettððs€domicile€could€only€have€been€eitherÏColorado€or€Florida€when€he€filed€his€divorce€complaint€in€December€1994.€€ToÏsupport€her€claim€that€Colorado€was€Dr.€Barnettððs€domicile,€Ms.€Barnett€points€to€allÐ ®9þ4@ Ðthe€partiesðð€contacts€with€Colorado€between€1988€and€December€1994.€€To€supportÏher€claim€that€Florida€was€Dr.€Barnettððs€domicile,€she€points€out€that€Dr.€Barnett€cameÏto€her€parentsðð€Florida€home€in€December€1994€and€in€January€1995€to€help€her€enrollÏthe€children€in€school€and€to€look€for€suitable€housing€there.€€We€find€both€of€theseÏarguments€unpersuasive.ÌÌà ` àThe€preponderance€of€the€evidence€at€trial€showed€that€Dr.€Barnett€intended€toÏestablish€his€home€in€Tennessee€when€he€left€Colorado€and€that€his€actions€wereÏconsistent€with€his€intentions.€€He€informed€his€parents€as€early€as€the€spring€of€1994Ïthat€he€planned€to€move€to€Tennessee.€€He€also€sold€his€home€in€Colorado,€concludedÏhis€business€there,€and€moved€his€personal€items€to€Tennessee.€€Dr.€Barnett€basicallyÏconcentrated€his€whole€livelihood,€his€only€means€of€support€for€himself€and€hisÏfamily,€in€Tennessee.€€He€also€acquired€a€Tennessee€driverððs€license€and€pilotððsÏlicense.€ÌÌà ` àDr.€Barnettððs€two€subsequent€short€trips€to€Florida€to€visit€Ms.€Barnett€and€their€Ïchildren€lack€convincing€earmarks€of€any€change€of€domicile.€€Dr.€Barnett€neverÏmoved€his€personal€property€or€the€location€of€his€consulting€business€to€Florida.€€TheÏDecember€1994€trip€was€little€more€than€a€Christmas€visit€with€his€children,€and€theÏmonth„long€visit€in€January€1995€seems€to€have€been€mainly€an€attempt€to€reconcileÏand€work€out€marital€differences€with€Ms.€Barnett.€€When€these€efforts€provedÏfruitless,€Dr.€Barnett€promptly€returned€to€Tennessee.ÌÌà ` àOn€December€19,€1994,€when€the€acts€constituting€the€grounds€for€his€requestÏfor€divorce€occurred,€Dr.€Barnett€was€living€with€his€parents€in€Bedford€County.€€HisÏwork€was€in€Bedford€County,€and€he€had€no€other€home€at€the€time.€€By€that€time,€heÏhad€abandoned€his€Colorado€domicile€and€had€not€taken€any€acts€whatsoever€toÏestablish€a€domicile€anywhere€other€than€in€Tennessee.€€The€place€where€a€personÏlives€is€presumed€to€be€the€personððs€domicile.€€òòSee€Hussey€v.€Jacksonóó,€766€S.W.2dÐ ¤1ô,8 Ð184,€187€(Tenn.€1989);€òòHines€v.€Hinesóó,€220€Tenn.€437,€441,€418€S.W.2d€253,€255Ð ?3.: Ð(1965).€€Based€on€the€record,€we€cannot€say€that€the€evidence€preponderates€againstÏthe€trial€courtððs€finding€that€Dr.€Barnett€was€a€bona€fide€resident€of€Tennessee€whenÏhe€filed€for€divorce€and,€therefore,€that€Dr.€Barnett€met€the€residency€requirement€ofÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„4„104(a).Ð «9û4B Їà@-Dàò òIII.ó óˆÐ ° ÐÌà ` àMs.€Barnett€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€did€not€have€jurisdiction€to€make€aÏdecision€regarding€the€custody€of€the€partiesðð€children.€€She€asserts€that€the€trial€courtÏerred€by€determining€that€Tennessee€was€the€childrenððs€home€state€when€Dr.€BarnettÏfiled€his€divorce€complaint.€€While€we€agree€that€Tennessee€was€not€the€childrenððsÏhome€state€in€March€1995,€we€have€determined€that€the€trial€court€could€properlyÏhave€concluded€that€Tennessee€has€a€significant€connection€with€the€children€andÏwith€Dr.