ÿWPCª 1# ¾U:É % 0( b 1L= 0J‰ 0TÓ 0l' 0D“ 0^× 0h5 0rw@4Oc 0|r 0†î 0t 1u 0dy BÝ AQú ÆK 0D 0@U 0D• U *Ù D/ B)2 B[ D3x DC« AMî ; ÈQ@v~YvÓטHP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLlÎ, øð AZ‹"Arial RegularX($¡¡- ù -C:\OFFICE\WPWIN\TEMPLATE\STANDARD.WPT2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô((3üÝ$¤¤Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ýà  àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô )*E+,{-./D0Ó€:;ê‚_#3|x?2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô  ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ d!"#$&Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó< Œ 9p`(Arial(('÷ÿ dxd% Line 7 düÿP Pd'ÿÿdxd''''7Border 1dd!#*Cþÿ << Gÿÿ Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ""ÝÝ  ÝÔ€%ÔÓ  Óò òÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€%XÔÌÌDecember€12,€1997ÌÌCecil€W.€CrowsonÌAppellate€Court€ClerkÔ  Ôó ó ¾Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€%ôÔÓ  Óà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóWe€note€that€three€published€opinions€have€already€resulted€from€litigation€between€theseÏparties:€€òòMulle€v.€Yountóó,€420€S.E.2d€776€(Ga.€Ct.€App.€1992),€òòMulle€v.€Yountóó,€440€S.E.2d€210€(Ga.ÏCt.€App.€1993),€òòYount€v.€Mulleóó,€470€S.E.2d€647€(Ga.€S.Ct.€1996).Ì 6Ý ƒ!ÝÑ#€d#ÑÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓ  ÓÔ€%ôÔà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÓ` °†Xp”XÓThough€the€Georgia€court€stated€in€its€order€of€3/23/92€that€ð ðIt€is€further€the€finding€of€thisÏcourt€that€.€.€.€by€the€lack€of€contacts€that€the€minor€child€has€with€the€State€of€Tennessee,€it€is€clearlyÏindicated€that€Tennessee€no€longer€has€jurisdiction€in€this€matter.€.€.ðð€that€finding€is€clearlyÏerroneous,€and€is€not€binding€on€the€Tennessee€court.ÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€%ÔÝ  ÝÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÑ  ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ€ÑÑ7€_’XXdæXXdð7ÑÑ  ÑÑ  ÑÞ ÞÌCHARLES€MULLE,€JR.,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àPetitioner/Appellee,à àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àAppeal€No.Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)à à01„A„01„9704„CV„00161ÌVS.à àà àà àà àà àà à)ÌÙ€!ÙßR€+,*A1-j||ˆ` ç `€€@ÿRßà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àDavidson€CircuitÌà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àNo.€86D„459ÌKATHY€REESE€MULLE€YOUNT,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àRespondent/Appellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌà@ àCOURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àMIDDLE€SECTION€AT€NASHVILLEÌÌÌÌAPPEALED€FROM€THE€CIRCUIT€COURT€OF€DAVIDSON€COUNTYÌAT€NASHVILLE,€TENNESSEEÌÌTHE€HONORABLE€MURIEL€ROBINSON,€JUDGEÌÌÌÌJ.€RUSSELL€HELDMANÌ320€Main€Street,€Suite€101ÌFranklin,€Tennessee€37064ÌÌROBERT€L.€JACKSONÌOne€Washington€SquareÌ214€Second€Avenue,€North,€Suite€103ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201Ìà àAttorneys€for€Petitioner/AppelleeÌÌPEGGY€D.€MATHESÌEDWARD€L.€HILANDÌ214€Second€Avenue€North,€Suite€105ÌNashville,€Tennessee€37201Ìà àAttorneys€for€Respondent/AppellantÌÌÌÌÌà@ àAFFIRMED€IN€PART;€VACATED€IN€PART;Ìà@ àAND€REMANDEDÌÌÌÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌCONCUR:ÌTODD,€P.J.,€M.S.ÌBUSSART,€J.ÌÌÓ  ÓÓÓà@ àò òòòÔ€%„ÔO€P€I€N€I€O€Nó óóóÔ€%XÔÌÌà àà àIn€this€custody€and€visitation€case,€the€trial€court€modified€the€fatherððsÏvisitation€schedule,€and€found€the€mother€to€be€in€contempt€of€its€prior€orders.€ÏThe€mother€argues€on€appeal€that€since€Tennessee€has€not€been€the€home€stateÏof€the€minor€child€since€1988,€the€Tennessee€courts€no€longer€have€jurisdictionÏover€matters€involving€him.