under section 5427 (relating to inconvenient forum); or (2) a court of this Commonwealth or a court of the other state determines that the child, the child’s parents and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in the other state. 23 Pa.C.S. § 5423. Here, there is no indication in the record that the Texas court was notified about the pendency of the present action, let alone that it had ruled that Texas no longer had exclusive, continuing jurisdiction or that Pennsylvania would be a more convenient forum. Further, the trial court determined that Father and Mother continue to reside in Texas. Because neither subsection (1) nor (2) of section 5423 applies, the trial court lacked jurisdiction to modify the Texas order. Cf. T.A.M. v. S.L.M., 104 A.3d 30, 34 (Pa. Super. 2014) (<HOLDING>). Guardian challenges the Texas custody order
holding that personal jurisdiction is not required to make an outofstate parent a party to custody action where the state court has subject matter jurisdiction under the uniform child custody jurisdiction act recognizing that third party may not recover contribution against parent where child has no cause of action against parent for negligent supervision holding pennsylvania had jurisdiction to modify tennessee custody order where the child had been living in pennsylvania for three years and no parent or person acting as a parent resided in tennessee any longer holding that without personal jurisdiction over one parent a court could still decide custody of a child living in the state but could not determine support and visitation holding that evidence that parent is victim of spousal abuse and that parent is unemployed living in crowded conditions and had multiple visits to mental hospital was no evidence that awarding custody to parent would significantly impair child