Replies

Since you apparently feel strongly about this issue, would you mind posting some bullet points expressing this problem and prospective resolutions? I read the article, and will read the Utah statute, but I’m not convinced I know what I’m looking for. Thanks.

See this thread about Ohio legislation. While this is not the same as what was posted in this thread, it is similar in that it will infringe upon civil liberties.

House Bill 371 (Parental rights under attack in Ohio)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2433326/posts

HB 371: Children in Need of Protective Services (CHIPS)

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText128/128_HB_371_I_Y.pdf

Introduced: November 17, 2009
Pending: Ohio House Civil and Commercial Law Committee

HB 371 would repeal the terms “abused”, “neglected”, and “dependent” children in major sections of Ohio’s civil code and create a new category – “a child in need of protective services” This shift in core terms in state law will affect every Ohio family with minor children, because it will clearly broaden the net cast by child protective service agencies to justify an increase in the state’s intervention into the home.

Bullet points.

‘child abduction’ is a felony.

This act allows people to be accused of this felony and punished for it in civil court without having done anything.

To be accused, you only need to meet one item on their list of factors. List and link at bottom of post.

Some of those factors are ‘good’, so lets ignore those.
1a) has previously abducted the child

Look at the ‘bad’ factors.

In that list of factors are many ordinary acts. Such as:
(i) abandoning employment;
(ii) selling a primary residence;
(iii) terminating a lease;
(iv) closing bank or
(closing) other financial management accounts,
liquidating assets,
hiding or destroying financial documents, or
conducting any unusual financial activities;

Since when is ‘selling a house’ an indication that someone is fixing to flee with their child?

Sure, it could be.

But it can also mean you are moving your child from one part of town to another.

78B-16-107. Factors to determine risk of abduction.
(1) In determining whether there is a credible risk of abduction of a child, the court shall consider any evidence that the petitioner or respondent:
(a) has previously abducted or attempted to abduct the child;
(b) has threatened to abduct the child;
(c) has recently engaged in activities that may indicate a planned abduction, including:
(i) abandoning employment;
(ii) selling a primary residence;
(iii) terminating a lease;
(iv) closing bank or other financial management accounts, liquidating assets, hiding or destroying financial documents, or conducting any unusual financial activities;
(v) applying for a passport or visa or obtaining travel documents for the respondent, a family member, or the child; or
(vi) seeking to obtain the child’s birth certificate or school or medical records;
(d) has engaged in domestic violence, stalking, or child abuse or neglect;
(e) has refused to follow a child custody determination;
(f) lacks strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural ties to the state or the United States;
(g) has strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural ties to another state or country;
(h) is likely to take the child to a country that:
(i) 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;
(ii) is a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction but:
(A) the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is not in force between the United States and that country;
(B) is noncompliant according to the most recent compliance report issued by the United States Department of State; or
(C) lacks legal mechanisms for immediately and effectively enforcing a return order under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction;
(iii) poses a risk that the child’s physical or emotional health or safety would be endangered in the country because of specific circumstances relating to the child or because of human rights violations committed against children;
(iv) has laws or practices that would:
(A) enable the respondent, without due cause, to prevent the petitioner from contacting the child;
(B) restrict the petitioner from freely traveling to or exiting from the country because of the petitioner’s gender, nationality, marital status, or religion; or
(C) restrict 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;
(v) is included by the United States Department of State on a current list of state sponsors of terrorism;
(vi) does not have an official United States diplomatic presence in the country; or
(vii) is engaged in active military action or war, including a civil war, to which the child

may be exposed;
(i) is undergoing a change in immigration or citizenship status that would adversely affect the respondent’s ability to remain in the United States legally;
(j) has had an application for United States citizenship denied;
(k) has forged or presented misleading or false evidence on government forms or supporting documents to obtain or attempt to obtain a passport, a visa, travel documents, a Social Security card, a driver license, or other government-issued identification card or has made a misrepresentation to the United States government;
(l) has used multiple names to attempt to mislead or defraud; or
(m) has engaged in any other conduct the court considers relevant to the risk of abduction.
(2) In the hearing on a petition under this chapter, the court shall consider any 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 any other evidence that may be relevant to whether the respondent may be permitted to remove or retain the child.

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE78B/htm/78B16_010700.htm

Bullet point: They cover ordinary parental duties. These factors should never be listed.

(vi) seeking to obtain the child’s birth certificate or school or medical records;

A parent has a right and a duty to have their child’s birth certificate.

A parent has a right and a duty to obtain their child’s school records.

A parent has a right and a duty to obtain their child’s medical records.

Consider an ordinary married couple.

One parent decides to get a divorce; the other does not know it yet.

The plotting parent says; ‘honey, I mislaid the birth certificate, we need it to enroll junior in school this year, would you be a dear and got pick us up a new one’

The innocent parent does so.

The plotting parent then uses this act to file a petition claiming that they are plotting to ‘abduct’ the child to another state.

Okay, I hope I can get you to feel strongly about it also.

Here is a link to the final report of the New Jersey Law Commission. They reviewed this law for their state and declined to recommend it to their legislature.

http://www.lawrev.state.nj.us/ucapa/ucapaFR122208.pdf

Quote “”Section 8 includes measures to prevent abduction that some view as taking away fundamental liberties (such as the right to travel) and eliminating the presumption of innocence that even alleged criminal offenders now enjoy.””

Bullet point: These factors are vague. They cover everybody in this country. Are we now all ‘pre abductors’?

(f) lacks strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural ties to the state or the United States;
(g) has strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural ties to another state or country;

Do you want people to be treated and labeled as if they are ‘abductors’ if they have a sister that lives in another state?

own property in another state?

are of german, english, or spanish heritage and because they have links to these communities in other states?

are ‘emotionally attached’ to Seattle somehow?

if you don’t have any family living in your present State, are you at risk?

if you are poor and don’t have any money are you at risk?

if you are not ‘culturally connected’ somehow to your current state, are you at risk?

if you are not ‘emotionally connected’ to your current state, are you at risk?