€€We€disagree,€and€we€affirm€the€trial€court.ÌÌà@ àò òI.ÌÌó óà àà àThis€case€involves€the€proper€forum€for€the€exercise€of€jurisdictionÏunder€the€Child€Custody€Jurisdiction€Act€(UCCJA),€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„201Ïet€seq.,€and€the€Parental€Kidnapping€Prevention€Act€(PKPA),€28€U.S.C.€ðð1738A,Íwhere€the€mother€and€child€have€resided€in€three€states,€and€pleadings€haveÏbeen€filed€in€the€courts€of€all€those€states.ÌÌà àà àThe€parties€were€divorced€in€Tennessee,€and€this€state€issued€theÏinitial€order€giving€the€mother€physical€custody€of€the€child,€and€granting€the€fatherÏjoint€custody€and€reasonable€visitation.€€The€mother€moved€with€the€child€toÏGeorgia,€where€they€lived€for€eight€years.€€After€a€period€of€confusion,€duringÏwhich€proceedings€were€pending€in€both€states,€Georgia€assumed€jurisdiction€asÏthe€home€state€of€the€child,€and€Tennessee€stayed€the€exercise€of€its€jurisdictionÏin€deference€to€the€Georgia€court.€ÌÌà àà àThe€mother€then€moved€to€North€Carolina,€and€after€she€and€theÏchild€had€been€resident€in€that€state€for€more€than€six€months,€she€applied€toÏestablish€jurisdiction€in€its€courts.€€The€North€Carolina€court€declined€to€exerciseÏhome€state€jurisdiction,€and€Tennessee€subsequently€went€forward€with€a€hearingÏon€all€pending€petitions,€which€resulted€in€an€expansion€of€the€fatherððs€visitationÏrights,€and€the€imposition€of€sanctions€for€contempt€against€the€mother.ÌÌà àà àThe€mother€argues€that€under€the€UCCJA€and€the€PKPA,ÏTennessee€lost€jurisdiction€once€Georgia€became€the€childððs€home€state.€€SheÏalso€claims€that€Tennessee€is€not€entitled€to€assume€jurisdiction€again,€becauseÏin€declining€jurisdiction,€North€Carolina€did€not€specifically€find,€as€the€languageÍof€€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„203(a)(3)€apparently€requires,€that€Tennessee€ð ðis€theÏmore€appropriate€forum€to€determine€child€custody,€and€it€is€in€the€best€interest€ofÏthe€child€that€a€court€of€this€state€assume€jurisdiction.ðð€ÌÌà àà àBefore€analyzing€this€argument,€we€will€set€out€a€more€detailedÏaccount€of€the€proceedings€leading€up€to€this€appeal.€€We€do€not€think€itÏnecessary,€however,€to€exhaustively€document€every€petition,€response€and€orderÏinvolving€these€parties,€as€they€have€been€involved€in€virtually€nonstop€litigationÏsince€1987.× ƒ- ××  ×€€We€will€primarily€focus€on€those€proceedings€most€necessary€toÏunderstand€the€factual€background€of€this€case,€and€those€most€relevant€to€theÏquestion€of€jurisdiction.€ÌÌà@ àò òII.€€Proceedings€in€Tennesseeó óÌÌà àà àIn€May€of€1987,€the€Fourth€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€grantedÏa€divorce€to€Tennessee€residents€Charles€Mulle€Jr.€and€Kathy€Reese€Mulle€on€theÏground€of€irreconcilable€differences.€€The€final€decree€incorporated€an€agreementÏbetween€the€parties€that€custody€of€their€three€month€old€son,€Dannon€BruceÍMulle,€ð ðshall€be€vested€in€them€jointly.ðð€€The€wife€was€to€exercise€physical€custody,Ïwith€reasonable€visitation€granted€to€the€husband.€€ÌÌà àà àSix€months€after€the€divorce,€the€wife€remarried,€and€moved€toÏSavannah,€Georgia,€apparently€in€ignorance€of,€or€in€defiance€of,€a€restrainingÏorder€forbidding€her€to€leave€the€State.€€(She€will€henceforth€be€referred€to€in€thisÏopinion€by€her€married€name€as€Mrs.€Yount.)€€Whatever€good€will€may€haveÏexisted€between€the€parties€at€the€time€of€their€agreement€eroded€quickly,€in€partÏbecause€of€disagreements€about€visitation.€€Mr.€Mulle€filed€a€petition€in€theÏDavidson€County€court€for€change€of€custody€and€for€contempt,€and€the€wifeÏanswered€and€counter„claimed€for€sole€custody€and€for€contempt.