Posted on 10/13/2013 7:11:31 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
What's this? Lansing —
Votes by local legislators in the Michigan House and Senate last week.
Senate Bill 351, to clarify fertilizer use restrictions: Passed 27 to 10 in the Senate. Would clarify that use of fertilizers and other soil conditioners which follows “generally accepted” agricultural and management practices at the time of use does not constitute a “release” of hazardous substances in violation of state regulations.
Sen. Arlan Meekhof, R-Olive township: Yes
Sen. Tonya Schuitmaker, R-Lawton: Yes
Sen. Rick Jones, R-Grand Ledge: Yes
Senate Bill 354, to revise dog and cat euthanasia regulations: Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate. Would require an animal control or protection shelter to use only injections of a commercially prepared solution for euthanizing a dog or cat. This would prohibit using gas.
Meekhof, Schuitmaker, Jones: Yes
Senate Bill 325, to stablish a “uniform child abduction prevention act”: Passed 37 to 0 in the Senate. Would create a “uniform child abduction prevention act” that would allow a court to order abduction prevention measures in a child-custody proceeding if evidence established a credible risk of the child being taken or retained in violation of custody or visitation rights. A court could also take physical custody of a child to prevent imminent abduction.
Meekhof, Schuitmaker, Jones: Yes
Read more: http://www.hollandsentinel.com/mobile_opinion/x2139013569/MICHIGAN-ROLL-CALL-How-local-legislators-voted-in-Lansing#ixzz2heqDOC00
(Excerpt) Read more at hollandsentinel.com ...
Now, simply traveling to another nearby state (actually just purchasing the tickets to travel) can get you accused of planning a crime - the crime of 'child abduction (of your own children).
Simply meeting any ONE of the many factors on the list is enough for you to be punished as a pre-criminal, in civil court, without any of your usual rights to an attorney, etc. etc. etc.
Welcome to the new America !!!
Where every legislator is an illiterate dweeb.
Note: It just takes one Michiganian to speak up. This same legislation has been sidelined/tabled/deep sixed in approximately 30 states now - just by one person speaking up.
If nobody speaks up, then the law passes by unanimous vote of all the dweebish legislators.
But then, perhaps Michiganians don't deserve to live in a free state?
Do you?
Anybody awake up there?
Want to be able to pick up your child's school records without fear of having your door kicked in at 2am by the local police to take your children into custody?
How about your child's medical records? Are they important to you?
How about your child's birth certificate?
How about your right to have family members living in another state without being accused of this precrime? No? (the 'strong family connections to another state clause)
How about your right to not have family members living in your current state? No? (the 'lack of strong family members living in Michigan clause)
etc. etc. etc.
Under this law, every parent is a potential abductor meeting 3-5 of these insane factors.
www.ucapa.us
Snooze well Michigan...
While your Legislators sell your rights down the toilet.
Oh looky, here is the link to the legislation
Senate Bill 0325 (2013) rss
[A link to this page which can be pasted into newsletters or emails] friendly link
[The contents of this page without menus and other items which you may not want to print] printer friendly
Sponsors
Rick Jones - (primary)Steven Bieda, John Proos
Categories Children, abduction; Children, protection; Civil procedure, injunctions; Civil procedure, remedies; Family law, child custody; Family law, parenting time; Law, uniform or model acts
Children; abduction; uniform child abduction prevention act; create. Creates new act.
Bill Document Formatting Information (gray icons indicate that the action did not occur or that the document is not available)
Documents
Load the Text Version Load the PDF Version Senate Introduced Bill
Introduced bills appear as they were introduced and reflect no subsequent amendments or changes.
Load the Text Version Load the PDF Version As Passed by the Senate
As Passed by the Senate is the bill, as introduced, that includes any adopted Senate amendments.
No Text Version Available No PDF Version Available As Passed by the House
As Passed by the House is the bill, as received from the Senate, that includes any adopted House amendments.
No Text Version Available No PDF Version Available Senate Enrolled Bill
Enrolled bill is the version passed in identical form by both houses of the Legislature.
