on the pleadings, to suggest that the Florida decree did not merit recognition and enforcement in Maryland. While there are á variety of reasons why a court with the power to assert jurisdiction over a child custody case should or may decline to do so, there is nothing in the allegations set forth in the pleadings to support a determination by the trial court that the Florida court should have declined to exercise jurisdiction despite its “home state” status. Accordingly, the trial court erred in dismissing appellant’s counter-complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The nature of the Florida custody decree provides two other possible bases for the trial court’s dismissal of appellant’s complaint. If the trial court’s dismissal was premised on either the temporary or (1982) (<HOLDING>); In re B.R.F., 669 S.W.2d 240 (Mo.App.1984)
holding that temporary order amounted to order modifying custody of children because language changed custody for an indefinite period holding that a temporary order granting emergency relief and temporary child custody under the domestic violence act is not immediately appealable holding that the uccja applied to a california child custody order granting temporary custody of two children to their father holding that the failure to attach a custody order was not reversible error because there was no showing of prejudice where there was no indication that the respondent was unaware of the placement or custody of the children at any time the motion to terminate stated that dss was given legal custody of the minor children and the record included a copy of an order in effect when the motion was filed that awarded dss custody of the children holding order awarding father temporary partial custody prior to custody hearing was not final and appealable under rule 341