A petition for the appointment of a guardian for an alleged incapacitated person (AIP) was dismissed without prejudice under the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act, 20 Pa.C.S. 5901 et. seq., even though the AIP had recently voted in Pennsylvania and had filed for divorce in Pennsylvania, when the AIP had not been physically present in Pennsylvania for at least six consecutive months before the petition was filed, so that Pennsylvania was not her “home state,” and Pennsylvania was also not a “significant connection state” because substantial evidence relevant to the allegations of incapacity and the AIP’s well being was not in Pennsylvania, but in California, which was her home state. It was not a violation of the uniform act to request a California court to conduct a wellness assessment of the AIP, and the AIP did not need to appear or testify in the hearing on jurisdiction. Estate of L.S.C., an Alleged Incapacitated Person, 2 Fid.Rep.4th 47 (Philadelphia O.C. 2023), app. discontinued, 1553 EDA 2023 (Pa. Super.)