Senate Fiscal Analysis
Load the Text Version Load the PDF Version COMMITTEE SUMMARY (Date Completed: 6-10-13)
This document analyzes: SB0325
Load the Text Version Load the PDF Version FLOOR SUMMARY (Date Completed: 6-13-13)
This document analyzes: SB0325
History(House actions in lowercase, Senate actions in UPPERCASE)
Date Journal Action
4/18/2013 SJ 34 Pg. 431 INTRODUCED BY SENATOR RICK JONES
4/18/2013 SJ 34 Pg. 431 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE ON JUDICIARY
6/12/2013 SJ 56 Pg. 1156 REPORTED FAVORABLY WITHOUT AMENDMENT
6/12/2013 SJ 56 Pg. 1156 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED IMMEDIATE EFFECT
6/12/2013 SJ 56 Pg. 1156 REFERRED TO COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
9/10/2013 SJ 67 Pg. 1343 REPORTED BY COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE FAVORABLY WITHOUT AMENDMENT(S)
9/10/2013 SJ 67 Pg. 1343 PLACED ON ORDER OF THIRD READING
9/11/2013 SJ 68 Pg. 1350 PASSED ROLL CALL # 342 YEAS 37 NAYS 0 EXCUSED 1 NOT VOTING 0
9/11/2013 SJ 68 Pg. 1350 VOTE RECONSIDERED
9/11/2013 SJ 68 Pg. 1350 PASSED ROLL CALL # 343 YEAS 37 NAYS 0 EXCUSED 1 NOT VOTING 0
9/11/2013 HJ 72 Pg. 1395 received on 09/11/2013
9/12/2013 HJ 73 Pg. 1421 read a first time
9/12/2013 HJ 73 Pg. 1421 referred to Committee on Criminal Justice
And who is selling them out? Rick Jones
http://www.senatorrickjones.com/meet-senator-jones/
State Senator
RICK JONES
Serving Michigan’s 24th State Senate District
Allegan, Barry, and Eaton Counties
Meet Senator Jones
Michigan State Senator Rick Jones
State Senator Rick Jones was elected to the Michigan Senate in November 2010 to represent the residents of the 24th District.
EDUCATION
Jones received a Bachelor’s Degree from Michigan State University and Executive Leadership Training from Central Michigan University. He received further training from the F.B.I. (Executive Leadership Training), the U.S. Department of Treasury (Crisis Management Training), and the U.S. Department of Justice (Correctional Leadership Training).
PROFESSIONAL
Rick Jones was elected by his new Senate colleagues as Majority Caucus Chair. He will serve as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, vice-chair of both the Senate’s Regulatory Reform and Redistricting committees, and as a member of the Senate Energy & Technology Committee and the Senate Health Policy Committee.
Jones began service in the Legislature after being elected in 2004 to the Michigan House of Representatives in 2004 representing residents of Eaton County in the 71st District. He was reelected in 2006 and 2008. While in the House, Jones served on the House’s Judiciary and Regulatory Reform committees and as minority vice-chair of the House Military and Veterans Affairs and Homeland Security Committee.
Prior to his election to the House, Jones worked 33 years in law enforcement, serving more than 30 years with the Eaton County Sheriff Department. He started as a deputy and worked his way up through the ranks as sergeant, lieutenant, and captain before being elected sheriff in 2000.
COMMUNITY SERVICE AND AFFILIATIONS
Jones sits on the Eaton Community Hospice Board, the Durand Union Station Railroad Board and the Michigan Special Olympics Board. He delivered Meals-On-Wheels to shut-ins for 10 years, and volunteers with Area 8 Special Olympics. He is a 20-gallon donor with the Red Cross and a fundraising-events volunteer for Woldumar Nature Center. Jones was a construction volunteer for the Imagination Station and Playground of Dreams, community playgrounds in Potterville and Eaton Rapids.
He is a member of Grand Ledge Rotary, American Legion S.A.L Post 42, and Eaton County Farm Bureau. Jones has also been an active participant in charity events: Crop Walk, Relay for Life, and Walk for Warmth.
SPECIAL AWARDS
Rick Jones has been awarded the Service to Children Award from the Eaton County Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention Council, the “Very Involved Person” Award from the Greater Lansing 100 Club for volunteer work, as well as appreciation awards from the Dimondale Lions, the Olivet Rotary, and the American Legion. He received the Charlotte Community Excellence Award for volunteer work from the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce and was awarded Eaton County Sheriff’s Award for Bravery.
and from the other side of the ‘bipartisan’ aisle
Senator Steve Bieda
Macomb County: Center Line, Eastpointe, Fraser, Lake Township, St Clair Shores, Warren
Senate Democratic Caucus Home
Steve Bieda is a lifelong resident of Macomb County. Raised in Warren, he attended Cousino High School, received his bachelor’s degree and Masters of Public Administration from Wayne State University, and later earned a Juris Doctor from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law as well as a Masters of Tax Law from Wayne State University Law School.
