US Department of JusticeOffice of Justice ProgramsOffice of Juvenile J - PDF document

1 U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Just
U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice ProgramsOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention December 2001 A Message From OJJDPAmerica is a society with a substan-tial divorce rate.Each year, morethan1,000,000 children in the UnitedStates are affected by the divorce oftheir parents, and of all children whoare born to married parents this year,half are likely to experience a divorcein their families before they reachtheir 18th birthdays.America is also a highly mobile socie-ty.On the dissolution of family ties, ithaps even both parents, may moveout of the State in which the familyresided at the time of their separa-tion.Thus, it is not surprising thatcourts in different States are becom-ing involved in child-custody and visi-tation disputes concerning the sameThe Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdic-tion and Enforcement Act, which isdescribed in this Bulletin, has beenproposed by the National Conferenceof Commissioners on Uniform StateLaws.The proposed uniform Statelaw is designed to deter interstateuniform jurisdiction and enforcementprovisions in interstate child-custodyand visitation cases.The Act hasbeen enacted by 25 States and theDistrict of Columbia and introducedinto legislatures in several otherStates.It is our hope that the informationprovided in this Bulletin will assistthose considering the adoption ofthismodel law in their States.The Act requires State courts to enforcenations made by sister State courts. It alsoestablishes innovative interstate enforce-ment procedures.The UCCJEA is intended as an improve-provisions that have received conflictinginterpretations in courts across the coun-try, codifies practices that have effective-lyreduced interstate conflict, conformsjurisdictional standards to those of theFederal Parental Kidnapping PreventionAct (the PKPA)to ensure interstate en-forceability of orders, and adds protec-The UCCJEA, however, is not a substan-tivecustody statute. It does not dictatestandards for making or modifying child-it determines which StatesÕ courts haveand should exercise jurisdiction to do so.A court must have jurisdiction (i.e., thematter) before it can proceed to considerapply to child support cases.Legal Backgrounddivorce, courts in different States (andThe Uniform Child-CustodyJurisdiction andEnforcement ActPatricia M. HoffCustody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Actthe most recent in a seriesrental kidnapping and promote uniformjurisdiction and enforcement provisionsininterstate child-custody and visitationcases. The Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is pub-lishing this Bulletin to provide current in-parents and practitioners in States thathave already adopted the law. The Bulle-tinis not an official OJJDP endorsementofthe Act.was approved in 1997 by the NationalConference of Commissioners on UniformState Laws (NCCUSL) to replace its 1968NCCUSL drafts and propos-es laws in areas where it believes uniform-ity is important, but the laws becomeeffective only upon adoption by State leg-islatures. As of July 2001, 26 jurisdictionsintroduced in 2000Ð01 in the legislaturesThe UCCJEA governs State courtsÕ juris-determinations,Ó a term that expresslyincludes custody and visitation orders. 2 decide custody, parents had a legal incen-tive to abduct children. For example, aparent could take a child to a State towhich the child had no previous ties anda court in that State could exercise juris-determination. Abducting parents benefit-dren and the judicial system. ChildrenÕslives were disrupted, and judicial re-sources were squandered as courts innumerous States often heard custodycases regarding the same children.Given the interstate nature of the prob-NCCUSL responded in 1968 with theandexercise of jurisdiction in initial child-ing modification of existing orders. Thelaw also required States to enforce andnot modify sister StatesÕ orders. The newrequirements were intended to removeparentsÕ legal incentive to abduct childrenin search of a friendly forum that wouldmake an initial custody order or modifyan existing order.The UCCJA based jurisdiction on a childÕsclose affiliation with a State. Specifically, itestablished four jurisdictional grounds:Home State (reserved for the State inmonths preceding commencement ofchild as a result of the childÕs signifi-Emergency (governs situations such asabandonment or abuse that requireimmediate protective action).Vacuum (applies when no oth

2 er juris-Except in emergency cases, the
er juris-Except in emergency cases, the UCCJAeliminated a childÕs physical presence in aState as grounds for exercising jurisdic-tion. As a result, a court could no longerbase jurisdiction solely on a childÕs pres-ence in the State, nor would a childÕsabsence from the State necessarily de-prive the court of jurisdiction. Under theUCCJAÕs extended home State rule, a left-behind parent could petition for custodyin the childÕs home State even after anabduction. The UCCJA also requiredStates to enforce and not modify validcustody and visitation orders made bycerning the same child. When families areintact, children generally live in one ormore States with both parents. After afamily breakup, one parent may move withjob opportunity or a new relationship orto return to extended family. The otherparent may remain in the original State ormay occur over time, possibly to differentStates, back to the familyÕs original State,or out of the country.ing children raise challenging legal ques-tions as to which State (or country) hasand should exercise jurisdiction to makemodify an existing custody order. Ques-try) is enforceable in another State and, ifso, what procedures are available to se-cure enforcement.States and Congress have responded toUCCJA and the PKPA) that regulate courtsÕdictate the interstate effect such determi-nations are to be given in sister States.Other laws that affect child custody andlawsÑthe UCCJA, the PKPA, the ViolenceAgainst Women Act (the VAWA),that prompted NCCUSL in 1997 to draft animproved child-custody jurisdiction andenforcement statute. To understand thenew law, it is helpful to examine the legalbackdrop against which the UCCJEA wasThe Uniform Child CustodyJurisdiction ActOverview.Before 1968, State courtsthroughout the United States could exer-based on a childÕs presence in the State.Courts also freely modified sister StatesÕorders because U.S. Supreme Court rul-whether the Full Faith and Credit clause ofdecrees.This legal climate fostered childparents with physical possession of aUnresolved problems.UCCJA was a major improvement overpre-1968 law governing jurisdiction inchild-custody cases, some problemsremained. The law did not eliminate thepossibility of two or more States havingconcurrent jurisdiction (e.g., based onjurisdiction), and the statuteÕs prohibitionagainst simultaneous proceedings was notroutinely effective in preventing courtsindifferent States from exercising juris-orders. In addition, contrary to the restric-tive interpretation of emergency jurisdic-used this basis of jurisdiction to providepermanent relief, rather than to temporar-ily address an urgent problem until thecourt with regular jurisdiction could act.child moved from his or her original homecourts in both States frequently assertedjurisdiction to modify an existing order.tody orders and uncertainty for childrenand parents.Although the UCCJA obligated courts toenforce and not modify custody orders ofsister States, it did not provide enforce-ment procedures to carry out this require-ment. Litigants were left to discover localenforcement procedures on their own,and such procedures varied considerablyacross the country (e.g., contempt pro-ceedings, motions to enforce, motions togrant full faith and credit, and proceedings). The variety of Stateenforcement procedures delayed enforce-relief, as in the case of weekend visitationinterference), added costs (due to multi-comes unpredictable, and sometimes al-lowed local courts to modify out-of-Stateorders, contrary to the UCCJAÕs intent.tody orders made in other countries. Thevariety undermined the uniform interpre-tation and application of the law acrossthe country and created loopholes thatorders. (These and other problems withthe UCCJA were documented by the Ob-stacles to the Recovery and Return ofParentally Abducted Children Project, 3 PKPA gives priority to home State jurisdic-State, the childÕs home State. The PKPAÕshome State priority is designed to preventa significant connection State from exer-child who is the subject of the proceedingPKPA protects an original decree StateÕsjurisdiction to modify its own order. Thisprotection addresses an ambiguity in theUCCJAÕs modification section that somecourts have interpreted as allowing achildÕs new home State to exercise modifi-cation jurisdiction even when the decreeState (i.e., the childÕs former home State)could still exercise jurisdic

