Skip to comments.S 0486 ENACT THE "UNIFORM CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION ACT
Posted on 05/22/2007 7:47:32 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
Session 117 - (2007-2008)
S 0486 General Bill, By Hayes
A BILL TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING SUBARTICLE 9 TO ARTICLE 3, CHAPTER 7, TITLE 20 SO AS TO ENACT THE "UNIFORM CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION ACT" TO PROVIDE A LEGAL MECHANISM TO PROTECT CHILDREN FROM CREDIBLE RISKS OF ABDUCTION RELATED TO A LEGAL CUSTODY OR VISITATION.
View full text
02/22/07 Senate Introduced and read first time SJ-8
02/22/07 Senate Referred to Committee on Judiciary SJ-8
03/01/07 Senate Referred to Subcommittee: Ritchie (ch), Rankin, Lourie, Scott
(A) When determining the existence of a credible risk of abduction of a child, the court shall consider evidence that the petitioner or respondent:
(1) has previously abducted or attempted to abduct the child;
(2) has threatened to abduct the child;
(3) has recently engaged in activities that may indicate a planned abduction, including:
(a) abandoning employment;
(b) selling a primary residence;
(c) terminating a lease;
(d) closing a bank account or another financial management account, liquidating an asset, hiding or destroying a financial document, or conducting an unusual financial activity;
(e) applying for a passport or visa or obtaining travel documents for the respondent, a family member, or the child; or
(f) seeking to obtain the child's birth certificate, school, or medical records;
(4) has engaged in domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, or neglect;
(5) has refused to follow a child custody determination;
(6) lacks strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural ties to this State or the United States;
(7) has strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural ties to another state or country;
(8) is likely to take the child to a country that:
(a) is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and does not provide for the extradition of an abducting parent or for the return of an abducted child;
(b) is a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction but:
(i) the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is not in force between the United States and that country;
(ii) is noncompliant according to the most recent compliance report issued by the United States Department of State; or
(iii) lacks legal mechanisms for immediately and effectively enforcing a return order under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction;
(c) poses a risk that the child's physical or emotional health or safety may be endangered in the country because of specific circumstances relating to the child or because of human rights violations committed against children;
(d) has laws or practices that:
(i) enables the respondent, without due cause, to prevent the petitioner from contacting the child;
(ii) restricts the petitioner from freely traveling to or exiting from the country because of the petitioner's gender, nationality, marital status, or religion; or
(iii) restricts the child's ability legally to leave the country after the child reaches the age of majority because of a child's gender, nationality, or religion;
(e) is included by the United States Department of State on a current list of state sponsors of terrorism;
(f) does not have an official United States diplomatic presence in the country; or
(g) is engaged in active military action or war, including a civil war, to which the child may be exposed;
(9) is undergoing a change in immigration or citizenship status that adversely affect the respondent's ability to remain in the United States legally;
(10) has had an application for United States citizenship denied;
(11) has forged or presented misleading or false evidence on government forms or supporting documents to obtain, or attempt to obtain, a passport, visa, travel documents, Social Security card, driver's license, or other government-issued identification card or has made a misrepresentation to the United States government;
(12) has used multiple names to attempt to mislead or defraud; or
(13) has engaged in other conduct the court considers relevant to the risk of abduction.
My last good chance to stop this bill in Louisiana is this Thursday!
What a messed up country, where the word “abduction” is used to describe taking your own child somewhere.
Let see, strike out 3, 5,6,7,8 and 13.
“Is not a legal resident of the United States”
There, that should make it some what acceptable.
Indeed. It is worse than that.
Look how long the orders can last... Basically the LIFETIME of the child’s minority.
Section 10. An abduction prevention order remains in effect until the earliest of:
(1) The time stated in the order;
(2) The emancipation of the child;
(3) The child’s attaining eighteen years of age; or
(4) The time the order is modified, revoked, vacated, or superseded by a court with jurisdiction under § § 26-5B-201 to 26-5B-203, inclusive.
A parent who would go to jail just to be with their child is a good parent by that very fact. That is (or should be) any parent on earth.
Of course it’s more complicated when two parents are battling, or some other crazy circumstance is involved.
Still, the world has gone mad over modern custody cases.
But then I didn't give you this part about them granting NO-KNOCK WARRANTS to take your child in the dead of night.
Don't piss off your judge, he has the power to issue these on his own motion.
================================================= (e) To prevent imminent abduction of a child, a court may: (1) Issue a warrant to take physical custody of the child under section 9 of this Act or the law of this state other than this Act;
(2) Direct the use of law enforcement to take any action reasonably necessary to locate the child, obtain return of the child, or enforce a custody determination under this Act or the law of this state other than this Act; or
(3) Grant any other relief allowed under the law of this state other than this Act.
(f) The remedies provided in this Act are cumulative and do not affect the availability of other remedies to prevent abduction.
Section 9. (a) If a petition under this Act contains allegations, and the court finds that there is a credible risk that the child is imminently likely to be wrongfully removed, the court may issue an ex parte warrant to take physical custody of the child.
(b) The respondent on a petition under subsection (a) must be afforded an opportunity to be heard at the earliest possible time after the ex parte warrant is executed, but not later than the next judicial day unless a hearing on that date is impossible. In that event, the court shall hold the hearing on the first judicial day possible.
(c) An ex parte warrant under subsection (a) to take physical custody of a child must:
(1) Recite the facts upon which a determination of a credible risk of imminent wrongful removal of the child is based;
(2) Direct law enforcement officers to take physical custody of the child immediately;
(3) State the date and time for the hearing on the petition; and
(4) Provide for the safe interim placement of the child pending further order of the court.
(d) If feasible, before issuing a warrant and before determining the placement of the child after the warrant is executed, the court may order a search of the relevant databases of the National Crime Information Center system and similar state databases to determine if either the petitioner or respondent has a history of domestic violence, stalking, or child abuse or neglect.
(e) The petition and warrant must be served on the respondent when or immediately after the child is taken into physical custody.
(f) A warrant to take physical custody of a child, issued by this state or another state, is enforceable throughout this state. If the court finds that a less intrusive remedy will not be effective, it may authorize law enforcement officers to enter private property to take physical custody of the child. If required by exigent circumstances, the court may authorize law enforcement officers to make a forcible entry at any hour.
But wait, there is more.
You can be immediately limited to supervised parenting that you have to pay for and have to post a bond.
(d) In an abduction prevention order, the court may impose conditions on the exercise of custody or visitation that:
(1) Limit visitation or require that visitation with the child by the respondent be supervised until the court finds that supervision is no longer necessary and order the respondent to pay the costs of supervision;
(2) Require the respondent to post a bond or provide other security in an amount sufficient to serve as a financial deterrent to abduction, the proceeds of which may be used to pay for the reasonable expenses of recovery of the child, including reasonable attorneys fees and costs if there is an abduction; and
(3) Require the respondent to obtain education on the potentially harmful effects to the child from abduction.
What ever happened to the Lindberg Act?
Its still there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.