Elected State Representative for Michigan’s 25th District in 2002, Steve got right to work for the people of Macomb County and Michigan. He sponsored over thirty Public Acts on subjects ranging from the state’s tax structure, consumer protection, economic development and judicial reform. He authored the Legal Defense Fund Reporting act, the only major piece of ethics reform to reach the Governor’s desk in a decade, and fought for it over several legislative sessions until it became law. Steve supported comprehensive revisions to Michigan’s bottle deposit law to stop the flow of fraudulent containers from out of state, saving Michigan millions of dollars. Not one to shrink from a challenge, Steve was a driving force behind the replacement for the out of date Single Business Tax, replacing it with legislation that provided tax credits and incentives for businesses to grow and invest in Michigan while maintaining the flow of needed revenue. His expertise in financial management resulted in his appointment to the financial management review teams for the cities of Ecorse and River Rouge. Working closely with members of the legislative and executive branch, including the State Treasurer and the Governor, Steve’s record reflects the consistent pursuit of cleaner government, a cleaner environment and a stronger economy for the state of Michigan.
Prior to his service in the State Legislature, Steve Bieda worked as Director of Labor Relations in the City of Warren and Senior Policy Analyst for Michigan’s House of Representatives. Steve also enjoys the distinction of being the only living Michiganian to design a coin for the U.S. Mint, the reverse of the United States Olympic Half Dollar issued in 1992. Steve was Chairman for the Thomas Edison Silver Dollar Project, commemorating the 125th anniversary of the invention of the light bulb. In addition, Steve had the honor of acting as fundraiser and grant-writer for the Michigan Labor Legacy Project. This resulted in the largest monument commemorating the labor movement in the United States: “Transcending”, which can be seen on the Detroit riverfront in Hart Plaza.
- See more at: http://bieda.senatedems.com/biography#sthash.vOJkEcFh.dpuf
and the third sponsor of this UnConstitutional, UnAmerican legislation is... SHAME ON HIM.
Senator John Proos
DISTRICT AND FAMILY
State Senator John Proos was elected to the Michigan Senate in November 2010 to represent the 21st district of Berrien, Cass and most of Van Buren Counties. He served as State Representative of the 79th district from 2005 through 2010. Sen. Proos resides in St. Joseph with his wife Kristy and three children, Elena, Jack and Nora.
EDUCATION
Sen. Proos is a 1988 graduate of Lake Michigan Catholic High School. He holds a bachelor of Political Science from Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI and a Master’s in Higher Education Administration from Michigan State University.
PROFESSIONAL
Proos has previously worked on the staff of Congressman Fred Upton serving in several different capacities, including deputy chief of staff and district director. Proos also worked as vice president of Heritage Homes Inc. of Michigan in Berrien County.
PAST PUBLIC AFFILIATIONS
Proos has served as Berrien County Republican Party Chairman and has been a member of the Berrien County Republicans. Proos was also a member of the Berrien County Election Staff for the Bush/Cheney campaign in 2000.
COMMUNITY SERVICE AND AFFILIATIONS
In addition to family and political life Proos is active in many Southwest Michigan groups including the Rotary Club of St. Joseph/Benton Harbor and the United Way of Southwest Michigan. Proos is a board member of the Berrien Community Foundation and member of St. Joseph the Provider Knights of Columbus Chapter of St. Joseph Catholic Parish and the Coloma American Legion Post 362. He was also a member of the Lakeland Regional Health System Community Benefits Committee and HOSTS mentor for Benton Harbor Area Schools.
COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS
Proos is serving on the Senate Appropriations Committee for the 2011-2014 Senate term. He is chair of the Corrections and Judiciary subcommittees; vice chair of the Department of Energy, Labor and Economic Growth subcommittee; and a member of the Human Services subcommittee.
Other standing committee positions Proos holds include vice chair of the Senate Energy & Technology Committee, a member of the Senate Finance Committee.
AWARDS:
2005 Wine Michigan Legislator of the Year
2006 Michigan State Medical Society Legislator of the Year
2006 Literacy Advocate Award
2006 Michigan Agri-Business Association Agricultural Advocate Award
2007 Healthy Legislator Award, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
2008 Habitat for Humanity Legislative Build Co-Chair
2008 Healthy Legislator Award, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
2009 Health Legislator Award, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
2010 Small Business Association of Michigan Legislator of the Year
2010 Healthy Children’s Award
2010 Habitat for Humanity Public Servant of the Year
2010 Michigan Food and Farming Systems Legislator of the Year
2010 Healthy Legislator Award, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
2011 YMCA Legislative Champion Award
2011 Healthy Legislator Award, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
2012 Michigan Pork Producers Association Recognition Award
2012 Healthy Legislator Award, Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan
2013 Michigan Association of Chiefs of Police Legislator of the Year Award
http://www.misenategop.com/senators/about.asp?District=21
Must be such a wonderful proposed law. Why all the legislators voted for it. Surely the read it... NOT !