3 tion on signifi-cant connection grounds.
tion on signifi-cant connection grounds. Under thePKPA, the original home State has exclu-own order to the exclusion of all otherStates, including the childÕs new homeleast one parent or the child continues tolive there. Moreover, every State, includ-grant full faith and credit to the homeStateÕs order.Unresolved problems.The PKPA did notsolve all of the problems it targeted, part-relationship to the UCCJA and the incon-sistencies between the two laws and part-nored the PKPA or were unaware of itsimpact on UCCJA practice. These prob-lems and inconsistencies are documentedObstacles Project Final Report.Other Relevant Federal Lawswas unforeseen by the drafters of theUCCJA in 1968 (but which was consideredaddition to the PKPA, these Federal lawsinclude the Full Faith and Credit provi-sions of the VAWA, enacted in 1994; theThe VAWA.In recognition of the fact thatState where they were abused and needcontinuing protection in their new loca-tions, the VAWA provides, among otherthings, for interstate enforcement of pro-tection orders. Custody provisions incor-porated into protection orders, however,are not governed by the VAWA.provisions are Òcustody determinations,Ósubject to the PKPA and State law govern-Neither the PKPA nor the UCCJA explicitlyaddresses the key concerns of domesticcustody interstate. The UCCJEA, however,addresses these concerns with a numberof provisions. For instance, it protectsagainst disclosure of a victimÕs address,expands emergency jurisdiction to casesin which a parent or sibling is at risk, andrequires courts to consider family abusedeal with international wrongful removaland retention of children. The Hague Con-judicial mechanisms to expedite the re-turn of children (usually to their countryof habitual residence) who have beenabducted or wrongfully retained and tofacilitate the exercise of visitation acrossinternational borders. Under the HagueConvention, children who are wrongfullyremoved from or retained in a contractingState (i.e., a country that is party to theConvention) are subject to prompt return.The UCCJEA specifically provides for theenforcement of Hague Convention returnorders and authorizes public officials tolocate and secure the return of childreninHague Convention cases. The UCCJEAcontains other provisions that clarifywhen foreign custody determinations(from Hague and non-Hague countries) areentitled to enforcement and when courtstody jurisdiction of a foreign court.Rationale Underlyingdraw out litigation, secure conflicting cus-tody orders, and delay (or deny) enforce-ders. In these instances, resources thatcould have been used to help childrenwere instead spent on multistate litigation.Bar Association Center on Children andthe Law pursuant to a cooperative agree-ment with OJJDP.) Although every Stateof States that were slow to do so becamemagnets for forum-shopping parents.The Parental KidnappingPrevention ActTo close existing gaps and bring greaterpractice, Congress in 1980 enacted thePKPA, which requires State courts to:Enforce and not modify (i.e., grant fullfaith and credit to) custody and vis-States consistently with the PKPA,has,or has declined to exercise,creeState as long as that State exer-PKPA when it made its determination,has jurisdiction under its own law, andremains the residence of the child orfined as a person, including a parent,tion rights with respect to a child.)Refrain from exercising jurisdictionwhile another State is exercising juris-the PKPA.Ensure that the following persons areprovided reasonable notice and oppor-tunity to be heard: contestants, anyparent whose parental rights have notState courts that exercise jurisdiction con-sistently with the criteria in the PKPA aretheir custody and visitation orders givenfull faith and credit in sister States. Thesecourts also have exclusive, continuingjurisdiction to modify their own ordersunder circumstances stipulated in the law.The PKPAÕs jurisdictional criteria resemblethose of the UCCJA, but there are signifi-cant differences. PKPA jurisdictional provi-sions are discussed in the sections thatfollow.Home State priority.The PKPA prioritizesWhereas two States may have 4 and conflict with courts of otherwhich have in the past resulted inthe shifting of children from state tostate with harmful effects on theirfects on their()continuing controversies over childcustody in the interest of greaterstability of home environment andof secure f

4 amily relationships forParents bent on Ã
amily relationships forParents bent on ÒwinningÓ an interstateparent ÒlosesÓ) sometimes employ tacticsthat may hurt children in the process.Ironically, some parents lose sight of theirchildren when fighting for the right tokeep them. In a particularly egregioustion in Indiana that should have resultedin a childÕs immediate return to her moth-er (pursuant to an Indiana order enforcinga Hawaiian order), a juvenile court inter-vened at the last minute and ordered theThe fatherÕs attorney had orchestrated aCHINS (Child In Need of Services) pro-ceeding in juvenile court to prevent thechildÕs return to her mother. The caseremains a strong reminder of the need forspecifies the proceedings to which it ap-plies, restricts the use of emergency juris-diction, and establishes enforcement pro-cedures that are expeditious, sure, andpredictable. The UCCJEA accomplishesProtracted custody litigation and conflict-ing orders not only undermine a childÕsboth of the childÕs parents, who may facecharges in one State when complying withthe order of another. Californiav. Court of California, San Bernardino Countyexemplifies this predica-ment. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Courtrefused to block a California fatherÕsextra-dition to Louisiana, where he was chargedwith simple kidnapping.The criminalcharges stemmed from the fatherÕs Òself-helpÓ recovery of his children from Lou-isiana, where they had moved with theirmother. The father argued that he couldnot be charged with simple kidnappingcustodian of the children pursuant to aCalifornia custody order that was entitledunder the PKPA to full faith and credit inLouisiana. The Supreme Court, however,tradition Act, 18 U.S.C. ¤3182, the placefor the father to assert his defenses to thecriminal charge (however meritorious)The UCCJEAÕs enforcement mechanismsauthorize public officials to assist in expe-dited enforcement proceedings and allowfor an abbreviated, court-assisted registra-tion process. In doing so, these mecha-nisms should considerably reduce self-help recoveries, which can be emotionallyand physically injurious to children andlegally problematic for parents.This section provides a brief overviewofthe UCCJEAÕs jurisdiction and enforce-ment provisions. The cases to which theUCCJEA applies and the lawÕs jurisdic-tionand enforcement provisions are de-Jurisdiction:Articles 1 and 2The UCCJEA is a complete replacementfor the UCCJA. Articles 1 and 2 of thety with the PKPA. Modeling the UCCJEAÕsjurisdictional standards on the PKPAÕsstandards is intended to produce custodydeterminations that are entitled underFederal law to full faith and credit in sisterStates. The UCCJEA also addresses thepractice and interpretation problems de-the law into harmony with the VAWA andUnder articles 1 and 2, the UCCJEA,Applies to a range of proceedings inPreserves exclusive, continuing juris-diction in the decree State if that Stateexercising jurisdiction. Such jurisdic-her parents, and any person acting asthe childÕs parent move away from thedecree State.Authorizes courts to exercise emer-family abuse and limits the relief avail-able in emergency cases to temporarycustody orders.ient forum analysis, requiring courts toDirects courts to decline jurisdictioncreated by unjustifiable conduct.Enforcement:Article 3The UCCJEA also establishes uniform pro-cedures for interstate enforcement of child-In particular, article 3 of the UCCJEA:Authorizes temporary enforcement ofCreates an interstate registrationprocess for out-of-State custodyEstablishes a procedure for speedyinterstate enforcement of custody andAuthorizes issuance of warrants direct-ing law enforcement to pick up childrenat risk of being removed from theAuthorizes public officials to assist inthe civil enforcement of custody deter-Covered ProceedingsThe UCCJEA applies to a variety of pro-Specifically, courts in UCCJEAproceedings for divorce, separation, ne-glect, abuse, dependency, guardianship,paternity, termination of parental rights,and protection from domestic violence.port proceedingsIdentifying the specific proceedings to 5 when courts must conform to the UCCJEA,more than one State will take jurisdictionover the same matter.The UCCJEA governs courtsÕ jurisdictionto issue permanent, temporary,and modification orders. The rules thatgovern courtsÕ jurisdiction to make an ini-tial custody determination differ fromexisting order. The type of custody pro-whether a co

