on December 4, 2006. OCSE timely appealed the trial court’s order to the Arkansas Court of Appeals. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court’s order after determining there were no specific findings made to allow the Arkansas court to modify the Kansas order, and further noting that while the Arkansas court was authorized to modify a support award, it was not mandated to do so. OCSE then petitioned this court for review, which we granted. When we grant a petition for review, we treat the appeal as if it were filed in this court originally. Cedar Chem. Co. v. Knight, 372 Ark. 233, 273 S.W.3d 473 (2008). Moreover, we review a trial court’s ruling declining to exercise jurisdiction under an abuse-of-discretion standard. See Uttley v. Bobo, 97 Ark. App. 15, 242 S.W.3d 638 (2006) (<HOLDING>). On appeal, OCSE argues that the trial court
holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion holding that a district courts decision on whether to hold a daubert hearing is reviewed only for abuse of discretion recognizing that the decision of whether to give a jury instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion holding that a trial courts decision on whether to exercise jurisdiction in a proceeding under the uniform child custody and jurisdiction enforcement act is reviewed for an abuse of discretion 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