| 3. Exclusive continuing jurisdiction for the State that |
entered the decree. The failure of the UCCJA to clearly |
enunciate that the decree-granting State retains exclusive |
continuing jurisdiction to modify a decree has resulted in two |
major problems. First, different interpretations of the UCCJA on |
continuing jurisdiction have produced conflicting custody |
decrees. States also have different interpretations as to how |
long continuing jurisdiction lasts. Some courts have held that |
modification jurisdiction continues until the last contestant |
leaves the State, regardless of how many years the child has |
lived outside the State or how tenuous the child's connections to |
the State have become. Other courts have held that continuing |
modification jurisdiction ends as soon as the child has |
established a new home State, regardless of how significant the |
child's connections to the decree State remain. Still other |
States distinguish between custody orders and visitation orders. |
This divergence of views leads to simultaneous proceedings and |
conflicting custody orders. |