TO ENACT THE "UNIFORM CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION ACT"

General Bill Sponsors: Senator Hayes Document Path: l:\council\bills\nbd\11185ac09.docx

Introduced in the Senate on February 3, 2009 Introduced in the House on March 25, 2009 Currently residing in the House Committee on Judiciary

Date Body Action Description with journal page number ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2/3/2009 Senate Introduced and read first time SJ-12 2/3/2009 Senate Referred to Committee on Judiciary SJ-12 2/6/2009 Senate Referred to Subcommittee: Sheheen (ch), Knotts, Campsen, Lourie, Campbell 3/11/2009 Senate Committee report: Favorable with amendment Judiciary SJ-17 3/12/2009 Scrivener's error corrected 3/17/2009 Senate Committee Amendment Adopted SJ-20 3/17/2009 Senate Read second time SJ-20 3/24/2009 Senate Read third time and sent to House SJ-24 3/25/2009 House Introduced and read first time HJ-15 3/25/2009 House Referred to Committee on Judiciary HJ-15

(Text matches printed bills. Document has been reformatted to meet World Wide Web specifications.)

TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING ARTICLE 5 TO CHAPTER 15, TITLE 63 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 LEGAL CUSTODY OR VISITATION.

SECTION 1. This article may be cited as the "Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act".

(2) 'Child' means an individual who is less than sixteen years old and not emancipated.

(3) 'Child custody determination' means a judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for the legal custody, physical custody, or visitation concerning a child. The term includes a permanent, temporary, initial, and modification order.

(4) 'Child custody proceeding' means a proceeding in which legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a child is an issue. The term includes a proceeding for divorce, dissolution of marriage, separate support and maintenance, neglect, abuse, dependency, guardianship, paternity, termination of parental rights, or protection from domestic violence.

(5) 'Court' means the family court of this State or, with respect to another state, an entity authorized under the law of a state to establish, enforce, or modify a child custody determination.

(7) 'Record' means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.

(8) 'State' means a state of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or a territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The term includes a federally recognized Indian tribe or nation.

(9) 'Travel document' means records relating to a travel itinerary, including a travel ticket, pass, reservation for transportation, or accommodation. The term does not include a passport or visa.

(10) 'Wrongful removal' means the taking of a child that breaches a right of custody or visitation provided by the law of this State.

(11) 'Wrongful retention' means the keeping or concealing of a child that breaches a right of custody or visitation provided by the law of this State.

Section 63-15-510. Sections 63-15-318, 63-15-320, and 63-15-322 apply to this article.

Section 63-15-520. (A) A court may order an abduction prevention measure in a child custody proceeding on its own motion if the court finds that the evidence establishes a credible risk of abduction of the child.

(B) A party to a child custody determination or another individual or entity having a right under the law of this State or another state to seek a child custody determination for the child may file a petition to seek abduction prevention measures to protect the child under this article.

(C) A prosecutor may seek a warrant to take physical custody of a child under Section 63-15-570 or other appropriate prevention measures.

Section 63-15-530. (A) A petition under this article may be filed only in a court that has jurisdiction to make a child custody determination with respect to the child at issue under Article 3.

(B) A court of this State has temporary emergency jurisdiction under Section 63-15-336 if the court finds a credible risk of abduction.

Section 63-15-540. A petition under this article must be verified and include a copy of an existing child custody determination, if available. The petition must specify the risk factors for abduction, including the relevant factors described in Section 63-15-550. Subject to Section 63-15-346(E), if reasonably ascertainable, the petition must contain:

(3) the identity, customary address, and current physical location of the respondent;

(4) a statement of whether a prior action to prevent abduction or domestic violence has been filed by a party or other individual or entity having custody of the child, and the date, location, and disposition of the action;

(5) a statement of whether a party to the proceeding has been arrested for a crime related to domestic violence, stalking, or child abuse or neglect, and the date, location, and disposition of the case; and

(6) other information required to be submitted to the court for a child custody determination under Section 63-15-346.