€Barnett€to€warrant€asserting€jurisdiction€over€the€custody€and€visitationÏissues€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„203(a)(2)€(1996).׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú2Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×Ð &v ÐÌà@ÓÓ.Dàò òA.ó óˆÐ \¬ ÐÌà ` àTennessee€courts€are€empowered€to€make€initial€child€custody€determinationsÏwhen€Tennessee€is€the€affected€childððs€home€state.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„Ð 0€ Ð203(a)(1)(A).€€€€For€the€purpose€of€the€statute,€the€ð ðhome€stateðð€is€the€state€in€whichÏthe€ð ðchild€immediately€preceding€the€time€involved€lived€with€such€childððs€parents,Ïa€parent€or€a€person€acting€as€a€parent,€for€at€least€six€(6)€consecutive€months.ðð€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€36„6„202(5)€(1996).€€Inexplicably,€the€trial€court€in€this€case€found€thatÏTennessee€was€the€childrenððs€home€state€even€though€they€had€been€in€Tennessee€forÏonly€five€days€in€December€1994€before€Ms.€Barnett€took€them€to€Florida.€€NoÏinterpretation€of€the€facts€can€support€a€conclusion€that€Tennessee€was€the€home€stateÏof€these€children€when€Dr.€Barnett€filed€for€divorce.ÌÌà ` àHowever,€Tennessee€courts€may€acquire€jurisdiction€to€decide€child€custodyÏand€visitation€questions€when€Tennessee€is€not€the€affected€childððs€home€state.€€Tenn.ÏCode€Ann.€ðð€36„6„203(a)(2)€provides€an€alternative€means€for€acquiring€jurisdictionÏif€the€following€four€requirements€are€satisfied:Ìâ âÓ€ÓÐ ª1ú,8 Ðà0 ` à(A)à0¸ ` €%` €%àNo€state€qualifies€as€the€childððs€home€state,€or€all€states€qualifying€as€theÐ ° Ðchildððs€home€state€decline€to€exercise€jurisdiction€because€Tennessee€isÏa€more€appropriate€forum€for€deciding€custody€issues;Ð ¸ €%¸ €% Ðâ âÌà ` à(B)à0 ¸ àThe€child€and€at€least€one€of€the€parents€have€a€significant€connectionÐ øH Ðwith€Tennessee;Ð ¸ €%¸ €% ÐÌà ` à(C)à0 ¸ àSubstantial€evidence€concerning€the€childððs€present€or€future€care,Ð . ~ Ðprotection,€training,€and€personal€relationships€is€available€in€Tennessee;Ïand€Ð ¸ €%¸ €% ÐÌà ` à(D)à0 ¸ àIt€is€in€the€childððs€best€interests€for€a€Tennessee€court€to€assumeÐ vÆ  Ðjurisdiction€over€the€custody€issue.Ð ¸ €%¸ €% ÐÌÓ€ÓWe€have€determined€that€the€facts€in€the€record€satisfy€each€of€these€requirements.ÌÌà@ÙÙ.Dàò òB.ó óˆÐ â2 ÐÌà ` àThe€laws€of€both€Florida€and€Tennessee€require€that€a€child€live€with€a€parentÏin€the€state€for€at€least€six€months€before€the€state€could€be€considered€the€childððsÏhome€state.׃×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú3Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€The€partiesðð€children€had€not€lived€in€either€Tennessee€or€Florida€for€sixÐ Q¡ Ðmonths€before€Ms.€Barnett€filed€her€action€for€separate€maintenance€or€before€Dr.ÏBarnett€filed€his€divorce€complaint.€€Accordingly,€for€the€purpose€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.Ïðð€36„6„203(a)(1)(A),€neither€Florida€nor€Tennessee€qualified€as€the€childrenððs€homeÏstate.ÌÌà ` àThe€evidence€likewise€supports€the€second€jurisdictional€prerequisite€ð!ð€that€theÏchildren€and€at€least€one€of€the€parents€have€a€ð ðsignificant€connectionðð€withÏTennessee.