ÌÌà àà àAfter€a€hearing,€the€trial€court€found€there€to€be€no€change€ofÏcircumstances€such€as€would€justify€a€change€of€custody,€but€it€set€forth€a€specificÏvisitation€order€on€June€2,€1988,€to€replace€the€general€order€for€ð ðreasonableÏvisitationðð€established€earlier.€€The€new€visitation€schedule€gave€Mr.€Mulle€theÏright€to€see€his€son€every€other€weekend,€on€certain€specific€holidays,€and€duringÏthe€summer,€with€pick„up€and€delivery€of€the€child€to€take€place€at€specific€times€inÏAtlanta,€about€halfway€between€Savannah€and€Nashville.ÌÌà àà àWe€note€that€such€a€schedule€involves€extensive€travel€and€expenseÏby€both€parties,€and€that€a€great€deal€of€coordination€and€understanding€betweenÍthem€is€required€for€it€to€succeed.€€Unfortunately,€the€necessary€degree€ofÏcooperation€was€not€forthcoming.ÌÌà àà àThough€visitation€often€did€occur€as€contemplated€by€the€courtððsÏorder,€at€other€times€Mrs.€Yount€either€failed€to€appear,€or€let€Dannon€go€with€hisÏfather€only€after€expressing€great€hostility€towards€Mr.€Mulle€in€the€presence€of€theÏchild.€€A€€transcript€of€a€tape€made€on€a€1991€occasion€when€Mr.€Mulle€pickedÏDannon€up€for€pre„arranged€visitation€at€Mrs.€Yountððs€motherððs€house€in€Madison,ÏTennessee€has€been€made€a€part€of€the€record.€€The€transcipt€clearly€reveals€Mrs.ÏYount€creating€an€emotional€scene€to€test€Dannonððs€loyalty€to€her,€and€toÏundermine€his€affection€for€his€father,€without€consideration€for€the€feelings€andÏemotional€well„being€of€her€four€and€a€half€year€old€child.ÌÌà àà àOn€another€notable€occasion,€Mr.€Mulleððs€plane€was€delayed€due€toÏweather€conditions€in€Atlanta.€€He€arranged€for€a€friend,€a€person€known€to€Mrs.ÏYount,€to€pick€Dannon€up€in€the€Atlanta€airport€and€watch€him€until€Mr.€MulleððsÏplane€arrived.€€Mrs.€Yount€refused€to€give€the€child€to€the€friend,€and€drove€back€toÏSavannah€with€him.€€The€next€morning,€Mr.€Mulle€chartered€a€plane€to€Savannah,Ïand€took€a€taxi€to€the€Yount€residence€for€the€purpose€of€exercising€his€scheduledÏvisitation.€€Mr.€Yount€threatened€Mr.€Mulle€with€a€crowbar,€and€threw€him€off€theÏproperty,€as€Mrs.€Yount€watched€in€apparent€approval.Ì€Ìà àà àMr.€Mulle€filed€another€petition€for€change€of€custody€and€forÏcontempt,€alleging€numerous€violations€of€the€visitation€schedule€by€Mrs.€YountÏ(this€petition€was€filed€prior€to€the€events€described€in€the€preceding€twoÏparagraphs).€€Again,€Mrs.€Yount€filed€a€counter„petition€for€full€custody,€and€forÏmodification€of€visitation.€€After€a€full€hearing,€including€testimony€by€the€partiesÏand€corroborating€witnesses,€the€court€determined€on€February€13,€1990€that€itsÏprior€order€should€remain€substantially€unchanged,€but€directed€the€parties€toÏregularly€communicate€with€each€other€in€order€for€visitation€to€run€moreÏsmoothly.€€The€court€did€find€Mrs.€Yount€to€be€in€willful€contempt€of€its€prior€orders,Ïand€ordered€her€to€take€a€tour€of€the€jail.ÌÌÌÌà@ àò òIII.€€Proceedings€in€Tennessee€and€Georgiaó óÌÌà àà àOn€January€29,€1991,€Mrs.€Yount€filed€a€petition€in€Chatham€County,ÏGeorgia,€asking€that€she€be€granted€sole€custody€of€Dannon,€that€weekendÏvisitation€be€reduced€to€one€weekend€per€month,€and€that€it€take€place€inÏSavannah€only.€€The€petition€alleged€that€the€Georgia€court€had€home€stateÏjurisdiction€under€that€stateððs€version€of€the€UCCJA.ÌÌà àà àOn€February€19,€1991,€Mr.€Mulle€filed€another€petition€in€DavidsonÏCounty,€alleging€that€Mrs.€Yount€had€failed€to€abide€by€the€provisions€of€theÏcourtððs€previous€order.€€He€asked€the€court€to€issue€a€stay€of€all€proceedings€inÏGeorgia,€until€the€Tennessee€court€could€communicate€with€the€Georgia€SuperiorÏCourt,€and€determine€the€most€appropriate€forum€to€litigate€all€issues.ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€granted€Mr.€Mulle€the€temporary€restraining€order€heÏrequested,€and€issued€a€show€cause€order€for€Mrs.€Yount€to€appear€and€explainÏwhy€the€order€should€not€be€made€permanent.€€Thereafter,€motions€were€filed€byÏboth€parties,€in€both€states,€including€motions€by€Mrs.€Yount€for€the€DavidsonÏCounty€trial€judge€to€recuse€herself€and€to€decline€jurisdiction€in€favor€of€theÏGeorgia€courts,€both€of€which€motions€were€denied.ÌÌà àà àOn€June€1,€1991,€the€Georgia€Superior€Court€declared€that€GeorgiaÏwas€the€appropriate€place€to€exercise€jurisdiction€under€the€UCCJA,€because€itÏhad€become€the€childððs€home€state,€and€because€in€the€language€of€the€UCCJAÏð ðthere€is€available€in€this€state€substantial€evidence€concerning€the€childððs€presentÏor€future€care,€protection,€training€and€personal€relationships.ðð€€The€courtÏsubsequently€modified€visitation€by€requiring€that€all€pick„up€and€return€of€theÏchild€take€place€in€Savannah€rather€than€in€Atlanta.ÌÌà àà àMr.€Mulle€subsequently€filed€a€discretionary€appeal€in€the€GeorgiaÏCourt€of€Appeals.€€In€an€October€27,€1992€opinion,€òòMulle€v.€Yountóó,€420€S.E.€776,Ïthat€court€vacated€the€order€of€the€Georgia€Superior€Court,€finding€that€underÏGeorgiaððs€version€of€the€UCCJA,€the€Superior€Court€was€without€authority€toÏmodify€the€orders€of€the€Tennessee€court€unless€it€also€found€either€thatÏTennessee€no€longer€had€jurisdiction,€or€that€Tennessee€had€declined€to€exerciseÏits€jurisdiction.€ÌÌà àà à€On€remand,€the€Superior€Court€declared€that€Tennessee€no€longerÏhad€jurisdiction,€and€it€issued€a€new€order€on€visitation€on€December€23,€1992,Ïwhich€differed€from€its€earlier€order€in€several€respects,€but€chiefly€by€limitingÏweekend€visitation€to€one€weekend€per€month.€€The€Georgia€courtððs€order€stated:Ïð ð[a]ll€other€aspects€of€the€Tennessee€Court€Order,€entered€on€or€about€May€19,Ï1987,€in€the€Fourth€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County,€Tennessee,€Case€No.€86D„459,€not€so€modified€by€this€Order,€shall€remain€in€full€force€and€effect.ððÌÌà àà àOn€February€4,€1993€the€Davidson€County€Circuit€Court€held€aÏhearing€on€Mr.€Mulleððs€earlier„filed€petitions€for€contempt.€€Mrs.€Yount€was€notÏpresent,€but€her€attorney€made€a€special€appearance€for€the€purpose€of€movingÏthe€court€to€dismiss€the€petitions€for€lack€of€jurisdiction.€€In€colloquy€between€theÏtrial€judge€and€Mr.€Mulleððs€attorney,€the€trial€judge€revealed€that€she€had€been€inÏcommunication€with€the€Georgia€court€prior€to€June€1,€1991,€but€that€its€rulings€onÍjurisdiction€were€contrary€to€what€she€had€been€led€to€believe€they€would€be.€€TheÏcourt€subsequently€heard€direct€testimony€by€Charles€Mulle,€and€by€his€presentÏwife,€Katie€Stone€Mulle,€in€regard€to€the€conduct€of€Mrs.€Yount€relative€to€Mr.ÏMulleððs€visitation€with€Dannon.ÌÌà àà àOn€February€25,€1993,€the€court€denied€the€defendantððs€motion€toÏdismiss,€finding€that€it€had€never€relinquished€jurisdiction€to€the€state€of€Georgia.€ÏIt€further€found€Mrs.€Yount€in€contempt€for€having€willfully€prevented€Mr.€MulleÏfrom€exercising€visitation€with€his€son€on€seven€occasions,€and€sentenced€her€toÏserve€ten€days€in€jail€for€each€violation€of€its€orders.€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àThis€apparent€stalemate€between€competing€courts€ended€when,Ïwith€the€prompting€of€the€Georgia€court,€the€parties€entered€into€an€agreed€orderÏon€visitation,€with€Mr.€Mulle€agreeing€to€refrain€from€filing€further€actions€inÏTennessee.€On€the€motion€of€Mr.