Section 63-15-550. (A) When determining the existence of a credible risk of abduction of a child, the court shall consider evidence that the petitioner or respondent:

(3) has recently engaged in activities that may indicate a planned abduction, including:

(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;

(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;

(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;

(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;

(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;

(13) has engaged in other conduct the court considers relevant to the risk of abduction.

(B) In the hearing on a petition under this article, the court shall consider evidence that the respondent believed in good faith that the respondent's conduct was necessary to avoid imminent harm to the child or respondent and other evidence that may be relevant to whether the respondent may be permitted to remove or retain the child.

Section 63-15-560. (A) If a petition is filed under this article, the court may enter an order that includes:

(2) the manner in which notice and opportunity to be heard were given to the persons entitled to notice of the proceeding;

(3) a detailed description of each party's custody and visitation rights and residential arrangements for the child;

(4) a provision stating that a violation of the order may subject the party in violation to civil and criminal penalties; and

(5) identification of the child's country of habitual residence at the time of the issuance of the order.

(B) The court shall enter an abduction prevention order if it conducts a hearing on a petition under this article or on its own motion, reviews evidence, and finds a credible risk of a child abduction. The order must include the provisions, measures, and conditions provided in this section that are reasonably calculated to prevent abduction of the child and give due consideration to the custody and visitation rights of a party. The court shall consider the age of the child, the potential harm to the child from an abduction, the legal and practical difficulties of returning the child to the jurisdiction if abducted, and the reasons for the potential abduction, including evidence of domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, or neglect.

(1) an imposition of travel restrictions that require that a party traveling with the child outside a designated geographical area provide the other party with the following:

(b) a list of physical addresses and telephone numbers that the child may be reached at specified times; and

(a) removing the child from this State, the United States, or another geographic area without permission of the court or the petitioner's written consent;

(b) removing or retaining the child in violation of a child custody determination;

(d) approaching the child at a location other than a site designated for supervised visitation;

(3) a requirement that a party register the order in another state as a prerequisite to allowing the child to travel to that state;

(a) a direction that the petitioner place the child's name in the United States Department of State's Child Passport Issuance Alert Program;

(b) a requirement that the respondent surrender to the court or the petitioner's attorney a United States or foreign passport issued in the child's name, including a passport issued in the name of both the parent and the child; and

(5) as a prerequisite to exercising custody or visitation, a requirement that the respondent provide:

(a) to the United States Department of State Office of Children's Issues and the relevant foreign consulate or embassy, an authenticated copy of the order detailing passport and travel restrictions for the child;

(ii) an acknowledgment in a record from the relevant foreign consulate or embassy that no passport application has been made, or passport issued, on behalf of the child;

(c) to the petitioner, proof of registration with the United States Embassy or other United States diplomatic presence in the destination country and with the Central Authority for the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, if that Convention is in effect between the United States and the destination country, unless one of the parties objects; and

(d) a written waiver under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. Section 552a, as amended, with respect to a document, application, or other information pertaining to the child authorizing its disclosure to the court and the petitioner; and

(6) upon the petitioner's request, a requirement that the respondent obtain an order from the relevant foreign country containing terms identical to the child custody determination issued in the United States.

(D) An abduction prevention order may impose a condition on the exercise of custody or visitation that:

(1) limits visitation or requires 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) requires 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 a reasonable attorney's fee and costs if there is an abduction; and

(3) requires the respondent to obtain education on the potentially harmful effects to the child from abduction.

(1) issuing a warrant to take physical custody of the child under Section 63-15-570 or another provision of law;

(2) directing the use of law enforcement to take an action reasonably necessary to locate the child, obtain return of the child, or enforce a custody determination under this article or another provision of law; or

(F) The remedies provided in this article are cumulative and do not affect the availability of other remedies to prevent abduction.