€€Making€this€determination€does€not€require€the€court€to€compare€theÏsignificance€of€the€childððs€contacts€with€the€competing€possible€forums.€€òòSee€CullenÐ Ä+', Ðv.€Prescottóó,€394€S.E.2d€722,€725€(S.C.€Ct.€App.€1990).€€Rather,€it€requires€the€courtÐ _-¯(. Ðto€focus€on€the€kind€and€quality€of€the€links€between€the€child,€the€parent,€and€theÏparticular€forum€where€the€court€sits.€€Dr.€Barnett€has€significant€connections€toÏTennessee.€€His€present€and€prospective€livelihood€is€here.€€He€grew€up€here,€wasÏeducated€here,€and€his€extended€family€lives€here.Ìâ âÐ f5¶08 Ðà ` àThe€connection€between€the€children€and€Tennessee€presents€a€closer€question.Ïâ âThe€children€spent€the€most€significant€part€of€their€lives€in€Colorado,€although€theyÏvisited€Dr.€Barnettððs€family€in€Tennessee€on€occasion.€€Until€December€1994,€theÏchildrenððs€most€significant€connection€was€with€Colorado.€€However,€both€theirÏparents€have€abandoned€Colorado,€and€the€childrenððs€connections€with€Colorado€haveÏeffectively€been€severed.€€In€this€circumstance,€the€court€cannot€dwell€on€theÏsignificance€of€the€links€the€children€have€with€Colorado€but€rather€must€focus€on€theÏlinks€between€the€children€and€Tennessee.€€ÌÌà ` àTennessee€has€significant€links€with€the€partiesðð€children€and€with€Dr.€Barnett.€ÏIn€addition,€substantial€evidence€concerning€the€childrenððs€best€interests€can€be€foundÏhere.€€Dr.€Barnett€was€raised€and€educated€here€and€has€decided€to€reside€here.€€HisÏextended€family€lives€here.€€The€children€have€a€home€in€Tennessee€close€to€a€largeÏgroup€of€their€relatives€whom€Dr.€Barnett€can€look€to€for€help€and€support€with€hisÏparental€responsibilities.€€Accordingly,€we€find€that€the€evidence€in€the€recordÏsatisfies€the€conditions€in€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„203(a)(2)(B),€(C),€&€(D)€and€thatÏthe€trial€court€could€have€exercised€jurisdiction€to€adjudicate€the€custody€of€theÏpartiesðð€children€under€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„203(a)(2).ÌÌÌÌÌà@¥¥.Dàò òIV.ó óˆÐ (R#, ÐÌà ` àMs.€Barnett€also€asserts€that€the€trial€court€should€not€have€exercised€itsÏcustody€jurisdiction€but€rather€should€have€deferred€to€the€Florida€court€where€herÏearlier€petition€for€separate€maintenance€was€pending.€The€resolution€of€this€issueÏrequires€consideration€of€both€Tennesseeððs€version€of€the€Uniform€Child€CustodyÏJurisdiction€Act€and€the€federal€Parental€Kidnaping€Prevention€Act.€€Because€theÏFlorida€court€was€the€first€to€exercise€its€custody€jurisdiction,€we€have€determinedÏthat€the€trial€court€erred€by€addressing€the€custody€issues€rather€than€deferring€to€theÏFlorida€court.ÌÌñ”ññŽñÌñŽññ”ñà@ÓÓ.Dàò òA.ó óˆÐ ®9þ4B Їà ` àThe€Uniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€Act€was€enacted€to€ð ðavoidÏjurisdictional€competition€and€conflict€with€courts€of€other€states€in€matters€of€childÏcustody.ðð€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„201(a)(1)€(1996).€€It€accomplishes€its€purpose€byÏestablishing€a€set€of€objective€rules€for€determining€which€court€should€resolve€anÏinterstate€custody€dispute.