€Mulle,€the€Davidson€County€court€entered€anÏorder€on€June€17,€1993€in€which€it€set€aside€its€contempt€order€of€February€25,Ï1993,€and€recited€that€in€light€of€communication€between€it€and€the€Georgia€court,Ïit€was€staying€all€further€litigation€in€the€state€of€Tennessee,€ð ðpending€furtherÏorders€of€this€court.ðð€€The€parties€thereafter€litigated€their€differences€in€theÏGeorgia€court.Ì€Ìà@ àò òIV.€€Proceedings€in€North€Carolina€and€Tennesseeó óÌÌà àà àMrs.€Yount€moved€to€Forsyth€County,€North€Carolina€on€May€27,Ï1995.€In€February€of€1996,€Mr.€Mulle€filed€a€petition€in€Tennessee€for€contempt,€toÏmodify€visitation,€and€to€proceed€with€all€petitions€previously€filed€in€the€DavidsonÏCounty€Circuit€Court.€€On€May€14,€1996,€the€Court€orderedÏas€follows:€Ò 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà àORDERED€AND€ADJUDGED€by€the€CourtÏthat€all€matters€pending€in€the€Fourth€Circuit€Court€forÏDavidson€County,€Tennessee€shall€be€continuedÏindefinitely€until€such€time€as€the€Superior€Court€ofÏChatham€County,€Georgia€makes€a€ruling€as€to€whetherÏthey€are€relinquishing€jurisdiction€of€the€custody€andÏwelfare€of€this€child€and€in€the€event€the€Superior€Court€ofÏGeorgia€does€relinquish€jurisdiction,€then€the€FourthÏCircuit€Court€will€confer€with€the€Court€in€Winston/SalemÏNorth€Carolina€as€to€which€Court€will€exercise€jurisdictionÏover€the€custody€and€welfare€of€the€minor€child,€DannonÏBruce€Mulle.ÌÌÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌà àà àThe€Georgia€court€subsequently€issued€an€order€relinquishingÏjurisdiction€over€child€custody€and€visitation€matters,€and€Mrs.€Yount€filed€anÏaction€in€the€Forsyth€County€District€Court€requesting€that€North€Carolina€takeÏjurisdiction€of€the€matter.€€On€July€23,€1996,€the€North€Carolina€court€declined€toÏtake€jurisdiction,€and€dismissed€the€action.ÌÌà àà àThe€court€noted€that€it€was€entitled€to€assume€home€state€jurisdictionÏunder€Chapter€50A€of€the€North€Carolina€General€Statutes,€the€North€CarolinaÏversion€of€the€UCCJA.€€But€it€declined€to€do€so€under€another€provision€of€the€Act,Íwhich€bars€the€exercise€of€jurisdiction€if€proceedings€in€conformity€with€theÏUCCJA€are€pending€in€the€courts€of€another€state.ÌÌà àà àOn€October€31,€1996,€the€Davidson€County€Circuit€Court€held€itsÏpreviously€deferred€hearing.€€Mrs.€Yount€did€not€personally€appear,€but€herÏattorney€again€contested€the€jurisdiction€of€the€court.€€After€hearing€testimony€byÏMr.€Mulle€and€his€wife,€the€court€reinstated€the€order€of€February€25,€1993,€whichÏit€had€previously€stayed.€€It€also€found€Mrs.€Yount€to€be€guilty€of€two€counts€ofÏcontempt€by€failing€to€appear€to€respond€to€two€show€cause€orders,€andÏsentenced€her€to€serve€ten€days€in€the€Metropolitan€Davidson€County€Jail€forÏeach€violation,€which€together€with€the€reinstated€judgment€made€for€a€totalÏsentence€of€ninety€days.€€The€court€also€reinstated€two€weekend€per€monthÏvisitation€by€the€father.€€This€appeal€followed.€ÌÌà@ àò òV.€€Jurisdictionó óÌÌà àà àThe€UCCJA€is€designed€to€ð ð[a]void€jurisdictional€competition€andÏconflict€with€courts€of€other€states€in€matters€of€child€custody€.€.€.€.ðð€€Tenn.€CodeÏAnn.€ðð€36„6„201(a)(1).€€As€this€case€demonstrates,€the€Act€is€not€self„executing,Ïnor€does€it€immunize€the€courts€of€the€various€states€from€being€drawn€intoÏdisputes€over€jurisdiction€in€a€way€that€mirrors€the€disagreements€between€theÏparties€themselves.€Nonetheless,€the€Act,€together€with€the€complementaryÍfederal€statute,€28€U.S.C.A.€ðð€1738A,€makes€possible€near„uniform€nationwideÏstandards€for€states€to€apply€in€order€to€determine€whether€or€not€to€assumeÏjurisdiction€over€a€given€custody€dispute.ÌÌà àà àUnder€those€standards,€Tennessee€declined€to€exercise€itsÏjurisdiction€€over€the€custody€of€Dannon€Mulle€in€deference€to€the€Georgia€court.