Section 63-15-570. (A) The court may issue an ex parte warrant to take physical custody of the child when a petition under this article contains allegations that a child is imminently likely to be wrongfully removed and the court finds a credible risk exists that the child is imminently likely to be wrongfully removed.

(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.

(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;

(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, 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 may 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.

(G) The court may award the respondent a reasonable attorney's fee, costs, and expenses, if the court finds, after a hearing, that a petitioner sought an ex parte warrant under subsection (A) for the purpose of harassment or in bad faith.

(H) This article does not affect the availability of relief available under another provision of law.

Section 63-15-580. An abduction prevention order remains in effect until the earliest of the:

(4) time the order is modified, revoked, vacated, or superseded by a court with jurisdiction under another provision of law.

Section 63-15-590. When applying and construing this article, a court shall consider the need to promote uniformity of the law with respect to its subject matter among states that enact the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act."

SECTION 3. The repeal or amendment by this act of any law, whether temporary or permanent or civil or criminal, does not affect pending actions, rights, duties, or liabilities founded thereon, or alter, discharge, release or extinguish any penalty, forfeiture, or liability incurred under the repealed or amended law, unless the repealed or amended provision shall so expressly provide. After the effective date of this act, all laws repealed or amended by this act must be taken and treated as remaining in full force and effect for the purpose of sustaining any pending or vested right, civil action, special proceeding, criminal prosecution, or appeal existing as of the effective date of this act, and for the enforcement of rights, duties, penalties, forfeitures, and liabilities as they stood under the repealed or amended laws.

SECTION 4. If any section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, or word of this act is for any reason held to be unconstitutional or invalid, such holding shall not affect the constitutionality or validity of the remaining portions of this act, the General Assembly hereby declaring that it would have passed this act, and each and every section, subsection, paragraph, subparagraph, sentence, clause, phrase, and word thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, paragraphs, subparagraphs, sentences, clauses, phrases, or words hereof may be declared to be unconstitutional, invalid, or otherwise ineffective.

Here is the google search for this year:

Note the TOTAL lack for press coverage on this subject.

............ already law in Utah ...............
Utah Statutes - CHAPTER 16 UTAH UNIFORM CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION...
Pay-Per-View - Utah Statutes - Loislaw - Feb 20, 2008
CHAPTER 16 UTAH UNIFORM CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION ACT. Copyright © 2008 Loislaw.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Related web pages

............ already law in Nevada ...............
Nevada Statutes - CHAPTER 125D UNIFORM CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION ACT
Pay-Per-View - Nevada Statutes - Loislaw - Aug 22, 2008
CHAPTER 125D UNIFORM CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION ACT. Copyright © 2008 Loislaw.com, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Related web pages

............ just passed and signed in Mississippi ...............
Child-safety bills go to Barbour
Memphis Commercial Appeal - Mar 16, 2009
House members later unanimously approved legislation dealing with child abduction — the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act — and sent it to the Senate ...
Related web pages

..... interesting. I’ll have to find out about this one ...............
Louisiana Case Law - MOHSEN v. MOHSEN, 2008-1703 (La.App. 1 Cir....
Pay-Per-View - Louisiana Case Law - Loislaw - Dec 23, 2008
... set forth in the Uniform International Child Abduction Prevention Act (Child ... Louisiana Revised Stateue 13:1854 of the Child Abduction Prevention Act ...
Related web pages

..... looks like DC fell ...............
DC Council Agenda
Washington Post - Nov 13, 2008
Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2008, Bill 17-0626. School Safety and Security Contracting Amendment Act of 2008, Bill 17-0742. ...
Related web pages

..... nother on DC ...............
DC Council Agenda
Washington Post - May 22, 2008
“Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2008,” Bill 17-0626. Workforce development and government operations, 10 am Agenda: 10 am, “The Implementation of ...
Related web pages

