[§583A-206] Simultaneous proceedings. (a) Except as otherwise provided in section 583A-204, a court of this State shall not exercise its jurisdiction under this part if, at the time of the commencement of the proceeding, a proceeding concerning the custody of the child has been commenced in a court of another state having jurisdiction substantially in conformity with this chapter, unless the proceeding has been terminated or is stayed by the court of the other state because a court of this State is a more convenient forum under section 583A-207.
(b) Except as otherwise provided in section 583A-204, a court of this State, before hearing a child-custody proceeding, shall examine the court documents and other information supplied by the parties pursuant to section 583A-209. If the court determines that a child-custody proceeding has been commenced in a court in another state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this chapter, the court of this State shall stay its proceeding and communicate with the court of the other state. If the court of the state having jurisdiction substantially in accordance with this chapter does not determine that the court of this State is a more appropriate forum, the court of this State shall dismiss the proceeding.
(c) In a proceeding to modify a child-custody determination, a court of this State shall determine whether a proceeding to enforce the determination has been commenced in another state. If a proceeding to enforce a child-custody determination has been commenced in another state, the court may:
(1) Stay the proceeding for modification pending the entry of an order of a court of the other state enforcing, staying, denying, or dismissing the proceeding for enforcement;
(2) Enjoin the parties from continuing with the proceeding for enforcement; or
(3) Proceed with the modification under conditions it considers appropriate. [L 2002, c 124, pt of §2]
Where the family court made the initial child-custody determination several years before a petition was filed in a Florida court, thereby granting Hawaii exclusive, continuing jurisdiction, this section was not relevant to the proceedings because: (1) this section is not applicable where there is a state with already-established, exclusive, continuing jurisdiction; and (2) even assuming that there was concurrent jurisdiction with Florida, this section contains a "first in time" rule, so Florida could not have exercised jurisdiction unless Hawaii first declined because it determined that Florida was a more convenient forum. 133 H. 436 (App.), 329 P.3d 341 (2014).