€ÏBut€the€trial€court€made€it€clear€that€in€deferring€to€Georgiaððs€ð ðhome€stateððÏjurisdiction,€it€was€not€thereby€abandoning€its€own€right€to€exercise€jurisdiction,€ifÏand€when€Georgia€relinquished€the€role€it€had€assumed.× ƒ. ××  ×ÌÌà àà à28€U.S.C.A.€ðð€1738A€reads€in€pertinent€part:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓ(c)à àA€child€custody€determination€made€by€a€court€of€aÏState€is€consistent€with€the€provisions€of€this€section€only€ifÏ„„Ìà à(1)à àsuch€court€has€jurisdiction€under€the€law€ofÏsuch€state;€andÌà à(2)à àone€of€the€following€conditions€is€met:Ìà àà à.€.€.Ìà à(E)€à àthe€court€has€continuing€jurisdiction€pursuantÏto€subsection€(d)€of€this€section.€à àÌÌ(d)à àThe€jurisdiction€of€a€court€of€a€State€which€hasÏmade€a€child€custody€determination€consistently€with€theÏprovisions€of€this€section€continues€as€long€as€theÏrequirement€of€subsection€(c)(1)€of€this€section€continuesÍto€be€met€and€such€state€remains€the€residence€of€theÏchild€òòor€of€any€contestantóó.€(emphasis€added)ÌÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÓÓÌÌà àà àThis€section€indicates€that€a€state€does€not€necessarily€loseÏjurisdiction€over€a€child€custody€case€merely€because€the€child€has€resided€inÏanother€state€long€enough€for€that€other€state€to€become€the€childððs€home€state.€ÏSeeòò€State€ex€rel.€Cooper€v.€Hamilton,óó€688€S.W.2d€821€(Tenn.€1985).€ÏSubsections€(c)(1)€and€(d)€require€us€to€examine€our€own€law€to€determine€theÏproper€forum€for€decision.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellant€argues€that€Tennessee€does€not€meet€the€Ïrequirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„203€for€the€exercise€of€jurisdiction€in€thisÏcase.€€The€relevant€portion€of€that€statute€reads:ÌÒ 0 ÒÒ  ÒÓÓà à(a)à àA€court€of€this€state€.€.€.€has€jurisdiction€toÏmake€a€child€custody€determination€by€initial€orÏmodification€decree€if:Ìà à(1)€à àThis€state:Ìà àà à(A)€Is€the€home€state€of€the€child€at€the€timeÏof€à àcommencement€of€the€proceeding;€orÌà àà à.€.€.;€orà àÌà à(2)(A)à àIt€appears€that€no€state€has€jurisdiction€underÏà àsubdivision€(a)(1),€or€each€state€with€jurisdictionÏunder€à àsubdivision€(a)(1)€has€declined€to€exerciseÏjurisdiction€à àon€the€ground€that€this€state€is€the€moreÏappropriate€à àforum€to€determine€the€custody€of€the€child;ÏandÌà àà à(B)à àThe€child€and€at€least€one€(1)Ïcontestant€à àhave€a€significant€connection€with€this€state;ÏandÌà àà à(C)à àThere€is€available€in€this€stateÏsubstantial€à àevidence€concerning€the€childððs€present€orÏfuture€care,€à àprotection,€training€and€personalÏrelationship;€andÌà àà à(D)à àIt€is€in€the€best€interest€of€the€child€thatÏà àa€court€of€this€state€assume€jurisdiction.ÌÒ € ÒÒ „ ÒÌÓÓÌà àà àThe€appellant€points€out€that€in€declining€to€exercise€home„stateÏjurisdiction€over€Dannon€Mulle,€the€North€Carolina€court€did€not€specifically€findÏthat€Tennessee€ð ðis€the€more€appropriate€forum€to€determine€the€custody€of€theÏchild.ðð€€We€do€not€believe,€however€that€Tennessee€is€required€to€wait€upon€suchÏa€finding€by€North€Carolina,€in€light€of€the€fact€that€it€is€the€original€rendering€state,Ïthat€it€never€relinquished€jurisdiction€of€the€case,€and€that€there€is€substantialÏevidence€in€the€record€relative€to€the€requirements€of€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðð€36„6„203(a)(2)(B),€(C)€and€(D).€ÌÌà àà àAs€the€state€which€rendered€the€original€custody€order€in€this€caseÏas€well€as€several€subsequent€modifications,€Tennessee€remains€a€repository€ofÏinformation€about€the€childððs€ð ðcare,€protection,€training€and€personal€relationship.ððÏThe€proof€shows€that€Mr.€Mulle€has€remained€a€resident€of€Tennessee€since€theÏdivorce,€while€Mrs.