..... second mississippi article - wrong focus..............
Legislators Make Child-Selling Illegal
Jackson Free Press - Mar 16, 2009
Haley Barbour for his signature is the Uniform Abduction Prevention Act. ... That act gives judges the power to restrict where parties in child custody ...
Related web pages

..... Looks like Utah again ...............
Child-support and protection, living wills statutes among new laws...
$2.95 - Salt Lake Tribune, The - NewsBank - Jan 2, 2008
SB35, the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act, helps judges determine when a child is at risk for abduction to another state or country - and outlines ...
Designed to help kids, 2 laws take effect - Deseret News - NewsBank ($2.95)
All 2 related - Related web pages

..... DC again ...............
DC AGENDA
Pay-Per-View - Washington Post - ProQuest Archiver - May 22, 2008
“Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act of 2008,” Bill 17-0626. Workforce development and government operations, 10 a.m. Agenda: 10 a.m., ...
Related web pages

..... Utah again ...............
Utah Acts - Chapter 3 of 2008 (PART A)
Pay-Per-View - Utah Acts - Loislaw - Feb 7, 2008
... Chapter 14: Uniform Interstate Family Support Act; Chapter 15: Utah Uniform Parentage Act; and Chapter 16: Utah Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act; ...
Related web pages

WHERE ARE THE ARTICLES ON THE STATES GETTING READY TO PASS THIS ATTROCITY !!!

Here is what Representative Bowler said about this law when it was reviewed by Louisiana

QUOTE ==========================================
My reluctance with the bill, and it is with all due respect to this group of people, who got together and decided this was a good idea is that it does something, it departs from what I think is a real important concept in America and that is you are innocent until proven guilty, and this actually causes you to be penalized by a court for something they think you might do.

I think that is a real departure in thinking in America to do that. I would hope that we would send this back to that group of Uniform lawmakers that come up with these models, say lets rethink this and I would hope that we don’t pass it.

Its not that I don’t think the problem is serious enough to... In Louisiana we have in our statutes, which I think operates as a huge deterrent, is under our simple kidnapping law, we say that, “the intentional taking, enticing, or decoying and removing from the state by any parent his or her child from whom custody has been... blah, blah blah ... it creates within ... this bill is trying to address, we create in the definition of simple kidnapping and actually threaten somebody with a fine of $5,000, imprisonment for five years or both.

I think that provides a real discouragement from any person in Louisiana doing what this bill seeks to prevent. Do we know how often this happens in Louisiana that we need to go to these extraordinary measure?”

And here is the testimony from the Family Law attorney from the same hearing

QUOTE ==================================
Excerpt from Harold Murry Family Law Attorney, Alexandria
Murry:

Hello, My name is Harold Murry, I am a family law attorney in Alexandria, I am also on the Supreme Courts domestic violence along with Anne Styre, who is a friend of mine, who I believe is speaking in favor of the bill. My problem with this bill, is I think it started out as a really good idea, if you go look at the web site, you see that it started out as the Uniform International Child Abduction prevention act.

Because that is a huge problem, I have had cases where the father of the kid for instance is an exchange student from Jordan or he is a merchant from Pakistan and the people split and he is not going to get custody, he takes the kids to that country, and all we can do is write a couple of letters to the consulate, the mom never sees them again, there is no way to get them back. and that is why there is so much in this about the Hague treaty on child abduction, whether or not somebody is from one of these countries where you can take kids and never get them back.

At some point, I think in August 2004, somebody appended some additional language to this, to make this solve all problems, and they took the International, the word international out and they added this thing that if you are from another state or have strong cultural ties to another state, that you are suspect, just like somebody who is from another country and really has the ability to do this sort of thing.

I tell my clients, there are always these threats that well, I am going to take the kid, no I am going to take the kid and you’ll be darned if you see him again. I say, let him take the kid to Mississippi, we will have the kid back in two weeks and the judge will put him in jail. I’d love it. Don’t worry about it.