5 urt has the authority to act.Foreign Cus
urt has the authority to act.Foreign Custody Orders andProceedingsThe UCCJEA requires State courts to rec-ognize and enforce custody determina-tions made by foreign courts under factualcircumstances that substantially conformwith the UCCJEAÕs jurisdictional standardsand to defer to foreign courts as if theywere State courts.However, State courtsneed not apply the Act (i.e., enforce a for-eign court order or defer to a foreigncourtÕs jurisdiction) if the child-custodylaw of the foreign country violates funda-language is derived from article 20 oftheHague Convention. According to theU.S. Department of StateÕs legal analysisofthe Convention, the Òhuman rights/fundamental freedomsÓ defense to returnmay be invoked Òon the rare occasion thatreturn of a child would utterly shock theconscience of the court or offend allnotions of due process.ÓTribal Court Orders andProceedingsproceedings concerning American Indianchildren to the extent that such proceed-ings are governed by the Indian ChildWelfare Act, 25 U.S.C. ¤ 1901 custody proceedings in State courts thatare subject to the UCCJEA only if the State(c) of the UCCJEA, which require Statecourts to treat tribes as if they were Statesand tribal court custody proceedings asifthey were court proceedings of sisterStates and to enforce tribal court custodyorders.JurisdictionalProvisions of theThere are two requirements under thetody determination: (1) the court must(2)the parties must be given notice andopportunity to be heard. Personal jurisdic-tion over a party or childÑbased on phys-ical presence in or minimum contacts withthe StateÑis not required. Moreover, acourt that has personal jurisdiction over aparty or child cannot adjudicate custodyunless it has a basis for exercising juris-The UCCJEAÕs jurisdictional provisionsvary, based on whether a case involves anor modification of an existing order. Thissection describes the UCCJEAÕs jurisdic-tional provisions and provides examplesthat illustrate the intended effect of manyof these provisions. It also describes twogrounds on which courts may decline toexercise jurisdiction under the UCCJEAInitial Jurisdictionconnection, more appropriate forum, andcourts to issue temporary relief on emer-gency grounds. These jurisdictional basesare discussed in the sections that follow.initial child-custody proceedings. In doingso, the Act conforms to the PKPA andrejects the UCCJAÕs coequal treatment ofclines jurisdiction may another court exer-reduce the number of situations in whichmore than one State has jurisdiction overa child-custody matter. In turn, the inci-dence of conflicting custody orders beingissued by courts in different States shouldalso decrease.Under the UCCJEA, a court has home Statejurisdiction if it is located in the childÕshome State (as of the date proceedings arethat was the childÕs home State within 6months of the proceedingsÕ commence-ment and the childÕs parent (or a personacting as his or her parent) continues tobeen removed. This extended home Staterule allows a left-behind parent to com-mence a custody proceeding within 6months of a childÕs removal from thehomeState.A 2-year-old child, born andmother before either parent has filed forcustody. The boy and his mother move towithin 6 months of the childÕs removal.The childÕs absence from Minnesota doesmother commences a custody proceedingin Idaho while Minnesota is the childÕscan seek dismissal of the Idaho proceed-ing the notice requirements of section 108are met, any order the father obtains inMinnesota is entitled to enforcement inother State court may exercise jurisdic-tion if the child has sufficient ties to theneed not be physically present in a Statefor the State to exercise significant connec-tion jurisdiction. More than one State mayone State may exercise jurisdiction.statute resolves the conflict in favor of thefirst-filed proceeding. However, the courtsare required to communicate, and thecourt in the State of thefirst-filed proceed-ing may defer to the court in the secondthe childÕs paternal grandparents in Colo-rado. The father is reminded of the beautyof the mountains and decides not to re-turn to Iowa, where his marriage hadbeenfaltering and his job prospects haveIowa for 4 years. Within 2 months of hiscustody there on significant connectiongrounds. The Colorado court lacks juris-diction and may not proceed to the merits 6 of the case unless Iowa, the childÕs ho

6 meorado. However, if the mother does not
meorado. However, if the mother does notcommence a custody proceeding in Iowawithin 6 months of the childÕs removal,Colorado becomes the childÕs home Stateand the Colorado court may then exercisejurisdiction and decide custody.A mother and father are high-tech professionals who have moved fre-quently during the previous several yearsmother and their infant and returns toNorth Carolina, where the family had livedfor 5 months preceding their move to Cal-ifornia. The infant has been in daycareand has pediatricians and relatives inboth States. The fatherÕs cross-countrymove prompts the couple to assess theto divorce. However, they cannot agree oncustody, and the mother and father simul-proceedings in California and North Car-olina. The parents have not lived in anyand North Carolina arguably have signifi-cise it. If a court learns from the requiredthat a proceeding has beencommenced in a sister State, the court isrequired by the UCCJEA to stay its pro-courtto decide which proceeding shouldcontinue. If they cannot agree, the courtwith the first-filed case may move forwardand the other court should dismiss itsproceeding.More appropriate forum jurisdiction.Under the UCCJEA, a third basis for initialdecline jurisdiction in favor of another,more appropriate State on grounds ofThe parents of a 10-year-old girlare separated but have not filed for cus-tody. Pursuant to her parentsÕ informalagreement, the girl remains with the fa-ther in the District of Columbia, where shefather is frequently out of town on busi-month in West Virginia with her mother.involving frequent overtime, many of thegirlÕs weekend visits are spent at thehomes of friends in her motherÕs neigh-borhood. Both sets of the childÕs grand-parents live in Maryland. The father plansto move to Maryland at the end of thegrandparents after school, and he has acontract to purchase a house in Marylandwhen the school year ends. However,before the move, the father becomesincreasingly concerned about the moth-erÕs absence during the childÕs visits. Hefiles for custody in Maryland. Based onthese facts, it is conceivable that courts inthe District of Columbia (the childÕs homeState) and West Virginia (a significant con-favor of Maryland, the childÕs soon-to-betion is discretionary and fact dependent.Vacuum jurisdiction.UCCJA, the UCCJEA provides that if nocourt has home State, significant connec-tion, or more appropriate forum jurisdic-tion, an alternate court may fill the vacu-um and exercise jurisdiction over aninitial custody proceeding.This provi-children fail to remain in any State longless children, children of migrant workersor military personnel, or children sentfrom relative to relative for temporarycare).Temporary emergency jurisdiction.Under the UCCJEA, courts have tempo-rary emergency jurisdiction when a childemergency protection is necessary be-cause a childÑor a sibling or parent ofthreatened with mistreatment or abuse.The UCCJEA narrows the UCCJAÕs defini-tion of ÒemergencyÓ by excluding neglectwith the PKPAÑwhile expanding the defi-nition to cover emergencies that put achildÕs parent or sibling at risk, such asthose covered by the VAWA.Under the UCCJEA, courts may exerciseemergency jurisdiction and make tempo-rary orders even if a proceeding has beenjudicial communication is mandatory toresolve the emergency, protect the safetyof the parties and the child, and deter-mine how long a temporary order shouldremain in effect.Notice and opportunity to be heard mustfor a temporary emergencyorder to be enforceable in other Statespursuant to the UCCJEA and PKPA. At aminimum, both laws require that notice beprovided to any parent whose parentalchild. Temporary custody or visitationprovisions in a protection order that wasex parte(i.e., without notice) areunenforceable insister States under theUCCJEA and the PKPA. These provisions,however, may be enforceable within theother laws so provide.The duration of a temporary emergencycustody order depends on whether cus-where. If there is no prior custody orderthat is enforceable under the UCCJEA andno proceeding has been commenced in acourt with jurisdiction, the temporaryemergency custody order becomes a finaldetermination (if it so provides) whentheissuing State becomes the childÕsmust have been given in accordance withthe UCCJEA. If a previous order existsand/or a custody proceeding has beencommenced in a court with jurisdiction,the t

