| Subsection (c) [Me. cite subsection 3] concerns the problem of |
| simultaneous proceedings in the State with modification |
| jurisdiction and enforcement proceedings under Article 3 [Me. |
| cite subchapter III]. This section authorizes the court with |
| exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to stay the modification |
| proceeding pending the outcome of the enforcement proceeding, to |
| enjoin the parties from continuing with the enforcement |
| proceeding, or to continue the modification proceeding under such |
| conditions as it determines are appropriate. The court may wish |
| to communicate with the enforcement court. However, |
| communication is not mandatory. Although the enforcement State |
| is required by the PKPA to enforce according to its terms a |
| custody determination made consistently with the PKPA, that duty |
| is subject to the decree being modified by a State with the power |
| to do so under the PKPA. An order to enjoin the parties from |
| enforcing the decree is the equivalent of a temporary |
| modification by a State with the authority to do so. The |
| concomitant provision addressed to the enforcement court is |
| Section 306 [Me. cite section 1766] of this Act. That section |
| requires the enforcement court to communicate with the |
| modification court in order to determine what action the |
| modification court wishes the enforcement court to take. |