Some of us don’t follow this type of legislation. Could one of you “in the know” please provide a short synopsis of what is wrong with this?
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.
... 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.
It may not be too late in New Hampshire.
Perhaps it is still with the Senate Judiciary
Title: adopting the uniform child abduction prevention act.
G-Status: SENATE
House Status: PASSED / ADOPTED WITH AMENDMENT
Senate Status: REPORT FILED
Next/Last Comm: SENATE JUDICIARY
Next/Last Hearing: 05/19/2009 at 02:00 PM SH 103