7 emporary emergency custody orderwhich th
emporary emergency custody orderwhich the person seeking emergency re-liefmay obtain a custody order from theother court. The temporary order remainsin effect until a custody order is obtainedfrom the other State (within the specifiedperiod) or the specified period expires.band, a battered wife takes the coupleÕschild from their Texas home to Utah andseeks refuge at a domestic violence shel-ter. In Utah, the mother files for custodyofthe child on emergency jurisdictiongrounds. She gives her husband the requi-site notice, but in the interest of safety,asks the court not to disclose her ad-dressto him.The childÕs father does notrespond to the suit. The court in Utahgrants the mother temporary custody,stipulating that the order will become per-manent after 6 months if no proceeding iscommenced in Texas, the childÕs homeState. The father, however, commences acustody proceeding in Texas soon afterreceiving notice of the Utah action. Themother receives notice of the proceedingvia her attorney, and she petitions theTexas court to decline jurisdiction in favorof Utah on inconvenient forum grounds. 7 The two courts communicate. The Texascourt grants the motherÕs motion on find-ing that domestic violence has occurredbest protect the mother and child.court, the temporary Utah order is madetody, and the father is granted limited,supervised visitation.Modification JurisdictionThe UCCJEA addresses courtsÕ jurisdic-mentary sections: section 202 establishesdecree-granting State, and section 203an existing decree.PKPA.decree court that exercised jurisdictiontinuing jurisdiction to modify its decreeThe original decree court loses signifi-The child, the childÕs parents, and anyperson acting as the childÕs parent noOnly the decree State may determinerisdiction. That is, a sister StateÕs courtissue for that of the decree StateÕs court.By contrast, either State court may deter-mine that all parties identified in theJurisdiction to modify determination.Ifan original decree State has exclusive,may modify the decree StateÕs custodyorderÑeven if the child moves and estab-nario, the noncustodial parent usuallyremains in the original decree State.) Acourt in the childÕs new home State (ordecree unless the original decree Statedeclines to exercise it on inconvenientforum grounds, and then only if the childÕsThese requirements are intend-UCCJA in which a childÕs original homeState and new home State both asserttoresult in conflicting custody orders andconfusion as to which order takes prec-Conflicting orders have alsocaused many law enforcement officers torefuse help in enforcing an order becauseofuncertainty as to its validity.Following proceedings in Kansas(the childÕs home State), the childÕs fatheris granted custody. The mother moves toOklahoma, where the child spends extend-ed visits over summers and holidays. Twoyears later, when the child reaches schoolage, the mother refuses to return the childenrolls the child in an elementary schoolOklahoma to modify the Kansas order,ther challenges the Oklahoma courtÕs ju-on grounds that Kansas has exclusive,return of the child pursuant to the Kansasorder. The father prevails based on theUCCJEA and the PKPA. Both statutesrequire enforcement of valid orders, andthe validity of the Kansas order was un-theKansas order because Kansas hadDeclining JurisdictionUnder the UCCJEA, a court with initialdecline to exercise jurisdiction on twogrounds: inconvenient forum and unjus-Inconvenient forum.the UCCJEA, a court may, after taking intotody. These factors include whether do-mestic violence has occurred and, if so,which State can best protect the partiesof State; where the evidence is located;and which court is most familiar with thetion the Kansas court to decline jurisdic-tion on grounds of inconvenient forum.However, the decision would be at thecourtÕs discretion, and the fact that themother wrongfully withheld the child incourtÕs decision.requires a court to decline jurisdiction ifsuch jurisdiction was created by the un-justifiable conduct of the party bringingthe action. Furthermore, the Act requiresthe court to assess the wrongdoer neces-sary and reasonable expensesthat party can prove that the assessmentwould be clearly inappropriate. Althoughwrongful removal, retention, or conceal-tion 208 explains that if a parent flees withinthe process violates a joint custody de-cree, that parentÕs case should not auto-quiry

8 must be made into whether theflight was
must be made into whether theflight was justified under the circum-guish the case of an abusive parent whoWithout warning, a fathersnatches his son from a school bus stopin Arizona. He takes the child to Oregonand keeps their location hidden from theboyÕs mother mistakenly believes that shechildÕs home State) because the child isno longer physically present there. (Hadshe consulted a knowledgeable lawyer,she would have known that the childÕsabsence from Arizona did not deprive the6months of the boyÕs departure.) Thefather waits 16 months before filing for aninitial custody order in Oregon and givesthe mother notice of the proceeding. Shepromptly files a motion to dismiss ongrounds that the fatherÕs conduct wasunjustifiable. The court agrees, and ittion, and orders the father to pay themotherÕs attorneyÕs fees and investigativetody action in an Arizona court, whichexercises jurisdiction on significant con-nection grounds, the home State having 8 then seek enforcement of the Oregon or-der in Arizona, using any of the enforce-ment procedures in the UCCJEA or otherprocedures available in that State. TheUCCJEA and the PKPA require Arizona toenforce the motherÕs order.Duty To Enforce UnderThe UCCJEA requires State courts to rec-ognize and enforce child-custody determi-with the jurisdictional provisions of theAct or made under factual circumstancesthat meet the jurisdictional standards ofThis basic duty to enforce is thesame as that in the UCCJA; however, acustody order is enforceable under theUCCJEA only if the issuing court exer-cisedjurisdiction in conformity with theforce sister StatesÕ custody and visitationorders, the UCCJEA creates five new inter-state enforcement mechanisms. Thesetion, supplement any other enforcementprocedures available under State law.determination.The UCCJEA creates aprocess for registering out-of-State cus-tody and visitation orders.Parents andother parties are not required to registeracustody or visitation determination butreasons:Registration puts the courts of a StatecourtÕsRegistration is a pretest of enforceabili-will be enforced in the future.enforcement at a later date, which sim-forcement efforts.Uncontested registration may obviatewould be a great benefit to parentswho cannot afford counsel.A registered order is enforceable as ifitwere a local order as of the date ofregistration.The process for registering out-of-Stateward. A party sends a request for registra-tion to a court in another State, along withand other required information. The courtfiles the order as a foreign judgment andserves notice on the parent (or personacting as a parent) who has been awardedcustody or visitation in the order. Personswho receive notice have 20 days to re-the order. If no such request is made, theorder is confirmed as a matter of law andmay be enforced as if it were a local order.If the registration is contested, only threedefenses are available:That the court making the custody de-That the person contesting registra-tionwas entitled to but did not receivenotice of the underlying custody pro-ceeding in accordance with theThe UCCJEAÕs registration process differsfrom the UCCJA provision requiring clerksof court to maintain a registry for filingout-of-State decrees. The UCCJAÕs registryprovision was omitted from the UCCJEA.Temporary visitation orders.UCCJEA, courts may issue temporaryorders to enforce visitation schedules inother StatesÕ court orders or visitationprovisions of out-of-State orders that dostance, courts may order compensatorytoanother StateÕs award of Òreasonableauthority to issue temporary orders towise occur, it does not confer modificationtosister StatesÕ orders. Consistent withthe UCCJEA and the PKPA, permanentchanges to the underlying custody ordermay be made only by the court with modi-declines to exercise jurisdiction.Expedited enforcement of custody de-terminations.UCCJEA create a new enforcement reme-dy, the object of which is the immediaterecovery of a child.ry in nature. If there is a risk of seriousphysical harm or abduction, this remedymay be used in concert with a warrant toThe UCCJEAÕs expedited enforcement sec-tions provide for an enforcement hearing,normally within 24 hours of service (i.e.,on the next judicial day after service). IfIn other words, this is a priority proceed-At the hearing, the respondent has limitedpends on whether the order has been reg-istered. If so, the only av