€Yount€has€changed€her€state€of€residence€twice.€€The€recordÏalso€indicates€that€Dannonððs€maternal€grandmother,€his€maternal€great„grandmother,€and€other€relatives€on€his€motherððs€side€live€in€Nashville.€€TheÏpediatrician€that€treated€Dannon€since€his€birth€practices€in€the€Nashville€area,Íand€remains€available€to€him.€The€record€does€not€indicate€that€Mrs.€Yount€hasÏany€family€connections€in€North€Carolina,€other€than€Dannon€and€Mr.€Yount.€ÌÌà àà àMr.€Mulle€has€testified€that€he€and€his€new€wife€have€forged€a€strongÏbond€with€Dannon.€€He€has€consistently€exercised€his€visitation€rights€exceptÏwhen€prevented€from€doing€so€by€Mrs.€Yount,€and€he€has€faithfully€met€his€childÏsupport€obligations.€€Though€he€has€sometimes€exercised€visitation€at€hisÏcondominium€in€Florida,€it€appears€to€this€court€that€his€actions€have€helpedÏDannon€to€maintain€ð ða€significant€connection€with€this€state.ðð€€ÌÌà àà àThe€original€decree€of€the€Tennessee€court€granted€joint€custody€ofÏthe€child€to€both€parties,€and€that€part€of€the€decree€has€never€been€modified.€€WeÏnote€that€joint€custody€implies€some€level€of€joint€decision„making€by€the€parties,Ïand€that€the€courtððs€order€specifically€required€the€parties€to€decide€jointly€on€aÏprivate€school€for€Dannon,€with€each€party€to€pay€half€the€cost.ÌÌà àà àThe€Georgia€court€subsequently€modified€the€order,€requiring€Mr.ÏMulle€to€pay€all€the€costs€of€private€school,€and€Mr.€Mulle€expressed€hisÏwillingness€to€do€so.€€Mr.€Mulle€has€testified€that€Dannon€has€been€diagnosedÏwith€a€learning€disability,€and€that€he€believes€that€a€good€private€schoolÏeducation€would€more€likely€meet€his€needs€than€would€public€school.ÌÌà àà àHowever€Mrs.€Yount€has€ignored€the€orders€of€both€courts,€has€notÏconsulted€with€Mr.€Mulle,€and€has€enrolled€Dannon€in€public€schools€the€last€twoÏyears.€€It€is€apparent€to€this€court€that€Mrs.€Yount€is€willing€to€ignore€the€bestÏinterest€of€her€child€when€to€do€so€would€mean€conceding€Mr.€Mulle€a€larger€roleÏin€Dannonððs€life€than€she€would€like€him€to€have.€€We€therefore€find€that€it€is€not€inÏthe€best€interest€of€the€child€to€allow€the€question€of€jurisdiction€to€remain€in€limboÏuntil€the€North€Carolina€court€chooses€to€speak€more€definitively,€and€we€affirmÏthe€jurisdiction€of€the€Tennessee€court.€€€€ÌÌà@ àò òVI.€€Visitationó óÌÌà àà àIn€its€order€of€November€18,€1996,€the€trial€court€reinstated€the€twiceÏmonthly€visitation€that€Mr.€Mulle€enjoyed€before€it€was€reduced€to€once€a€monthÏby€the€Georgia€court.€The€appellant€argues€that€the€Tennessee€court€was€in€errorÏbecause€it€failed€to€give€full€effect€to€Tenn.€Code€Ann.€ðððð€36„6„215(b)€and€36„6„223.€€Those€portions€of€the€UCCJA€require€that€upon€taking€jurisdiction€of€aÏcustody€case,€the€Tennessee€court€must€request€transcripts€and€records€ofÏproceedings€from€other€states€where€jurisdiction€was€previously€exercised,€andÏgive€due€consideration€to€those€documents.€ÌÌà àà àThe€appellee€points€out€that€the€appellant€never€asked€the€trialÏcourt,€by€motion€or€otherwise,€to€request€such€documents€of€the€Georgia€trial€courtÍprior€to€the€hearing€in€question.€€We€agree€with€the€appellee€that€this€is€a€properÏsituation€for€application€of€Tenn.€R.€App.€P.€36(a),€which€deals€with€the€relief€to€beÏgranted€by€an€appellate€court€in€the€face€of€error€below,€and€which€reads€inÏpertinent€part,€ð ð[n]othing€in€this€rule€shall€be€construed€as€requiring€relief€beÏgranted€to€a€party€responsible€for€an€error,€or€who€failed€to€take€whatever€actionÏwas€reasonably€available€to€prevent€or€nullify€the€harmful€effect€of€an€error.