The judges decided under the UCCJA that Pennsylvania was L.M.'s "home state" for the purposes of any further custodial considerations. But see E.E.B. v. D.A, 89 N.J. 595, 610, 446 A.2d 871 (1982) (holding. UCCJA does not contemplate blind obedience to home state jurisdiction).

The two lead cases around the country on opposing sides of this issue are a New Jersey Supreme Court case and a Michigan Supreme Court case. In E.E.B. v. D.A., 446 A.2d 871 (N.J. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1210 (1983), the New Jersey Supreme Court held that New Jersey was not obligated under either the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA), § 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (2004), or the UCCJEA to enforce a custody determination made by another state following a failed adoption where the other state did not consider the best interests of the child. In E.E.B., both the adoptive parents and the natural mother resided in Ohio at the time mother surrendered the child to the state and adoption had been effectuated by the Ohio courts.

These cases have even tended to expand the application of the UCCJA by looking to the intent of the drafters. In E.E.B. v. D.A., 89 N.J. 595, 446 A.2d 871 (1982) the Supreme Court of New Jersey applied the UCCJA to both an adoption and a habeas corpus action in the case of a child born in Ohio. A month before her birth, her unmarried natural mother made arrangements with the Ohio Welfare Department to put her up for adoption. Both the natural mother and father signed a sworn "Permanent Surrender of Child" form. Six days after her birth, the child was delivered to prospective adoptive parents.

We reject the contention that the decision of the Iowa courts not to conduct a best interests of the child hearing in the circumstances of this case justifies the refusal to enforce the Iowa judgments. The DeBoers rely principally on two cases, Bull v Bull, n 23 supra, and the New Jersey decision in EEB v DA, 89 N.J. 595; 446 A.2d 871 (1982), cert den sub nom Angle v Bowen, 459 U.S. 1210; 103 S Ct 1203; 75 L Ed 2d 445 (1983), which refused to enforce custody awards by courts in other states where the other state court did not conduct a hearing using a best interests of the child test. As noted earlier, the decision being appealed in Bull v Bull was made before the effective date of the PKPA.

If a child has no home state, then the state where the child and his family have equal or stronger ties will have jurisdiction. E.E.B. v. D.A, 89 N.J. 595, 609, 446 A.2d 871 (1982), cert. denied sub nom., Angle v. Bowen, 459 U.S. 1210, 103 S.Ct. 1203, 75 L.Ed.2d 445, reh'g denied, 460 U.S. 1104, 103 S.Ct. 1806, 76 L.Ed.2d 369 (1983). Indeed, "[i]t is implicit in the UCCJA that a state does not automatically lose jurisdiction over custody when it is no longer the home state, if one parent remains resident in that state, the child has significant contact with the state, there is substantial relevant evidence available in the state, and it is in the child's best interest for that state to make the determination."

The UCCJA term "custody proceeding" has been held "to include a dispute between a natural parent and adoptive parents." E.E.B. v. D.A., 89 N.J. 595, 607, 446 A.2d 871 (1982). Although E.E.B. involved habeas corpus proceedings, its rationale warrants application of the UCCJA in adoption proceedings as well.

N.J.S.A. 2A:34-31 (c). While the Act does not require blind obedience to home state jurisdiction, EBB. v D.A., 89 N.J. 595, 610 (1982); N.J.S.A. 2A:34-31; UCCJA § 3, Commissioners' Note, home state jurisdiction is usually the first area of examination. "Home state" is defined by the Act as

That agreement should be enforced because: (1) the New Jersey Superior Court issued the initial custody decree as part of the divorce judgment; (2) the children resided in New Jersey with their mother and New Jersey was their home state at the time of the divorce and when the amendment was executed; (3) the period of residential custody with the father in New York was a trial period subject to further agreement or court decree; and (4) the mother continues to reside in New Jersey. See E.E.B. v. D.A., 89 N.J. 595, 446 A.2d 871 (1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1210, 103 S.Ct. 1203, 75 L.Ed.2d 445, reh'g. denied, 460 U.S. 1104, 103 S.Ct. 1806, 76 L.Ed.2d 369 (1983), in which the Court noted that the jurisdiction act "does not contemplate blind obedience to home state jurisdiction. . . . UCCJA . . . rejects a rigid rule vesting jurisdiction automatically in the home state and favors instead, a more flexible approach.

The UCCJA seeks to introduce certainty and stability in the choice of forum in interstate custody disputes and to encourage interstate cooperation in the interest of the child. E.E.B. v. D.A., 89 N.J. 595, 603 (1982), cert. den. 459 U.S. 1210, 103 S.Ct. 1203, 75 L.Ed.2d 445, reh'g den. 460 U.S. 1104, 103 S.Ct. 1806, 76 L.Ed.2d 369 (1983).

Mrs. Genoe has voluntarily participated in the Florida proceeding and she may not now move from court to court seeking results she finds more desireable. Accordingly, the judge dismissed the complaint, citing E.E.B. v. D.A., 89 N.J. 595 (1982) and Bowden v. Bowden, 182 N.J. Super. 307 (App.Div. 1982). A confirming order was entered on February 6, 1984.