9 ailable defense isthat the order has sin
ailable defense isthat the order has since been vacated,stayed, or modified. If the custody orderhas not been registered, the respondentmay assert the three defenses that couldhave been raised in a registration pro-suing court; (2) the underlying custodyorder has been vacated, stayed, or modi-the respondent has established a defense,the court must issue an order authorizing312, the court must also order the re-spondent to pay the petitionerÕs neces-sary and reasonable expensesrespondent shows that such award wouldbe clearly inappropriate. (If the respond-ent had prevailed, the court would assesscause section 312 expressly provides foran award to the Òprevailing party.Ó) Thereturn order may also include a directivefor law enforcement assistance.Warrants to take physical custody of aThe UCCJEA also includes a proce-dure to ensure a childÕs safety and pres-enforcement proceeding might cause therecipient to harm or flee with the child.likely to suffer serious physical harm orbe removed from the State,Ó section 311specifically authorizes a court to issue awarrant directing law enforcement officersWarrants to take physical custody of achild (also known as ÒpickupÓ orders) aretion with an enforcement action. The peti- 9 child upon filing an enforcement action.The court must take testimony from thelocal law. If the court finds that the childis imminently likely to suffer seriousphysical harm or be removed from theState, the court may issue a warrant towarrant must direct law enforcement offi-cers to pick up the child immediately, andit must provide for the childÕs placementpending the enforcement hearing. Therespondent must be served with the peti-tion, warrant, and order immediately afterchild is picked up), and the enforcementpetition must be heard on the next judicialThis remedy may be especially helpful inpreventing international abductions. TheICARA contemplates that courts hearingures under State and Federal law to pro-tect the well-being of a child or to preventfurther removal or concealment before311 of the UCCJEA provides the authorityPublic enforcement provisions.315Ð317 of the UCCJEA provide a mecha-nism for enforcing custody and visitationordershas functioned remarkably well in Cal-ifornia for more than 20 years with widesupport from the criminal justice commu-nity. (See ÒThe Role of Prosecutors andLaw Enforcement in Civil Custody Enforce-ment: CaliforniaÕs Experience,Ó page 10.)State legislatures may designate any pub-lic officials they deem appropriate to im-most States will select prosecutors andlaw enforcement, legislatures may desig-nate other public officials, such as aÒFriend of the Court.Ó CaliforniaÕs experi-tors, and other law enforcement officersto play an active part in civil enforcementthat State legislatures have designatedprosecutors and law enforcement officersto exercise the new discretionary powers.Section 315(a) of the UCCJEA gives prose-cutors statutory authority to take any law-ful actionÑincluding instituting a proceed-ing under article 3 or any other availablecivil proceedingÑto locate a child, facili-tate a childÕs return, or enforce a child-by the prosecutor are done on behalf ofthe court. The prosecutor does not repre-sent any party.The prosecutor may act if one of the fol-A request from a court in a pendingchild-custody proceeding.A reasonable belief that a criminalA reasonable belief that a child hasbeen wrongfully removed or retainedinviolation of the Hague Convention.Under section 315, prosecutors may re-quest the assistance of law enforcementofficers, and section 316 expressly author-izes them to respond to such a request.Under section 317, prosecutors and lawenforcement agencies may recover theirdirect costs and expenses from a non-prevailing party.tions is discretionary, meaning that prose-authority to resolve custody and visitationinterference cases but are not required todo so. For example, a prosecutor may optfor civil remedies under the UCCJEA whenthis approach would best serve the childand family. Compared with criminal pro-ceedings, civil proceedings tend to be lesstraumatic for children. In all cases, prose-law, to prosecute the perpetrator-parent ifprosecution is in the interest of justice.Civil and criminal remedies may be pur-sued simultaneously in some circum-stances. In short, the UCCJEA adds civilremedies to the tools prosecutors alreadyprosecutors to choose how to proceed inpa

10 rental kidnapping cases.Sections 315Ð31
rental kidnapping cases.Sections 315Ð317 offer potential advan-tages to prosecutors, children, and par-ents. Specifically, the provisions may:zens to respect the terms of courtorders.Deter self-help recoveries (Òreabduc-children and may have civil or criminalconsequences for parents.Create an interstate network of recipro-cal assistance to resolve custodialinterference cases. This networkshould result in faster resolution ofdisputes, thereby sparing children thetrauma of protracted custody litigation,reducing litigation costs for parents,and limiting more costly prosecutionsby allowing prosecutors to pursue civilremedies.Give prosecutors the authority to assistwith civil enforcement, thereby provid-ing custodial parents of limited finan-secure return of their children.tion. Their involvement should improvethe United StatesÕ standing with treatypartnersÑmany of whom now providefree legal assistance to U.S. citizensseeking return of their children fromabroadÑand may foster the return ofmore children who have been abductedfrom this country.the option of using civil remedies indoor open to prosecute the abductingparent when circumstances warrant.This leeway should facilitate resolutionof these difficult cases in the best inter-ests of children and society.Conclusionthe UCCJEA would improve interstatechild-custody practice. To recap a few, theUCCJEA adopts the PKPAÕs priority forsive, continuing jurisdiction. These pro-visions will clarify where child-custody proceedings should be brought and sub-stantially reduce the number of competingcustody proceedings in sister States. Thevative enforcement mechanisms: the expe-dited enforcement procedure, the warrantthe public officials sections of the Act, allof which should result in swifter, morestreamlined, and more predictable inter-state enforcement of custody and visita-tion orders. The UCCJEAÕs new interstatejurisdictional rules and procedures reflectsensitivity to the safety needs of parentsand children who are the victims of do- Readers interested in promoting enact-contact the GovernorÕs office and membersof the Judiciary Committees in their Statelegislature to request action on the legisla-law may be obtained from NCCUSL. (Con-the ÒFor Further InformationÓ section.)will depend on lawyers using it wisely,courts interpreting it uniformly, and pub-lic officials using the lawÕs new tools ef-fectively to minimize the harmful effectschildren endure when they are pawns in District attorneys and law enforcementofficers in California have had the statu-tory authority to intervene in civil childcustody enforcement cases for morethan 20 years.The UCCJEAÕs ÒpublicofficialsÓprovisions are modeled onCalifornia law.Although CaliforniaÕs en-some enforcement practices,to examine the extensive pre-UCCJEAexperience of CaliforniaÕs prosecutorsand law enforcement officers in thesecases.A California prosecutor seeking to re-cover a child being wrongfully kept indetermination) may evaluate the caseto determine whether to initially proceedcriminally or civilly.The prosecutor willconsider several factors in determininghis or her approach.Factors affectingthe decision include the following:Facts surrounding the abduction.Evidence that the child is in danger.The childÕs age.Date the child was initially taken.The likelihood that the child will beremoved from the country.Allegations or evidence of domesticviolence or child abuse.The criminal history of both parties.The probability of recovering thechild without pressing criminalcharges against the abductor.The assistance available from theother State without pressing criminalcharges.The Role of Prosecutors and Law Enforcement in Civil Custody Enforcement:CaliforniaÕs ExperienceThe likelihood of flight.The health and welfare of the child.Although the prosecutor may initiallytainsthe discretion to proceed criminallyagainst the abductor if the facts and cir-cumstances warrant (e.g., where facts areuncovered that indicate that the child maybe endangered or abused).Under civil enforcement, once the abduct-district attorney may contact the abduct-ing parent by telephone, explain the law,and request a voluntary return.If theabducting parent refuses to cooperate orif such contact may trigger flight and con-cealment of the child, the district attorneywill secure an order from the Californiacourt directing the district attorney to re-cover the child.This order gives th

