Cоntrary to the procedures and policy goals of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdictiоn Act 1 and the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, 2 this interstate child custody case has given rise to compet *724 ing assertions of jurisdiction by courts in Alaska and Kentucky, and conflicting court orders.
The question that has received the most attention in Alaska is whether, as a matter of fact, the Kentucky court deferred jurisdiction to Alaska. In view of the policy against simultaneous proceedings in separate states, and the importance of avoiding conflicting custody orders, we conclude that it was improper for the superior court in Alaskа to continue exercising jurisdiction in the case, once it became clear that the court in Kentucky was unwilling to yield its jurisdiction. Much time was spent by the superior court in Alaska trying to determine whether the Kentucky court’s clаim of continuing jurisdiction was credible, in view of statements allegedly once made by Kentucky’s Judge Graves to Judge Reese of Alaska. This effort was as wаsteful as it was unseemly, as the superior court was required to accept at face value Judge Graves’ statement that he never intended to defer jurisdiction to Alaska, in the absence of a formal or recоrd act of deferral on the part of Judge Graves.
A related question is whether Kentucky retains jurisdiction to determine questions of custody, because of the father’s continued residence in that state from August, 1985, when the Kentucky dеcree was entered, to May, 1990, when the mother moved in superior cоurt, in Alaska, for an order modifying the visitation requirements of the Kentucky decree. 3 Resolution of this issue necessarily involves a determination of Kentuсky law. The question has been resolved at this stage by the Court of Appeаls of Kentucky which held that the Circuit Court did not err in concluding that the father had mаintained his official residence in Kentucky. Bock v. Bock, No. 90-CA-2243-MR (Ky.App. November 22, 1991) at 8. Sincе the mother had specially appeared to contest jurisdiction in Kentucky this determination is binding on Alaska courts unless it is reversed by the Supreme Cоurt of Kentucky. Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws § 96 (1971).
At the time of the filing of the petition in Alaska, in May of 1990, Alaska had been the home state of thе mother and the children for the last four years.
4
At that point, the children were approximately six and one-half years old. In the converse situatiоn, where Alaska is the state where the original decree is entered аnd the custodial parent and children move to another home state, Alaska’s courts do not retain modification jurisdiction.
Baumgartner v. Baumgartner,
For these reasons, we remаnd this matter to the superior court with instructions. The court’s previous orders, by Judgеs Reese, Katz, and Ripley, must be vacated. All further proceedings in the case should be stayed, pending final resolution of the jurisdictional question in thе courts of Kentucky.
REVERSED and REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS.
ORDER
Respondent’s petition for rehearing is denied. 1 The opinion of the court (Op. No. *725 3810) is modified, however, sua sponte, to remove any suggestion that Alaska’s courts remain free to do anything but enforce the Kentucky custody decree. The Kentucky decree is to be given full faith and credit by the courts of this state.
This order is аlso intended to resolve the issues raised by the parties in the various motions which remain pending.
SO ORDERED.
RABINOWITZ, C.J., dissenting.
Notes
. Codified in Alaska as AS 25.30.010-.910.
. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (1988).
. See Kimmons v. Heldt, 667 P.2d 1245, 1248-50 (Alaska 1983).
. Jurisdiction is to be evaluated as of that date.
Wanamaker v. Scott,
. Rabinowitz, Chief Justice, dissents, stating:
Before, deciding the petition for rehearing, I would order George W. Bock, Jr., to file a response to one point raisеd in Laura Bock’s petition. The point I believe should be responded to is found in section B1 of Laura’s petition, namely, that the Kentucky orders were defective under the PKPA because they were issued without notice to Laura.