With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of custody on the basis of a lack of jurisdiction. Affirmed. 1 See <http://www.law.uperm.edu/bU/ulc/uccjea/flnalI997act.htin>. 2 Id. 3 The concerns and issues expressed by the nccusl regarding the creation and need for the uccjea were raised before the Michigan Legislature. House Legislative Analysis, HB 4855, October 31, 2001. With the adoption of the uccjea, the uccja was repealed. 4 Plaintiff does not challenge whether the Ontario order is in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional provisions of the uccjea, MCL 722.1105(2), or Canada’s principles regarding human rights. MCL 722.1105(3). 5 Plaintiff does not allege that the emergency jurisdiction exception to modification is invoked in this case. See MCL 722.1204. 6 See also Rector v Kimes, 60 P3d 1068, 1070 (Okla App 2002) (<HOLDING>). 7 See

A: holding that the question is not whether the party opposing abstention can demonstrate that the federal forum is a better or more convenient forum but whether the inconvenience of the federal forum is so great that this factor points towards abstention
B: holding that an initial custody evaluation or homestate residency was irrelevant when there was no indication that the decreeing court concluded whether it maintained exclusive continuing jurisdiction or remained a convenient forum
C: holding that when district court has continuing and exclusive jurisdiction over sapcr matter judge of another district court in same county may rule in matter so long as record is clear that judge is acting on behalf of court with continuing and exclusive jurisdiction
D: holding that there was no question that the full and fair opportunity element was met where there was no indication that such an opportunity was unavailable
B.