€€One€of€these€rules€is€the€ð ðfirst„in„timeðð€rule€in€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€36„6„207(a)€(1996)€which€provides:ÌÓ€Óà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àà  àA€court€of€this€state€shall€not€exercise€its€jurisdictionÏunder€this€part€if€at€the€time€of€filing€the€petition€aÏproceeding€concerning€the€custody€of€the€child€wasÏpending€in€a€court€of€another€state€exercising€jurisdictionÏsubstantially€in€conformity€with€this€part,€unless€theÏproceeding€is€stayed€by€the€court€of€the€other€state€becauseÏthis€state€is€a€more€appropriate€forum€or€for€other€reasons.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓ€ÓThis€rule€is€drawn€verbatim€from€the€Uniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€Act.€€òòSeeóóÐ â2 ÐUniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€Act€ðð€6,€9€U.L.A.€219€(1988).€€ÌÌà ` àTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„207(a)€plainly€directs€trial€courts€to€refrain€fromÏexercising€their€jurisdiction€if€another€custody€proceeding,€in€substantial€conformityÏwith€the€Uniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€Act,€is€pending€in€another€state€whenÏthe€action€in€this€state€is€filed.€€Thus,€under€this€provision,€the€mere€fact€that€a€custodyÏsuit€has€been€filed€in€another€state€is€sufficient€to€require€the€trial€courts€in€this€stateÏto€stay€their€hand.€€ÌÌà ` àHowever,€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„207(a)€is€not€the€only€statute€addressingÏjurisdiction€in€interstate€custody€disputes.€€The€federal€Parental€Kidnaping€PreventionÏAct€provides:ÌÓ€Óà8 ` àà8¸ ` (#` (#àà  àA€court€of€a€State€shall€not€exercise€jurisdiction€inÏany€proceeding€for€a€custody€determination€commencedÏduring€the€pendency€of€a€proceeding€in€a€court€of€anotherÏState€where€such€court€of€that€other€State€is€exercisingÏjurisdiction€consistently€with€the€provisions€of€this€sectionÏto€make€a€custody€determination.Ð ¸ Ð ¸ Ð  ÐÌÓ€Ó28€U.S.C.A.€ðð€1738A(g)€(West€1994).€€Under€this€section,€the€mere€unilateral€filingÏof€a€custody€complaint€in€another€state€is€not€enough€to€prevent€a€court€in€anotherÏstate€from€exercising€its€custody€jurisdiction.€€òòSeeóó€òòWambold€v.€Wamboldóó,€651€A.2dÐ u6Å19 Ð330,€333€(Me.€1994).€€Courts,€however,€must€decline€to€exercise€their€custodyÏjurisdiction€when€the€court€of€another€state€has€issued€some€order€indicating€that€itÐ «9û4= Ðhas€assumed€jurisdiction€over€the€custody€matter.€€òòSee€Braden€v.€Bradenóó,€551€N.W.2dÐ ° Ð467,€470€(Mich.€Ct.€App.€1996);€òòHobbs€v.€Hobbsóó,€508€So.€2d€677,€680€(Miss.€1987);Ð K› ÐòòIn€re€Marriage€of€Kastanaððsóó,€896€P.2d€726,€730€(Wash.€Ct.€App.€1995).€Ð æ6 ÐÌà ` àThe€Parental€Kidnaping€Prevention€Act€preempts€inconsistent€provisions€of€aÏstateððs€version€of€the€Uniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€Act.òò€€See€Wilcox€v.€Wilcoxóó,Ð ·   Ð862€S.W.2d€533,€544€(Tenn.€Ct.€App.€1993)òòóó.€€Accordingly,€when€the€courts€of€thisÐ R¢  Ðstate€find€themselves€involved€with€an€interstate€custody€dispute€that€is€also€pendingÏin€the€court€of€another€state,€they€should€not€proceed€to€adjudicate€custody€issuesÏuntil€determining:ÌÓ€Óà8 ` à(1)à0¸ ` (#` (#àWhether€the€proceeding€pending€in€the€other€state€is€substantiallyÐ ¾ Ðin€conformity€with€the€Uniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€ActÏand€Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌà8 ` à(2)à0¸ ` (#` (#àWhether€the€court€in€the€other€state€has€already€issued€an€orderÐ V Ðindicating€that€it€has€assumed€jurisdiction€over€the€custodyÏmatter.