Text of the bill...
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2013-2014/billintroduced/Senate/htm/2013-SIB-0325.htm
SENATE BILL No. 325
April 18, 2013, Introduced by Senators JONES, BIEDA and PROOS and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
A bill to adopt the uniform child abduction prevention act; to
allow courts in this state to impose measures to prevent the
abduction of children; to establish standards for determining
whether a child is subject to a significant risk of abduction; and
to provide remedies.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN ENACT:
Sec. 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the
“uniform child abduction prevention act”.
Sec. 2. As used in this act:
(a) “Abduction” means the wrongful removal or wrongful
retention of a child.
(b) “Child” means an unemancipated individual who is less than
18 years of age.
(c) “Child-custody determination” means a judgment, decree, or
other order of a court providing for the legal custody, physical
custody, or visitation with respect to a child. Child custody
determination includes a permanent, temporary, initial, or
modification order.
(d) “Child-custody proceeding” means a proceeding in which
legal custody, physical custody, or visitation with respect to a
child is at issue. Child-custody proceeding includes a proceeding
for divorce, dissolution of marriage, separation, neglect, abuse,
dependency, guardianship, paternity, termination of parental
rights, or protection from domestic violence.
(e) “Court” means an entity authorized under the law of a
state to establish, enforce, or modify a child-custody
determination.
(f) “Domestic violence” means that term as defined in section
1 of 1978 PA 389, MCL 400.1501.
(g) “Enhanced driver license” and “enhanced official state
personal identification card” mean those terms as defined in
section 2 of the enhanced driver license and enhanced official
state personal identification card act, 2008 PA 23, MCL 28.302.
(h) “Home state” means that term as defined in section 102 of
the uniform child-custody jurisdiction and enforcement act, 2001 PA
195, MCL 722.1102.
(i) “Petition” includes a motion or its equivalent.
(j) “Protection order” means either of the following:
(i) An order entered under section 2950 or 2950a of the revised
judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.2950 and 600.2950a,
under section 6b of chapter V or section 3(2)(o) of chapter XI of
the code of criminal procedure, 1927 PA 175, MCL 765.6b and 771.3,
under section 13a of chapter XIIA of the probate code of 1939, 1939
PA 288, MCL 712a.13a, or under section 36(16) of the corrections
code of 1953, 1953 PA 232, MCL 791.236.
(ii) A foreign protection order as defined in section 2950h of
the revised judicature act of 1961, 1961 PA 236, MCL 600.2950h.
(k) “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.
(l) “State” means a state of the United States, the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any
territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the
United States. State includes a federally recognized Indian tribe
or nation.
(m) “Travel document” means records relating to a travel
itinerary, including travel tickets, passes, reservations for
transportation, or accommodations. Travel document does not include
a passport or visa.
(n) “Visitation” includes parenting time as that term is used
in the support and parenting time enforcement act, 1982 PA 295, MCL
552.601 to 552.650.
(o) “Wrongful removal” means the taking of a child that
breaches rights of custody or visitation given or recognized under
the law of this state. Wrongful removal does not include actions
taken to provide for the safety of a party or the child.
(p) “Wrongful retention” means the keeping or concealing of a
child that breaches rights of custody or visitation given or
recognized under the law of this state. Wrongful retention does not
include actions taken to provide for the safety of a party or the
child.
Sec. 3. Sections 110 to 112 of the uniform child-custody
jurisdiction and enforcement act, 2001 PA 195, MCL 722.1110 to
722.1112, apply to cooperation and communications among courts in
proceedings under this act.
Sec. 4. (1) A court on its own motion may order abduction
prevention measures in a child-custody proceeding if the court
finds that the evidence establishes a credible risk of abduction of
the child.
(2) A party to a child-custody determination or another
individual or entity having a right under the law of this state or
any other state to seek a child-custody determination for the child
may file a petition seeking abduction prevention measures to
protect the child under this act.
(3) A prosecutor or the attorney general may seek a warrant to
take physical custody of a child under section 9 or other
appropriate prevention measures.
Sec. 5. (1) A petition under this act may be filed only in a
court that has jurisdiction to make a child-custody determination
with respect to the child at issue under the uniform child-custody
jurisdiction and enforcement act, 2001 PA 195, MCL 722.1101 to
722.1406.
(2) A court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction
under section 204 of the uniform child-custody jurisdiction and
enforcement act, 2001 PA 195, MCL 722.1204, if the court finds a
credible risk of abduction.
Sec. 6. A petition under this act shall be verified and
include a copy of any existing child-custody determination, if
available. The petition shall specify the risk factors for
abduction, including the relevant factors described in section 7.
