Can an original decree state, using the UCCJEA, deny the jurisdiction of a sister state during an adoption proceeding

QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW In Nelson v. Sharp the Kentucky Supreme Court denied a rehearing after upholding the Kentucky Court of Appeals ruling on jurisdiction, denial of writ of passed on the merits to allow correction to the record whereby de facto status and custody were previously awarded to petitioner with his spouse, passed on the merits to admit the lower court original transcript in support of petitioner’s status, and failed to address the use of a forward related order by the Kentucky Court of Appeals. Petitioner now files for this writ of certiorari to address the use of the UCCJEA to deny the jurisdiction of a sister state during the pendency of an adoption, an issue which is split among the circuits, and which is in contravention of Federal Law, the UCCJEA act itself, and the UCCJEA codified state statutes, and to address actions of the judiciary using non-existent orders which invalidate rulings and which appear incon; sistent with the requirements under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges. Thus, the questions presented in this petition, which would resolve the national jurisdictional split on the issue of the application of the UCCJEA during . adoptions and correct the abuse of discretion and intrusion of the judiciary to constitutionally protected rights, as well as address the appearance of judicial misconduct are: 1. Can an original decree state, having lost personal and subject matter jurisdiction for : ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW — Continued purpose of an adoption pursuant to its own state statute, KRS 199.470(1), and in contravention of the PKPA, Title 28 US.C.A. § 1738A, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, the 14th Amendment, the UCCJEA act itself, respective state statutes, and the adoption code of the respective states, use the UCCJEA to deny and usurp the jurisdiction of a sister court who has correctly and statutorily exerted personal and subject matter jurisdiction over an adoption consistent with the mandates under the US Constitution, Article IV, Section 1, under the PKPA, Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (f)(g)(h), the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2, the 14th amendment, the state’s codified : UCCJEA, and the state’s adoption code, and subsequently relitigate a matter previously adjudicated during the adoption, allowing a party to file for a change in custody, sans grounds, during the pendency of an adoption and engage in an abuse of discretion with questionable conduct suggestive of ex-parte communications and preferential treatment denying petitioner’s status, previously con; ferred by the court, and denying petitioner’s fundamental rights and due process to participate in a change of custody proceeding? 2. Should this Court reverse and vacate all orders issued from the original decree state beginning with the Sua Sponte order of June 8, iii QUESTIONS PRESENTED FOR REVIEW — Continued 2016 and all subsequent orders and intervening decisions based on lack of jurisdiction, the violation of federal and state statutes and interference with the fundamental rights and due process to the parents both natural and de facto, and misconduct by the judiciary, simultaneously setting aside the order of dismissal of the adoption in the sister state to preserve the proper administration of justice?