Ð ¸ (#¸ (# ÐÌÓ€ÓIf€the€answer€to€both€questions€is€ð ðyes,ðð€the€court€should€defer€to€the€other€courtÏunless,€following€consultation,€the€two€courts€decide€that€it€would€be€in€the€childrenððsÏbest€interests€to€proceed€in€Tennessee.€€The€lawyers€for€the€parties€are€obliged€toÏinform€the€trial€court€if€custody€proceedings€are€pending€in€another€state.€€However,Ïtrial€courts€also€have€a€statutory€obligation€to€consult€with€their€counterparts€in€otherÏstates€in€order€to€avoid€issuing€competing€and€inconsistent€custody€orders.€€òòSeeóó€Tenn.Ð U%¥ & ÐCode€Ann.€ðð€36„6„207(b),€(c).Ìñ•ñÌñ•ñÌà@ÙÙ.Dàò òB.ó óˆÐ Á+'. ÐÌà ` àThis€case€illustrates€an€almost€complete€breakdown€of€the€orderly€processÏenvisioned€by€the€Uniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€Act€and€the€ParentalÏKidnaping€Prevention€Act.€€On€March€8,€1995,€Ms.€Barnett€filed€a€petition€forÏseparate€maintenance€in€the€Circuit€Court€for€Pinellas€County,€Florida€requesting,Ïamong€other€things,€that€the€partiesðð€temporary€custody€and€support€agreement€beÏincorporated€into€a€final€judgment€for€separate€maintenance.€Two€days€later,€Dr.ÏBarnett€filed€his€complaint€for€divorce€in€the€Chancery€Court€for€Bedford€County.€Ð œ8ì3> ÐOn€March€31,€1995,€Ms.€Barnett€moved€to€amend€her€petition€for€separateÏmaintenance€to€request€custody€of€the€partiesðð€children€and€child€support€because€Dr.ÏBarnett€had€declined€to€sign€the€temporary€custody€and€support€agreement€referredÏto€in€her€initial€petition.ÌÌà ` àOn€April€3,€1995,€Ms.€Barnett€requested€the€Florida€court€to€issue€a€temporaryÏinjunction€preventing€Dr.€Barnett€and€his€relatives€from€removing€the€partiesððÏchildren€from€her€custody.€€Ms.€Barnettððs€motion€informed€the€Florida€court€that€Dr.ÏBarnett€had€filed€a€petition€for€divorce€in€Tennessee€and€that€she€was€ð ðin€great€fearÏthat€.€.€.€[he]€will€attempt€to€come€to€Florida€and€take€the€children€back€to€Tennessee.ðð€ÏThe€Florida€court€entered€a€temporary€injunction,€ex€parte,€on€April€3,€1995,Ïenjoining€Dr.€Barnett€and€his€family€from€removing€the€partiesðð€three€children€fromÏMs.€Barnettððs€custody.ÌÌà ` àTwo€days€after€obtaining€the€temporary€injunction€in€Florida,€Ms.€BarnettÏmoved€the€Tennessee€court€to€dismiss€Dr.€Barnettððs€complaint€on€two€grounds€ð!ð€oneÏof€which€was€the€pending€separate€maintenance€proceeding€in€Florida.€€ToÏsubstantiate€her€claim,€she€provided€the€Tennessee€court€with€a€copy€of€the€FloridaÏcourtððs€April€3,€1995€order.€€Dr.€Barnett€responded€on€April€19,€1995,€by€filing€hisÏown€motion€to€dismiss€in€the€Florida€court.ÌÌà ` àOn€April€28,€1995,€the€Tennessee€court€entered€an€order€denying€Ms.€BarnettððsÏmotion€to€dismiss€after€concluding€ð ðthat€this€suit€is€not€barred€by€the€prior€suitÏpending€in€Florida€because€there€is€no€suit€filed€in€Florida€for€a€divorce€or€custodyÏof€the€children,€but€only€an€action€for€separate€maintenance.ðð€€On€May€15,€1995,€Dr.ÏBarnett€filed€an€amended€motion€to€dismiss€in€the€Florida€court€relying€on€theÏTennessee€courtððs€April€28,€1995€order.