And such an idiotic reply needs to be corrected.
Fact One: The original custody order was issued in Mississippi which retains continuing jurisdiction;
Fact Two: Neither parent or the child continue to reside in Mississippi.
Fact Three: The child and the custodial parent reside in Colorado.
Fact Four: The non-custodial parent resides in Florida.
Under the UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (1997) The home state retains continuing jurisdiction (that would be Mississippi) until such time as neither parent continues to reside in the home state.
SECTION 102. DEFINITIONS. In this [Act]:
7) "Home State" means the State in which a child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child-custody proceeding.
In the case of a child less than six months of age, the term means the State in which the child lived from birth with any of the persons mentioned. A period of temporary absence of any of the mentioned persons is part of the period.
ANSWER: That would mean Mississippi
The full faith and credit section can be found here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/28/1738A.html
And I suggest our poster read Zinke & Wavra Which can be found here:
http://fl.bna.com/fl/19981013/97ca2152.htm
In other words, what basis of law would allow a Florida court to take over jurisdiction against federal law and Mississippi statute? None.
The ONLY state outside of Mississippi which could substantiate a cause for jurisdiction is Colorado.
So, want to prove your ignorance again and again then I'll be more than happy to oblige helping you.
