Because it uses a number of rationales to assume something “may” happen. So it takes action against someone who has not committed a crime. Like any law based on “good intentions” rather than facts, it is wide open for abuse. Excerpts-
The act also includes a wide range of activities that may indicate a planned abduction including abandoning employment, liquidating assets, obtaining travel documents or travel tickets, or requesting the childs school or medical records.
The act lists a number of specific measures that a court may order. These include imposing travel restrictions, prohibiting the individual from removing the child from the State or other set geographic area,
If abduction appears imminent, a court may issue a warrant to take physical custody of the child, direct law enforcement officers to take steps to locate and return the child, or exercise other appropriate powers under existing state laws. A warrant to take physical custody is enforceable in the enacting state even if issued by different state. The court may authorize law enforcement officers to enter private property, or even to make a forcible entry at any hour, if the circumstances so warrant.
Take note in the last sentence, they are talking about forcible entry to take the child - even if nothing has happened yet, but only on the presumption that a possible abduction is “imminent”.
I know that many kids are abducted by non-custodial parents, but this is certainly a slippery slope and not the answer to the problem.
And the law can be applied against CUSTODIAL parents...