€€Predicably,€the€Tennessee€court€entered€anÏorder€on€June€8,€1995€denying€Ms.€Barnettððs€motion€to€alter€or€amend,€and€theÏâ âFlorida€court€entered€an€order€on€August€2,€1995€denying€Dr.€Barnettððs€motion€toÐ ¤1ô,8 Ðdismiss.׃ ×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú4Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€This€is€how€matters€stood€when€this€case€was€tried€in€Tennessee€onÐ ° ÐNovember€29,€1995€and€when€the€final€judgment€was€entered€on€December€8,€1995.Ìâ âÌà@ÓÓ.Dàò òC.ó óˆÐ  Ñ ÐÌà ` àBased€on€these€facts,€we€must€first€determine€whether€Ms.€Barnettððs€separateÏmaintenance€proceeding€in€Florida€was€a€custody€proceeding€that€was€in€substantialÏconformity€with€the€Uniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€Act.€€The€Tennessee€courtÏconcluded€in€its€April€28,€1995€order€that€it€was€not.€€Regrettably,€this€conclusion€isÏfactually€and€legally€incorrect.ÌÌà ` àUnder€Fla.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€61.09€(West€1997),€a€wife€may€seek€separateÏmaintenance€for€both€herself€and€children€of€the€marriage€without€seeking€anyÏdetermination€of€custody.€€The€Florida€courts€have€held€that€the€Uniform€ChildÏCustody€Jurisdiction€Act€has€no€application€in€these€cases.€€òòSee€Howell€v.€Howellóó,Ð -} Ð545€So.€2d€933,€934€(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1989).€€However,€Ms.€Barnettððs€amendedÏpetition€in€the€Florida€court€requested€both€custody€and€support.€€Accordingly,€herÏaction€in€Florida€easily€fits€within€the€definition€of€ð ðcustody€proceedingðð€under€bothÏTenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„202(3)€and€Fla.€Stat.€Ann.€ðð€61.1306(3)€(West€1997).ÌÌà ` àHaving€determined€that€the€Florida€proceeding€was€a€ð ðcustody€proceedingðð€forÏthe€purposes€of€the€Uniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€Act,€we€must€determineÏwhether€the€proceeding€was€in€substantial€conformity€with€the€Uniform€ChildÏCustody€Jurisdiction€Act€and€whether€the€Florida€court€was€the€first€to€issue€an€orderÏindicating€that€it€had€assumed€jurisdiction€over€the€child€custody€issue.€€Because€theÏpartiesðð€children€had€no€home€state€in€March€1995€but€were€residing€with€theirÏmother€in€Florida€at€the€time,€we€find€that€the€Florida€court€could€properly€exerciseÏð ðsignificant€connectionðð€jurisdiction€over€the€children.׃ 8×Ý ƒ #ÃÝòòÚ  Ú5Ú  ÚóóÝ  Ý×  ×€€We€also€find€that€the€FloridaÐ  0\+6 Ðcourtððs€April€3,€1995€order€enjoining€Dr.€Barnett€and€his€family€from€removing€theÐ §1÷,8 Ðchildren€from€Ms.€Barnettððs€custody€provided€a€clear€indication€that€the€Florida€courtÏintended€to€exercise€jurisdiction€over€the€custody€issue.€€ÌÌà ` àBased€on€these€facts,€the€Tennessee€court€erred€by€exercising€its€custodyÏjurisdiction€in€this€case.€€Ms.€Barnett€filed€her€petition€seeking€separate€maintenanceÏand€custody€first,€and€the€Florida€court€was€the€first€court€to€enter€a€presumptivelyÏappropriate€order€indicating€that€it€intended€to€exercise€jurisdiction€over€the€issue€ofÏcustody.€€Faced€with€these€circumstances,€the€Tennessee€court€should€have€stayed€itsÏhand€unless€the€Florida€court€later€stayed€its€proceedings€in€deference€to€theÏproceedings€in€Tennessee.