In Powell v. Stover (Tex. 2005) 165 S.W.3d 322, the Texas Supreme Court considered what it means to "live" in a state for purposes of conferring home state jurisdiction. The Texas court looked to the plain meaning of the statutory language and found 0 "the word 'lived' strongly connotes physical presence. ." (Stover, supra, 165 S.W.3d at p. 326.) The court found it "significant that the Legislature chose the word 'lived' as opposed to 'resided' or 'was domiciled.' The test for 'residence' or 'domicile' typically involves an inquiry into a person's intent. . In our view, the Legislature used the word 'lived' 'precisely to avoid complicating the determination of a child's home state with inquiries into the states of mind of the child or the child's adult caretakers.' ." (Ibid.) The Texas Supreme Court also considered the purpose of the UCCJEA. (Stover, supra, 165 S.W.3d at p. 326.) In so doing, the court reviewed the comments written by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, appended to the original version of the UCCJEA, and found the Legislature drafted the statutory scheme in order to make "the determination of jurisdiction more straightforward." (Stover, at p. 326.) As noted by the Texas Supreme Court, those comments include the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws's directive that the UCCJEA "should be interpreted to 'avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other States,' to 'promote cooperation with the courts of other States,' to 'discourage the use of the interstate system for continuing controversies over child custody,' and to 'deter abductions of children.' UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION & ENFORCEMENT ACT 101 cmt., 9 U.L.A. 657 (1999)." (Stover, at p. 326.) The Texas Supreme Court reasoned that this stated purpose for enacting the UCCJEA is achieved "by prioritizing home-state jurisdiction, which helps to avoid the jurisdictional competition and conflict that result when courts in different states determine jurisdiction based on subjective factors. . The UCCJEA was thus intended to give prominence to objective factors. We believe that the UCCJEA should be construed in such a way as to strengthen rather than undermine the certainty that prioritizing home-state jurisdiction was intended to promote, and thus decline to apply a test to determine where a child 'lived' based on the parties' subjective intent. ." (Stover, supra, 165 S.W.3d at p. 326, italics added.)