Appellant, Thomas Davenport, appeals the dismissal of his petition for modification of child custody. We affirm.

*698The trial court correctly ruled that “the State of Texas is the more appropriate forum to decide the issues of custody and visitation rights of the children.” See Yurgel v. Yurgel, 572 So.2d 1327 (Fla. 1990); see also § 61.1316, Fla.Stat. (1987). The children have many more contacts with the State of Texas than they do with Florida. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

LEVY and GERSTEN, JJ., concur.

(concurring)

It is factually significant that the mother and children moved to Texas, without objection from the father, soon after the parties’ 1983 dissolution of marriage. A Texas action filed by the mother, also related to custody and visitation issues, was stayed by the Texas court pending the Florida court’s resolution of the jurisdictional issue. On these facts we conclude that the trial court’s decision to defer to the Texas court did not violate the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA). See § 61.1316, Fla.Stat. (1989); Genoe v.. Genoe, 515 So.2d 237 (Fla. 4th DCA) (approving trial court order declining to exercise jurisdiction where New Jersey was home state of children and New Jersey had closer connections with children and mother, even though family originally resided in Florida and father remained there), rev. denied, 513 So.2d 1061 (Fla. 1987).