ÌÌà ` àWe€now€turn€to€the€remedy€for€a€trial€courtððs€failure€to€adhere€to€the€UniformÏChild€Custody€Jurisdiction€Act€or€the€Parental€Kidnaping€Prevention€Act.€€NeitherÏAct€prescribes€a€remedy€when€states€fail€to€follow€the€law.€€òòSee€Brown€v.€Brownóó,€847Ð ß ÐS.W.2d€at€509.€€However,€an€explicit€remedy€is€not€needed.€€State€courts€areÏresponsible€for€enforcing€both€the€Parental€Kidnaping€Prevention€Act€and€their€stateððsÏversion€of€the€Uniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€Act.€€They€must€abstain€fromÏexercising€jurisdiction€when€the€Acts€require€them€to.€Any€other€rule€wouldÏundermine€the€salutary€purpose€of€the€Acts.€€Thus,€when€a€state€court€discovers€thatÏa€court€in€another€state€has€asserted€jurisdiction€over€custody€issues,€it€should€dismissÏits€custody€proceeding,€òòsee€Cunningham€v.€Cunninghamóó,€719€S.W.2d€224,€228€(Tex.Ð Ì$ ( ÐApp.€1986),€and€it€should€vacate€any€custody€orders€it€has€already€issued.€€òòSee€GrunÐ g&·!* Ðv.€Grunóó,€496€A.2d1183,€1186€(Pa.€Super.€Ct.€1985).€€Accordingly,€the€appropriateÐ (R#, Ðremedy€in€this€case€is€to€vacate€the€portions€of€the€trial€courtððs€December€8,€1995Ïorder€relating€to€the€custody€and€support€of€the€parties€children€and€remand€the€caseÏto€the€trial€court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€the€Parental€KidnapingÏPrevention€Act€and€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„207.€€ÌÌà@ÓÓ.Dàò òV.ó óˆÐ ¤1ô,8 ÐÌà ` àAs€a€final€matter,€we€address€Dr.€Barnettððs€criticism€of€the€Florida€courtððsÏfailure€to€consult€with€the€Tennessee€court€upon€being€informed€that€a€custodyÏproceeding€was€pending€in€Tennessee.€€We€find€the€focus€of€this€criticism€somewhatÏselective€because€there€is€no€indication€in€this€record€that€the€Tennessee€courtÐ ®9þ4B Ðattempted€to€consult€with€its€counterpart€in€Florida€when€it€learned€of€the€pendingÏFlorida€custody€proceedings.€€When€two€courts€learn€that€a€custody€proceeding€isÏpending€in€another€jurisdiction,€the€Uniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€Act€envisionsÏthat€the€courts€will€jointly€evaluate€the€matter€and€that€the€court€with€the€least€interestÏor€connection€with€the€children€will€decline€to€exercise€jurisdiction€and€defer€to€theÏother€court.€€òòSee€In€re€T.R.W.óó,€536€N.E.2d€74,€76€(Ill.€App.€Ct.€1989).Ð ·   ÐÌà ` àWe€are€disinclined€to€undercut€the€intent€of€the€Parental€Kidnaping€PreventionÏAct€and€the€Uniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€Act€by€establishing€a€precedent€thatÏtheir€requirements€can€be€ignored€where€one€or€both€courts€decline€to€follow€them.€ÏAs€far€as€we€can€tell,€both€trial€courts€shirked€their€responsibility€in€this€case.€ÏBecause€our€appellate€oversight€does€not€reach€to€Florida,€we€must€limit€our€reviewÏto€the€actions€of€the€Tennessee€court.€€The€fact€that€the€Florida€court€did€not€contactÏthe€Tennessee€court€provides€no€justification€for€the€Tennessee€courtððs€failure€toÏcontact€the€Florida€court€and€did€not€empower€the€Tennessee€court€to€make€a€custodyÏdetermination€in€contravention€of€the€Uniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€Act€and€theÏParental€Kidnaping€Prevention€Act.ÌÌà ` àThe€goal€of€the€Uniform€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€Act€and€the€ParentalÏKidnaping€Prevention€Act€is€to€promote€the€interests€of€children€by€fosteringÏinterstate€cooperation€between€courts.