Specific language of statute precludes UCCJEA application to failed adoption proceedings, however, exclusion of jurisdiction of adoption proceedings relied upon expectation that states would adopt the Uniform Adoption Act and enter a final custody order after a failed adoption based on the best interests of the child. People ex rel. A.J.C., 88 P.3d 599 (Colo.), cert. denied sub nom. C.M.C. v. G.A.L., 543 U.S. 987, 125 S. Ct. 495, 160 L. Ed.2d 371 (2004).

In case involving failed adoption and resulting litigation with mother located in Missouri, a UCCJA state, and child and potential adoptive parents residing in Colorado, a UCCJEA state, it was proper for Colorado court to exercise jurisdiction over question of custody of the child after Missouri court dismissed petition for adoption and ordered child to be returned to the mother's custody for the following reasons: (1) Under provisions of the UCCJA, a court of a second state can exercise jurisdiction after an initial custody decree has been entered if the court of the first state declined to exercise jurisdiction; (2) Missouri court's failure to determine custody of child according to child's best interest was akin to declining to exercise jurisdiction over custody issues, and Colorado was therefore not obligated to give full faith and credit to Missouri court's order concerning custody of the child; (3) in both Missouri and Colorado, there are provisions that authorize the court, subsequent to a failed adoption, to provide for the care and custody of the child according to the child's best interests, including a custody request from a nonparent; (4) the UCCJEA's exclusion of adoption was based on the expectation that states enacting the UCCJEA would adopt the Uniform Adoption Act, and the Uniform Adoption Act contemplates that when an adoption fails after a child has been with the prospective parents for a period of time, the court must take into account the best interests of the child in making determinations about continuing placement; and (5) Missouri does not retain jurisdiction over the case under the interstate compact on the placement of children (ICPC) since under the facts of the case, there was no proper request pursuant to the ICPC to return the child to Missouri. People ex rel. A.J.C., 88 P.3d 599 (Colo.), cert. denied sub nom. C.M.C. v. G.A.L., 543 U.S. 987, 125 S. Ct. 495, 160 L. Ed.2d 371 (2004).