We have all the laws we need. We have the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act; We have the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act - which is the federal statute to prevent children from being snatched from State to State.

They talk about strong cultural ties to another State should make you suspect.

Well, I can’t imagine them saying that somebody in Nebraska has cultural ties to Kansas that are suspect, they don’t even have culture. I mean, its all the same, they are from the mid-west. (audience laughter) I mean, I think it is going to be used against Cajuns or something, I don’t know.

If you live in Houston and you have LSU season tickets you are suspect.

This should be, we need to send a message back to the committee to fix this thing back the way it was, to strike out the provisions that are just pasted in there where it says things like from another country or state, that that should be taken out and it should be an International act.

We need this protection, but this is going to be abused, I mean, lawyers love ex-parte custody orders. When I started practicing in ‘85 that was part of your stock in trade, if you could get your party ex-parte custody before the hearing came up a month later, your phone did not ring, the other attorney’s phone would ring. We went to a lot of trouble, you guys passed Code of Civil Procedure Article 3945 a few years ago making it extremely difficult to come in and get temporary custody, you had to show immediate irreparable harm.

And this has these factors like um, has previously abducted or attempted to abduct that could be taking the kid on a day when it wasn’t your day. There is all sorts of things,

Ms. Bowler is absolutely right, there is no number, what if you just meet two of them, I mean you don’t have to meet them all, they terminate a lease, all of the things that happen when you are going through a divorce are present here.

I think it had the potential to be a very great act, but it is now extremely flawed by adding the business about the state, being from another state will trigger these incredible sanctions against you.

I don’t know if it is appropriate to amend a Uniform Act its been done before because I remember the UCCJA when it was first passed, there were a couple of states with asterisk’s by their name because they had taken some provisions out of it. {Rep Walker sits down} I think probably the best is to just not pass it, but if you do pass it you can.

My synposis.

You are happily married with kids. Your lady asks you to make travel plans to go to Disney World. You do.

That night, you have a minor disagreement and she goes to sleep at her mothers house.

The next morning, at three am, the police kick your door in, point machine guns at you and take your kids.

Apparently your wife filed for a divorce that night and alleged that you were a flight risk under this law because you had made travel plans to another state.

You go to court.

The court rules in her favor. You had made travel plans to another state. You are therefore a risk for committing the felony of ‘child abduction’

You also meet a number of the other risk factors for being a ‘child abductor’

You have recently picked up your child’s medical records. Strike two.

You have also recently picked up your child’s school records. Strike three.

You also have ‘strong family connections’ to another state because you have a sister who lives in Texas. Strike four.

In an abundance of caution, the judge implements the terms of the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act against you.

You can not see your children unless you post a $50,000 bond.

You can not see your children except at a supervised place that you have to pay for.

You can not make travel plans to another state unless and until you first register this court order with the other state.

This is an extreme example, but divorce lawyers are known for pushing the law to its maximum extent.

In other words, you are being treated for a felony without having ever committed one.

How do I post a link to a document.

New Jersey Law commission recently considered this law.

After we expressed our concerns to them, they recommended that this legislation not be enacted by their legislature.

Here is their final report.

www.lawrev.state.nj.us/ucapa/ucapaFR122208.doc

WHEN I CAN GET PEOPLE TO ACTUALLY READ THIS BILL AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IT AUTHORIZES - IT DOESN’T PASS.

THE PROBLEM IS. THE LEGISLATORS ARE NOT READING IT.

THIS BILL PASSED IN SEVEN STATES BEFORE IT GENERATED ANY OPPOSITION. IT WAS PASSED UNANIMOUSLY WITH MINIMAL REVIEW.

LOUISIANA WAS THE FIRST STATE THAT HAD ANY OPPOSITION - ME.

IT HAD ALREADY SAILED THROUGH OUR SENATE COMMITTEE AND FULL SENATE.