€€òòSeeóó€òòStock€v.€Stockóó,€677€So.€2d€1341,€1345„49Ð Ì$ ( Ð(Fla.€Dist.€Ct.€App.€1996).€€Hopefully€meaningful€cooperation€can€still€occur,€evenÏat€this€stage€of€the€proceeding.€€To€paraphrase€the€Tennessee€Supreme€Court,€we€trustÏthat€when€requested€to€cooperate€under€the€auspices€of€the€Uniform€Child€CustodyÏJurisdiction€Act€and€the€Parental€Kidnaping€Prevention€Act,€that€the€courts€of€FloridaÏwill€respond€affirmatively,€just€as€we€trust€the€courts€of€Tennessee€would€do€in€aÏsimilar€situation.€€òòSeeóó€òòBrown€v.€Brownóó,€847€S.W.2d€at€506.Ð n.¾)4 ÐÌà@¥¥.Dàò òVI.ó óˆÐ ¤1ô,8 ÐÌà ` àWe€vacate€the€portions€of€the€trial€courtððs€December€8,€1995€judgment€relatingÏto€child€custody€and€support€and€remand€the€case€for€further€proceedings€consistentÏâ âwith€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„207€and€the€Parental€Kidnaping€Prevention€Act.€€WeÐ 8c3@ Ðalso€tax€the€costs€of€this€appeal€to€Larry€Roger€Barnett€for€which€execution,€ifÏnecessary,€may€issue.Ìâ âÌà ` àÌÓ€Óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p à______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àà p àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGE€ÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEñ˜ñ€Ð  ¬!ü ÐÑX°ÑÑ8€zþ¼»d¼»d8ÑÔ€„Ýê„»¼zþÔò òà@¡ ¡ DàIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEˆÐ ° Ðà@ÜÜ)DàAT€NASHVILLEó óˆÐ h ÐÔ‡¼zþ»»¼zþÔÌÌÌLARRY€ROGER€BARNETT,à À àà  à)Ð È  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)Ìà ` àPlaintiff/Appellee,à À àà  à)Ð ø H Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àBedford€ChanceryÔ#†„Ýê„»¼zþ=›#ÔÔ‡¼zþ»»¼zþÔÐ `  ÐVS.à ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p àNo.€19,848Ð (x  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)ÌSUSAN€MARIE€BARNETT,à À àà  à)à p àAppeal€No.Ô#†„Ýê„»¼zþÀœ#ÔÔ‡¼zþ»»¼zþÔÐ X¨  Ðà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à)à p à01A01„9605„CH„00228Ô#†„Ýê„»¼zþž#ÔÔ‡¼zþ»»¼zþÔÐ pÀ  Ðà ` àDefendant/Appellant.à À àà  à)Ð ˆØ  ÐÌÔ#†„Ýê„»¼zþÚž#Ôò òòòà@àà(DàJ€U€D€G€M€E€N€Tóóó óˆÐ ¸ ÐÔ€¼zþ»„„ÝêÔÌÓ€Óà ` àThis€cause€came€on€to€be€heard€upon€the€record€on€appeal€from€the€BedfordÏCounty€Chancery€Court,€the€briefs€of€the€parties,€and€arguments€of€counsel.€€UponÏconsideration€of€the€entire€record,€this€court€finds€and€concludes€that€the€trial€courtððsÏjudgment€should€be€affirmed€in€part€and€vacated€in€part.ÌÌà ` àIn€accordance€with€the€opinion€filed€contemporaneously€with€this€judgment,Ïit€is,€therefore,€ordered,€adjudged,€and€decreed€that€the€trial€courtððs€judgment€be€andÏis€hereby€affirmed€in€part€and€vacated€in€part,€and€that€the€cause€be€remanded€to€theÏtrial€court€for€further€proceedings€consistent€with€this€courtððs€opinion.ÌÌà ` àIt€is€further€ordered€that€the€costs€of€this€appeal€be€taxed€to€Larry€Roger€BarnettÏfor€which€execution€may€issue,€if€necessary.ÌÌÓ€Óà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àSAMUEL€L.€LEWIS,€JUDGE€ÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGE€ÌÌÌà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  à______________________________Ìà ` àà ¸ àà  àà h àà À àà  àWILLIAM€C.€KOCH,€JR.,€JUDGEñ˜ññ¤ñÔ#†¼¸»»¼0§,#Ôñ¤ñ