Did the trial court abuse its discretion in deferring the child custody modification issue to an Arizona court?
[11] “In an action for divorce, the court may, before or after judgment, give such direction for the custody, care, and education of the children of the marriage as may seem necessary or proper, and may at any time vacate or modify the same.” SDCL 25-4-45. In determining initial, modification and enforcement jurisdiction in interstate child custody disputes, courts must adhere to the jurisdictional requirements of the UCCJA, SDCL ch 26-5A, and the prohibitions of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 USC 1738A. Fuerstenberg, 1999 SD 35 at 17, 591 NW2d at 804; See Lustig v. Lustig, 1997 SD 24 at 6, 560 NW2d 239 at 242. [12] This case does not involve deciding initial jurisdiction. Rather, it focuses on a court’s jurisdiction to modify the child custody provisions of an existing divorce decree. Under the UCCJA, the state that granted the initial custody decree maintains exclusive continuing jurisdiction over later custody questions until all the litigants have moved from the
