3.__Modification proceeding; enforcement proceeding in another state.__In a proceeding to modify a child custody determination, a court of this State shall determine whether a proceeding to enforce the determination has been commenced in another state.__ If a proceeding to enforce a child custody determination has been commenced in another state, the court may:

A.__Stay the proceeding for modification pending the entry of an order of a court of the other state enforcing, staying, denying or dismissing the proceeding for enforcement;

B.__Enjoin the parties from continuing with the proceeding for enforcement; or

C.__Proceed with the modification under conditions it considers appropriate.

Uniform Comment

This section represents the remnants of the simultaneous proceedings provision of the UCCJA § 6. The problem of simultaneous proceedings is no longer a significant issue. Most of the problems have been resolved by the prioritization of home state jurisdiction under Section 201 [Me. cite section 1745]; the exclusive, continuing jurisdiction provisions of Section 202 [Me. cite section 1746]; and the prohibitions on modification of Section 203 [Me. cite section 1747]. If there is a home State, there can be no exercise of significant connection jurisdiction in an initial child custody determination and, therefore, no simultaneous proceedings. If there is a State of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, there cannot be another State with concurrent jurisdiction and, therefore, no simultaneous proceedings. Of course, the home State, as well as the State with exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, could defer to another State under Section 207 [Me. cite section 1747]. However, that decision is left entirely to the home State or the State with exclusive, continuing jurisdiction.

Under this Act, the simultaneous proceedings problem will arise only when there is no home State, no State with exclusive, continuing jurisdiction and more than one significant connection