ðð€€€ÌÌà àà àWe€also€note€that€the€appellant€has€appended€to€her€brief€copies€ofÏthe€transcript€of€the€proceedings€in€the€Georgia€court,€and€that€courtððs€final€order,Ïwhich€she€insists€the€trial€court€should€have€considered€pursuant€to€the€above„mentioned€statutes.€€We€have€read€those€documents,€and€we€find€nothing€in€themÏthat€would€lead€us€to€believe€that€consideration€of€their€contents€would€haveÏcaused€the€trial€judge€to€issue€a€different€order€than€the€one€she€did.ÌÌà àà àOn€the€contrary,€we€have€found€possible€reasons€that€Mrs.€YountÏmight€not€have€been€very€eager€for€the€Tennessee€court€to€examine€thoseÏrecords,€for€the€Georgia€court€found€that€Mrs.€Yount€had€violated€the€partiesððÏagreement€to€enroll€Dannon€in€an€appropriate€private€school,€and€it€fined€herÏ$100€for€her€willful€contempt€of€its€order€on€telephone€visitation.€ÌÌà@ àò òVII.€€Contemptó óÌÌà àà àAs€regards€the€contempt€portion€of€the€Tennessee€courtððs€order,€weÏnote€that€all€seven€violations€of€the€1988€visitation€order€occurred€beforeÏTennessee€deferred€to€the€jurisdiction€of€the€Georgia€court,€as€did€the€sanctioningÏof€Mrs.€Yount€for€those€violations.€€It€thus€does€not€appear€that€there€could€be€anyÏtranscripts€or€records€in€Georgia€that€would€be€relevant€to€the€decision€to€reinstateÏthose€penalties.ÌÌà àà àWe€also€cannot€credit€the€appellantððs€argument€that€the€GeorgiaÏcourtððs€ruling€on€contempt€is€res€judicata,€and€cannot€be€re„litigated€in€theÏTennessee€court.€The€Georgia€court€found€Mrs.€Yount€to€be€guilty€of€a€single€actÏof€contempt€of€its€own€order,€a€judicial€decision€that€has€nothing€to€do€with€theÏprior€contempts€of€the€Tennessee€courtððs€order,€for€which€penalties€were€firstÏimposed€in€1993€and€reinstated€in€1996.€€€€€€€€€ÌÌà àà àHowever€the€additional€penalties€levied€by€the€Tennessee€courtÏstand€on€a€somewhat€different€footing.€€The€trial€court€stated€that€ð ðMrs.€Yount€hasÏfailed€to€appear€in€Court€in€response€to€the€last€two€directives€of€the€Court,€andÏshe€is€found€to€be€in€willful€criminal€contempt€for€failure€to€appear.ðð€€The€courtÏsentenced€her€to€serve€ten€days€in€jail€for€each€of€those€contempts.€€ÌÌà àà àThe€trial€court€is€apparently€referring€to€its€show€cause€orders€ofÏMarch€5,€1993€and€March€26,€1996,€in€both€of€which€Mrs.€Yount€was€directed€toÍappear€and€show€cause€why€she€should€not€be€found€in€contempt€of€the€priorÏorders€of€the€court.€€Mrs.€Yount€responded€to€both€of€those€orders€by€filing€motionsÏto€dismiss€for€lack€of€jurisdiction,€and€her€attorneys€filed€notices€of€specialÏappearance,€and€appeared€at€both€hearings€on€Mrs.€Yountððs€behalf,€solely€for€theÏpurpose€of€contesting€jurisdiction.ÌÌà àà àWe€recognize€that€a€court€may€punish€an€individual€for€disobeyingÏits€orders,€even€when€those€orders€may€later€be€found€to€be€erroneous.€òòState€v.ÏSammonsóó,€656€S.W.2d€862€(Tenn.€Crim.€App.€1982).€€However€we€do€not€deem€aÏlitigantððs€decision€to€make€a€special€appearance€to€contest€the€jurisdiction€of€theÏtrial€court€to€be€a€violation€of€an€order€to€appear,€so€long€as€there€is€a€legitimateÏquestion€as€to€whether€or€not€the€court€has€jurisdiction.€€We€therefore€reverse€theÏtwo€ten€day€sentences€imposed€by€the€trial€court.Ì€€à àÌà@ àò òVIII.Ìó óÌà àà àWe€affirm€the€order€of€the€trial€court€in€all€respects,€except€for€theÏfindings€of€contempt€for€failure€to€appear.€€That€portion€of€the€courtððs€order€isÏvacated,€Ìand€this€cause€is€remanded€to€the€Circuit€Court€of€Davidson€County€for€furtherÏproceedings€consistent€with€this€opinion.€€Tax€the€costs€on€appeal€to€theÏappellant.ÌÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àBEN€H.€CANTRELL,€JUDGEÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌHENRY€F.€TODD,€PRESIDING€JUDGEÌMIDDLE€SECTIONÌÌÌÌÌ_______________________________ÌWALTER€W.€BUSSART,€JUDGEÌÌÇÑ  ÑÑ Ü ÑÑ X Ñà@ à