11 e dis-trict attorney temporary custody o
e dis-trict attorney temporary custody of thechild for the purpose of the childÕs recov-ery and designates temporary placementof the child.(The court may order thefoster care, or otherwise, depending onthe facts and circumstances of the case.)The district attorney (or criminal investiga-tor working with the district attorney) thencontacts the law enforcement agency andthe court in the jurisdiction where thechild is located to arrange for pickup ofenforcement proceeding, if applicable).The district attorney ascertains the pro-cedures and requirements of the law en-forcement agency and the court regardingenforcement practices and any other per-tinent issues, such as arrangements forovernight shelter and care.If the law enforcement agency is coopera-tive, pickup of the child generally goessmoothly.If a court hearing is required,the presence and/or testimony of the dis-trict attorneyÕs investigator may be suffi-cient for the court to order the return ofthe child with the investigator.If the locallaw enforcement agency is not coopera-tive or if an enforcement action is re-quired, the district attorney may retain alawyer (atState expense) to bring theaction under local law.In predecree abduction cases (i.e.,when there is no custody determinationat the time of the abduction), the districtattorney usually requires the left-behindHowever, the district attorney can filethe appropriate initial pleading in certaincases.In cooperation with the California StateAttorney General, California districtattorneys also play an important role ininternational child abduction cases in-volving the Hague Convention.When achild is abducted to California from aHague Convention country, the districtattorney may seek the voluntary returnof the child or pursue a court actionunder the Convention for the return ofthe child.When a child is abducted fromCalifornia to a Hague Convention coun-try, the district attorney is involved inlocating the child and may file an appli-cation with the U.S.Department ofState or directly with the foreign CentralAuthority under the Hague Conventionseeking the childÕs return.Based on CaliforniaÕs experience, thecost of using prosecutors and law en-forcement in the civil enforcement ofUsing civil remedies to resolve custodialinterference cases typically costs lessthan prosecuting wrongdoer parents.In1989, the California ControllerÕs Officepaid counties $3.3 million for their workin 5,890 cases statewide.The 1991Ð92budget was also $3.3 million, but prose-cutors assisted inalmost 8,000 casesofcivil custody enforcement and recov-ered 3,000 abducted children.The vol-ume of cases has grown since then,spending, as more counties have be-come involved in civil custody enforce-ment.Other States can expect to spendless than California because California,the most populous State, probably hasthe highest volume ofcustodial interfer-ence cases in the country. One of the most important changes since enact-judicial communication to address jurisdictional andenforcement issues. For Further Informationreaders may contact the organizationslisted and described below. Brief descrip-from each organization are also provided.OrganizationsCenter on Children and the Law 740 15th Street NW., Ninth FloorWashington, DC 20005Ð1009ctrchildlaw@abanet.orgwww.abanet.org/childThe ABA Center on Children and the Lawconcentrates on legal issues that directlyaffect children. The CenterÕs Obstacles tothe Recovery and Return of ParentallyAbducted Children Project, funded byOJJDP and directed by Linda Girdner,Ph.D., documented problems that parentsface when children are abducted inter-state and internationally. Among the manyrecommendations contained in the origi-nal Obstacles ProjectÕs final report wasthe need for streamlined, uniform proce-dures to expedite interstate enforcementof custody and visitation orders. In fur-therance of that goal, the Obstacles Proj-ectÕs Legal Director, Patricia M. Hoff, J.D.,served as an advisor to the UCCJEAcurrently has no ongoing projects relatedto parental kidnapping, its Web site in-cludes an extensive collection of literatureabout parental kidnapping and links toother resources.750 North Lake Shore DriveAttn: Jeff Atkinson, ABA advisor to the www.abanet.org/family/home.htmlThe ABA is the largest voluntary associa-stabilizing and preserving the family. TheFamily Law Quarterly,one of the sectionÕs two publications,focused on two uniform laws th

12 at affectchildren and families: the UCCJ
at affectchildren and families: the UCCJEA and theUniform Interstate Family Support Act.committee, Jeff Atkinson, is an activemember of the Section of Family Law.Exploited Children (NCMEC)Charles B. Wang International ChildrenÕs 699 Prince StreetAlexandria, VA 22314Ð317577431.177@Compuserve.comwww.missingkids.comNCMEC is a private, nonprofit clearing-operates under a congressional mandate.A resource center for child protection,tion on missing and exploited childrenand operates a national toll-free hotline,viduals to report missing children or re-liesand can be of tremendous help to lawenforcement in case management, caseand coordination of responses acrossNational Center for Prosecution of ChildAlexandria, VA 22314www.ndaa-apri.org/apri/NCPCA/Index.htmlThe National Center for Prosecution ofChild Abuse recognizes child abuse as aheld accountable. Because no area ofthe past 15 years, the need for profession-al specialization is especially great. Com-Center for Prosecution of Child Abuse isprosecutors and other child abuse profes-tionally, the Center demonstrates concernfor a particularly vulnerable group ofcrime victims based on the premise thatchildren are entitled to equal treatmentunder the law.National Conference of Commissionerson Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL)211 East Ontario Street, Suite 1300www.nccusl.orgFor more than 100 years, NCCUSL has pro-acts and endeavoring to secure their en-actment by the voluntary action of eachState government. The conference in-cludes commissioners from each State,wealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin A ProsecutorÕs PerspectiveAs a general proposition, CaliforniaÕs prosecutors and law enforcement officers arevery supportive of the dual civil/criminal approach to custodial interference cases.In1992, when the State was making programmatic cuts to reduce its deficit, strongstatewide support from the criminal justice community fended off an effort to cut aprogram that implemented this approach.A district attorney with expertise in childabduction cases sums up why the program was well received by CaliforniaÕs crimi-nal justice community and why the UCCJEA should be supported:As a prosecutor assigned to the Child Abduction Unit of the Santa ClaraCounty D.A.Õs Office for the past 6 years, I can personally attest to the incalcu-lable value of the availability of civil, as well as criminal, enforcement tools inresolving interstate child abduction cases.This office alone has recovered ap-proximately 1,777 children in the last 10 years.The ability to act in a civil con-text has been an important factor in recovery of these children.In the majorityof the custody and visitation disputes I have handled, resolving the issueswithout criminal proceedings has clearly served the best interests of the chil-dren involved.Other states do not have the same ability to serve and recovertheir children.The most effective deterrent to child abduction in this countrywould be the nationwide network of law enforcement and prosecutors this bill[the UCCJEA] would create. J.M.Heim, Deputy District Attorney, Child Abduction Unit, Santa Clara County, CA, personal communication,March 1996, to Justice Marian Opala, Chair, UCCJEA Drafting Committee, in support of the prosecutor/lawenforcement sections of the UCCJEA. commissioners are appointed to draft spe-cific acts, and advisors and observersoften participate in the drafting process.Adraft uniform act must be read, sectionmeetings before a decision is made, byvote of States, to promulgate the act as aNCCUSL approved the UCCJEA in 1997.Copies of the law are available fromNCCUSLÕs Chicago address and may bedownloaded from the NCCUSL Web site(www.nccusl.org).Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention (OJJDP)Child Protection Division (CPD)810 Seventh Street NW.Washington, DC 20531www.ojjdp.ncjrs.orgOJJDPÕs Child Protection Division admin-isters programs related to crimes againstchildren and provides leadership andfunding in the areas of enforcement, inter-vention, and prevention. CPD promoteseffective policies and procedures to ad-dress the problems of abused, neglected,missing, and exploited children. include conducting research, providingsupporting demonstration and serviceprograms related to child victimization.CPD also supports the National CenterforMissing and Exploited Children (seeabove), a clearinghouse and resourceregarding missing and exploited childrenand operates a na

