(concurring and dissenting):
I concur in the substantive analysis set forth in the main opinion and agree with the conclusion that the Utah court did not abuse its “discretion in deciding that California had access to the greatest amount of relevant information, and so, in the. best interests of the child, was the most appropriate and convenient forum to litigate the custody of W.D.” I disagree only with the conclusion that dismissal of the Utah action was the appropriate means for implementing that decision.
I believe the Utah court erred in dismissing the petition filed with it rather than simply staying the proceeding as authorized in Utah Code Ann. § 78-45c-7(5) (1987).1 Events were simply too unsettled to warrant outright dismissal. The Utah proceeding should have been kept alive pending further clarification of the situation: Would Drake remain in Utah and establish a legitimate residence here, or would she return to California? Would Mick stay on in California or join Drake in Utah? If Mick came to Utah, would California in fact retain jurisdiction over W.D. since W.D. was born in Utah and was still in Utah when the California petition was filed? 2
Indeed, as it happened, Mick joined Drake in Utah, the two are enrolled in parenting classes, W.D. has been placed in a shelter home here, and Utah social workers are assisting with the transition to unification of the family — but all under the supervision of a California court. Had the action here been kept alive, the Utah court would have been in a position to monitor the situation and could have reactivated the Utah proceeding after it became apparent that Utah actually would have the greatest interest in W.D. and his family.
Conceding that, all things considered, California may have initially seemed the sensible forum to exercise jurisdiction, nonetheless, the Utah court should have merely stayed the proceeding before it rather than dismissing it outright. I would vacate the order of dismissal, remand with instructions to enter an order merely staying the Utah proceeding, and thereby per*1016mit Utah, on appropriate motion, to reassert jurisdiction over this Utah family.
. Section 78-45c-7(5) provides, with my emphasis:
If the court finds that it is an inconvenient forum and that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum, it may dismiss the proceedings, or it may stay the proceedings upon condition that a custody proceeding be promptly commenced in another named state or upon any other conditions which may be just and proper, including the condition that a moving party stipulate his consent and submission to the jurisdiction of the other forum.
. The California petition falsely recited, under penalty of peijury, that W.D. was in emergency custody in California when the petition was filed there on September 4, 1987. However, Mick attended the hearing on the petition held that same day, with counsel. The actual facts fortunately emerged at the hearing and the California court made its decision, fully informed of the fact that W.D. was actually in Utah at the time.