WE GOT IT MODIFIED IN THE HOUSE.

AFTER THAT, I THINK I GOT IT STOPPED IN TEXAS - IT DISAPPEARED FROM THEIR SENATE CONSENT CALENDAR THAT YEAR AFTER HAVING ALREADY SAILED THROUGH THE HOUSE COMMITTEE, THE FULL HOUSE AND THE SENATE COMMITTEE.

IT ALSO DID NOT MAKE ANY PROGRESS IN MICHIGAN THAT YEAR AFTER I NOTIFIED SOME GROUPS UP THERE.

AND THE NEW JERSEY LAW COMMISSION WENT FROM RECOMMENDING IT IN THEIR DRAFTS TO NOT RECOMMENDING IT IN THEIR FINAL REPORT.

THE PROBLEM IS THEY ARE NOW EMPLOYING STEALTH TACTICS.

I AM JUST ONE PERSON, AND THIS BILL HAS STILL NOT GENERATED ANY MAJOR GROUP AGAINST IT. NOR HAS IT GENERATED ANY PRESS AGAINST IT.

SO I AM NOT ABLE TO GET THE WORD OUT TO LEGISLATORS UNTIL IT IS TOO LATE (MISSISSIPPI). THE GOVERNOR SIGNED THE BILL THE SAME DAY I SENT OUT THE ALERTS.

New Hampshire is set to pass this bill also.

Here is how the snow job works. This is what they say about the bill.

No big whoop. No big change.

Other states have passed these laws.

We are just making our laws ‘uniform’

It gives the courts ‘clear guidelines’ for child abductions.

Big long bill.

No opposition to bill.

No press, minimal press.

http://www.wirenh.com/News/News_-_general/protections_200905143564.html

protections Written by Hilary Niles
Thursday, 14 May 2009

... uniform child protection laws

There are not many child abduction cases in New Hampshire, according to Rep. Robert Foose (D-New London), “but there are more than just a couple going on at a time,” he says. House Bills 694 and 695, he believes, will reduce confusion and increase protection in the state laws that dictate how to handle—and prevent—abduction cases.

House Bills 694 and 695 represent “an important improvement,” Foose says, “not a radical change.” Both bills, as their names suggest, stem from a move toward “uniformity” with the laws of other states.

HB 695, adopting the uniform child custody jurisdiction and prevention act, would repeal a similar law in favor of this updated one. It eliminates disputes over jurisdiction in the federal parental kidnapping law and contains new enforcement language, according to Rep. Edward Moran (R-Nashua). Moran wrote in favor of both bills on behalf of the House Children & Family Law Committee, which unanimously recommended them for passage. The full House chamber followed suit, and the bills go before the Senate Judiciary Committee for public hearing on Tuesday, May 19.

HB 694, adopting the uniform child abduction prevention act, is written to complement its partner. It gives courts “clear guidelines for child abduction risk factors,” Moran writes, and “also provides effective preventive measures and gives protections to victims of domestic violence through confidentiality provisions.”

Specifically, these bills were born within the Uniform Law Commission, a 117-year-old nonpartisan national conference of lawyers from all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. From New Hampshire, Attorney General Kelly Ayotte and attorneys Michael Dunn and Michael Ruedig serve as commissioners.

“They meet on a regular basis and look at laws across the country,” explains Foose, who says he is a big advocate of the commission. “Where they think it’s appropriate to suggest uniformity (from state to state), they spend a lot of time working with individual legislators looking at particular laws and making recommendations,” he says.

The work of the commission spans a wide range of subjects, from children of assisted conception to international wills to employment termination. Foose says that when it comes to matters of child abduction that cross state lines, uniform laws help both the parents and attorneys avoid having to relearn a new set of laws for every state that comes into play.

Front Door Politics is a weekly legislative update for everyone affected by New Hampshire laws. An online learning center, additional reporting and a blog subscription are available at www.frontdoorpolitics.com.

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.