13 tional toll-free hotlinePublicationsABA
tional toll-free hotlinePublicationsABA Center on Children and the Law.The following documents are availablefrom the Center (see Issues/ParentalKidnapping on its Web site).The Hague Convention: A Curriculum forvention can be used effectively within theUnited States in international parentalattorneys better understand parentalincludes practical tips on protections thatcan be placed in child custody ordersthat may help prevent an abduction, tipsthat lawyers can give their parent clients,a review of possible legal actions that canbe taken on parentsÕ behalf, and govern-mental resources that can be used to helpParental Kidnapping Law Reform Package(consists of three proposed State laws:Parental Kidnapping Crime Act, MissingChildren Record Flagging Act, and Tor-tious Interference With Child CustodyandVisitation Act). This package, pro-duced in 1996, contains three proposedState laws related to parental abductionthat can be adopted by State legislatures.ABA Section of Family Law.document is available from the Section(see Publications on its Web site).International Child Abductions: A Guide toForms, Second Edition.This guide providesforms necessary for its use.The following documents areavailable from NCMEC (see Education&Resources on its Web site or callparents through the civil and criminal jus-help them, outlines prevention methods,and provides suggestions for aftercarefollowing the abduction. It thoroughlydetails search and recovery strategiesand contains advice for attorneys, prose-cutors, and family court judges handlingInternational Forum on Parental ChildThis report details the findingsofa forum held in September 1998 toIt offers 12 action/agenda items to helpstrengthen the implementation of thethe problem of family abduction, consid-ers whether the problem is growing, andexamines the challenges and opportuni-authored by a team of 38 professionalsfrom local, State, and Federal agencies,outlines a standard of practice for lawenforcement officers handling severalrunaways, thrownaways, family/nonfamilythe circumstances are unknown.When Your Child Is Missing: A FamilySurvival Guide.Also available fromThe following documents areavailable from NCPCA (see Publicationson its Web site).Charging the Parental Kidnapping Case.This monograph assists prosecutors indetermining appropriate charges and sen-tencing recommendations. It notes that anaggressive investigative and prosecutorialapproach sends the message that paren-and abductors and recommends thatprosecution be seriously considered inevery parental kidnapping case.(Training ConferenceNCPCA Conference, Investigation andProsecution of Parental Abduction.investigators and prosecutors in develop-ing appropriate responses to the inter-related crimes of parental kidnapping,lation are available from NCCUSL (seeWeb site).OJJDP.The following documents are avail-able from OJJDP (see Publications on itsWeb site or call the Juvenile Justice Clear-inghouse at 800Ð638Ð8736) or from theNational Criminal Justice Reference Serv-ice (visit www.ncjrs.org or callThis Report makes recommendations concerning law enforcement agenciesÕaccess to records maintained by schools,hospitals, child welfare agencies, domes-ters. The Report also covers informationrelease procedures and includes a check-list for maximizing record access fromservice providers. The ReportÕs appen-other relevant statistical data on the con-fidentiality of records in searches formissing children, jurisdictions that allowrecord access or impose reporting re-quirements in missing children cases,andState laws affecting record access.The Criminal Justice SystemÕs Response toBulletin summarizes primary findingsfrom a study of the criminal justice sys-temÕs response to parental abduction.on Children and the Law and Westat, thestudy examined all aspects of the systemÕsresponse, including the reporting of thetion and recovery of the child, and crimi-nal prosecution of the abductor. The Bul-letin reports results from the studyÕsnational survey of law enforcement agen-cies and prosecutors, site visits, and casefile reviews and presents implications forlegal, programmatic, and policy reforms.Bulletin presents the design and findingsof four OJJDP-funded projects on prevent-ing family abductions: a documentarystudy, a criminal sanctions study, aninterview study, and an interventionstudy. The findings provide informationregarding the risk factors associated w

14 ithparental kidnapping and strategies th
ithparental kidnapping and strategies thatcan be used to intervene with at-riskFamily Abductors: Descriptive Profiles andPreventive InterventionsBulletin describes preventive interventions,such as counseling, conflict resolution, andas at risk for parental abduction.A Family Resource Guide on Internationalguide presents practical and detailedadvice about preventing international kid-napping and increasing the chance thatchildren who are kidnapped or wrongfullyretained will be returned. It provides de-scriptions and realistic assessments ofthe civil and criminal remedies availa-blein international parental kidnappingfies both the public and private resourcestional abduction occurs or is threatened,and prepares parents for the legal andemotional difficulties they may experience.International Parental Kidnapping: A Law(forthcoming). Thisguide provides practical information onthe public and private resources andservices that are available to assist lawenforcement in international parentallaws, defines agency roles and responsi-bilities, describes criminal and civil reme-dies, examines methods for preventionand interception, and discusses impor-tant issues and procedures to be ad-dressed during an international parentalIssues in Resolving Cases of International(NCJ 182790). This Reportacross countries. It includes case histo-ries, survey findings on left-behind par-family abduction cases, and recommenda-Issues in Resolving Cases of InternationalThis Bulletin provides an overview of themajor survey findings, selected goodpractices, and recommendations fromtheReport International Child Abduction(see previousentry).Obstacles to the Recovery and Return of(Report: NCJ144535; Research Summary: NCJ 143458).These publications present the results ofa 2-year study of the legal, policy, proce-tion, recovery, and return of parentallyabducted children. They include recom-mendations to overcome each obstaclethe pros and cons of existing legal proce-dures for enforcing a custody order, sam-procedures, and summaries of both civil(Available online only: ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/missing.html#186160).Thisonline resource summarizes currentresearch and literature relating to theprimary issues involved in parentalfrom several California studies related toent, this Report outlines a set of charac-teristics of parents who abduct theirchildren and presents indepth socio-aboutthe families of abducted children.Using Agency Records To Find Missing(NCJ 154633). This Summary focuses onprocedures for obtaining and using therecords of certain types of human serviceproviders to find missing children. It ex-securing, and limitations of records fromschools, medical care providers,runawayWhen Your Child Is Missing: A FamilySurvival Guideparents and family members who haveexplains how parents can best participatein the search for a missing child. It dis-cusses the parentsÕ relationship withlawenforcement, examines issues relatedto the media, and presents practical in-photos, organizing volunteers, and man-aging monetary donations.BibliographyGonzalez, R.M., Tumonis, E.F., and Dun-Attorney General Child Ab-CA: State of California Department ofJustice, Office of the Attorney General.Hoff, P.M. 1998. The ABCÕs of the UCCJEA:Family Law QuarterlySpector, R.G. 1998. Uniform Child-CustodyJurisdiction and Enforcement Act (withPrefatory Note and Comments). Law QuarterlyEnforcement Act (1997), 9(1A) U.L.A. 657www.nccusl.org. of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas,North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,Washington, and West Virginia.4. Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Mary-land, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey,New York, and Rhode Island.Òorder,Ó as used in this Bulletin, refer to6. Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of7. Violence Against Women Act of 1994;Violence Against Women Act of 2000, 18(1986) or online via the U.S. Depart-ment of StateÕs Web site at www.travel.state.gov, under ÒInternational ParentalAct, Prefatory Note. The Full Faith andCredit clause requires that full faith andcredit Òbe given in each state to the publicacts, records, and judicial proceedingsofevery other stateÓ (U.S. Constitution,article IV, ¤ 1).12. Girdner, L.K., and Hoff, P.M., eds. 1993.Final Report: Obstacles to the Recovery andReturn of Parentally Abducted Children.Washington, DC: American Bar Associ-ation Center on Children and the Law(hereinafter portObstacles

15 Project Final Reportwas considered by t
Project Final Reportwas considered by the UCCJEA draftingcommittee, and numerous recommenda-tions from the report are reflected in theamendments to the UCCJA and the PKPA,Obstacles Project Final Reportpro-posed an original ÒAct To Expedite En-forcement of Child Custody Determina-alleviate the shortcomings and lack of uni-formity in then-existing procedures forenforcing child-custody and visitationorders that had frustrated many parentstrying to exercise their lawful court-ordered rights. Article 3 of the UCCJEAincorporates many ideas from theproposed statute. 13. 28 U.S.C. ¤ 1738A, ÒFull Faith and Credit15. 28 U.S.C. ¤ 1738A(g). This section pro-hibits simultaneous proceedings.17. Like the UCCJA, the PKPA defineshas lived with a parent or person actingas a parent for at least 6 months preced-proceeding. 20. 18 U.S.C. ¤ 2266. The VAWAÕs definitionof Òprotection orderÓ expressly excludeschild-custody orders issued pursuant toextent that they are entitled to Full Faithand Credit under Federal law).was in force between the United Statescountries that are party to the Conven-tion, see the U.S. Department of StateÕsWeb site (www.travel.state.gov) or theHague Conference on Private InternationalLawÕs Web site (www.hcch.net).1986, took effect in the United States inConstruction of Provisions). The UCCJEAreasons: NCCUSL no longer includes claus-es of this type in its uniform acts. The offi-cial comments note, however, that manyremain valid.(Ind. 1980). An extraordinary judicialpanelÑconsisting of the Supreme Court ofIndiana; the Court of Appeals of Indiana,Court of AppealsÑheld two judges, a pri-vate attorney, and a county prosecutor inindirect criminal contempt for willfullyand intentionally disobeying orders of theState Supreme Court and the mandate ofthe Court of Appeals in an interstate cus-tody enforcement case brought pursuantfined $500 and charged with costs. Thecontempt proceeding stemmed from aHawaii and her ex-husband, who retainedProceeding in accordance with the UCCJA,the mother sought to enforce the Ha-waiian court order in Indiana. The fatherresisted at every level of the StateÕscourts.ly prevailed; the father had exhausted hisremedies in the State courts, and it wasexpected that the orders of the State Su-preme Court and the Court of Appealswould be honored and the child returnedto her mother. However, the fatherÕs coun-his client from the orders of IndianaÕs high-est courts by initiating the filing of a CHINS(Child In Need of Services) petition by thecounty prosecutor in juvenile court. Thejuvenile court issued the CHINS petitionminutes before the Circuit CourtÕs issu-orderingthe return of the child to her mother.However, the Circuit Judge assisted thefatherÕs efforts by ordering that the writqualifying himself from hearing the CHINSwho found the daughter in need of servi-ces and ordered that she be detained for acontempt proceeding as whether the juve-nile courtÕs jurisdiction was properly in-voked, the courts in this case held thatuse of emergency jurisdiction to reopen a(413 N.E.2d at 245). The courts Òbecamets Òbecamenot a good faith effort to help a child inneed of services. Rather, it was a well-orchestrated effort to thwart the ordersofthese Courts by prostituting the emer-gency authority of a juvenile courtÓ (id. at238). The juvenile court judge should haverecognized the CHINS petition for what itwas: Ònothing more than a pretense fordesigned to avoid the force and effect of25. 716 P.2d 991 (Cal. 1986), Òchild-custody proceedingÓ). acting as a parentÓ as Òa person, otherthan a parent, who: (A) has physical cus-months, including any temporary absence,within one year immediately before thecommencement of a child-custody pro-ceeding; and (B) has been awarded legalcustody by a court or claims a right to29. UCCJEA, section 204 (Temporary Emer-32. UCCJEA, section 304 (TemporaryVisitation).Enforcement of Child-Custody Determina-tion; Service of Petition and Order; Hear-ing and Order).35. UCCJEA, section 311 (Warrant To Take[Prosecutor or Public Official]; Role of[Law Enforcement]; Costs and Expens-es).In States that enact these sections,prosecutors (or other designated publicofficials) and law enforcement officersareable to use the procedures to locatechildren, return them to the jurisdictionofthe court, and enforce custodyÒchild-custody proceedingÓ).ing proceedings involving monetary obli-divided jurisdictio

16 n. A court may wellor to make an order f
n. A court may wellor to make an order for child supporttody determination. For a recent case, seev. 39. UCCJEA, section 103 (ProceedingsTemporaryorders are expressly included in theUCCJEAÕs definition of Òchild-custody de-with the PKPA definition and clarifies anA definition and clarifies an)42. 51 Fed. Reg. 10,510.43. UCCJEA, section 104 (Application toIndian Tribes).diction over a party or a child is neithernecessary nor sufficient to make a cus-(B), which provide that significant connec-and the childÕs parents, or the child and atleast one parent or a person acting as aparent, have a significant connection withthis State other than mere physical pres-able in this State concerning the childÕscare, protection, training, and personalrelationships; . . . .Ó46. Under the UCCJEA, a court with juris-diction may decline to exercise it if anoth-er State is a more convenient forum (sec-Proceedings), part (a).Proceedings), part (b); section 110 (Com-munication Between Courts).49. UCCJEA, section 209 (Information ToBe Submitted to Court).Proceedings), part (b).54. UCCJEA, section 205(a), and PKPA, 2855. UCCJEA, sections 209(a) and (e) pro-tect against disclosure of addresses andings when disclosure would jeopardize achildÕs or a partyÕs health, safety, or liber-ty. If a State has adequate protections inexisting law, it may reference them in sec-58. UCCJEA, section 203 (Jurisdiction To59. The UCCJA prohibition against simulta-neous proceedings was designed to pre-vent this situation, but courts in two ormore States often proceed with their cus-tody actions and issue conflicting ordersnotwithstanding the statutory prohibition.61. UCCJEA, section 208(c). Necessary andreasonable expenses include costs, com-munication expenses, attorneyÕs fees, in-travel expenses, and childcare expensesduring the course of the proceedings.62. UCCJEA, section 303 (Duty ToEnforce).which gives as an example a foreign par-whether a foreign custody order will berecognized and enforced before sending a65. This author favors retaining a child-custody registry provision in State enact-cussion of this issue, see Hoff, 1998.tion expenses, attorneyÕs fees, investiga-expenses, and childcare expenses duringthe course of the proceedings.69. UCCJEA, section 311 (Warrant To Take70. UCCJEA, section 315 (Role of [Prose-cutor or Public Official]).71. This statutory authority should re-move the threat of civil liability that influ-ences many law enforcement decisions inchild recovery situations. U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice ProgramsOffice of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Washington,DC 20531Official BusinessPenalty for Private Use $300 NCJ 189181Bulletin PRESORTED STANDARDPOSTAGE & FEES PAIDPERMIT NO.GÐ91 This Bulletin was written by Patricia M.Hoff, J.D., a legal consultant on interstateand international child-custody, visitation, and parental kidnapping law.She was anadvisor to the drafting committee of the UCCJEA on behalf of the ABA Center onChildren and the Law while serving as Legal Director of the CenterÕs Obstacles tothe Recovery and Return of Parentally Abducted Children Project.The authorgratefully acknowledges the contribution of Janet Heim, J.D., Deputy DistrictAttorney, Santa Clara County District AttorneyÕs Office, who wrote the BulletinÕssidebars on California prosecutorsÕlong-time involvement in civil child-custodyenforcement.The author also thanks Linda Girdner, Ph.D., former Director ofResearch at the ABA Center on Children and the Law and Project Director of theObstacles Project, for her thoughtful comments on the Bulletin as it was beingdeveloped.Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the author andhave not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors ofthe American Bar Association.The views, accordingly, should not be construed asThis Bulletin is intended for educational and informational purposes and does notconstitute legal advice.Readers with specific cases should consult their legalThis Bulletin was prepared under grant number92ÐMCÐCXÐ0007 from the Office of JuvenileJustice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. De-partment of Justice.Points of view or opinions expressed in thisdocument are those of the author and do notnecessarily represent the official position orpolicies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-Justice, and the Office for Victi