Subject to section 209(5) of the uniform child-custody jurisdiction
and enforcement act, 2001 PA 195, MCL 722.1209, if reasonably
ascertainable, the petition must contain all of the following:
(a) The name, date of birth, and gender of the child.
(b) The customary address and current physical location of the
child.
(c) The identity, customary address, and current physical
location of the respondent.
(d) 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.
(e) 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.
(f) Information regarding any protection order previously
entered involving either party or the child.
(g) Any other information required to be submitted to the
court for a child-custody determination under section 209 of the
uniform child-custody jurisdiction and enforcement act, 2001 PA
195, MCL 722.1209.
Sec. 7. (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 has done any of the following or that
any of the following apply to the petitioner or respondent:
(a) Previously abducted or attempted to abduct the child.
(b) Threatened to abduct the child.
(c) Except for planning activities related to providing for
the safety of a party or the child while avoiding or attempting to
avoid domestic violence, recently engaged in activities that may
indicate a planned abduction, including any of the following:
(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.
(vi) Applying for or obtaining an enhanced driver license or
enhanced official state personal identification card for the
respondent, a family member, or the child.
(vii) Seeking to obtain the child’s birth certificate or school
or medical records.
(d) Engaged in domestic violence, stalking, or child abuse or
neglect.
(e) Refused to follow a child-custody determination.
(f) Lacks strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural
ties to this 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 to which any of
the following apply:
(i) The country 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) The country is a party to the Hague convention on the
civil aspects of international child abduction but 1 or more of the
following apply:
(A) The Hague convention on the civil aspects of international
child abduction is not in force between the United States and the
country.
(B) The country is noncompliant according to the most recent
compliance report issued by the United States department of state.
(C) The country lacks legal mechanisms for immediately and
effectively enforcing a return order under the Hague convention on
the civil aspects of international child abduction.
(iii) The country 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) The country has laws or practices that would do 1 or more
of the following:
(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.
(C) Restrict the child’s ability legally to leave the country
after the child reaches the age of majority because of the child’s
gender, nationality, or religion.
(v) The country is included by the United States department of
state on a current list of state sponsors of terrorism.
(vi) The country does not have an official United States
diplomatic presence in the country.
(vii) The country 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.
(m) Has engaged in any other conduct the court considers
relevant to the risk of abduction.
(2) If the court finds during a hearing on a petition under
this act that the respondent’s conduct was intended to avoid
domestic violence or imminent harm to the child or the respondent,
the court shall not issue an abduction prevention order.
Sec. 8. (1) If a petition is filed under this act, the court
may enter an order. If entered, the order shall include all of the
following:
(a) The basis for the court’s exercise of jurisdiction.
(b) The manner in which notice and opportunity to be heard
were given to the persons entitled to notice of the proceeding.
(c) A detailed description of each party’s custody and
visitation rights and residential arrangements for the child.
(d) A provision stating that a violation of the order may
subject the party in violation to civil and criminal penalties.
(e) Identification of the child’s home state or country of
habitual residence at the time of the issuance of the order.
(2) If, at a hearing on a petition under this act or on the
court’s own motion, the court after reviewing the evidence finds a
credible risk of abduction of the child, the court shall enter an
abduction prevention order. The order shall include the provisions
required by subsection (1) and measures and conditions, including
those in subsections (3) to (5), that are reasonably calculated to
prevent abduction of the child, giving due consideration to the
custody and visitation rights of the parties and the safety of the
parties and the child. 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, or
child abuse or neglect.
(3) An abduction prevention order may include 1 or more of the
following:
(a) An imposition of travel restrictions that require that a
party traveling with the child outside a designated geographical
area provide the other party with all of the following:
(i) The travel itinerary of the child.
(ii) A list of physical addresses and telephone numbers at
which the child can be reached at specified times.
(iii) Copies of all travel documents.
(b) A prohibition of the respondent directly or indirectly
doing any of the following:
(i) Removing the child from this state, the United States, or
another geographic area without permission of the court or the
petitioner’s written consent.
(ii) Removing or retaining the child in violation of a child-
custody determination.
(iii) Removing the child from school or a child care or similar
facility.
(iv) Approaching the child at any location other than a site
designated for supervised visitation.
(c) A requirement that a party register the order in another
state as a prerequisite to allowing the child to travel to that
state.
(d) With regard to the child’s passport, any of the following:
(i) A direction that the petitioner place the child’s name in
the United States department of state’s child passport issuance
alert program.
(ii) A requirement that the respondent surrender to the court
or the petitioner’s attorney any 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.
(iii) A requirement that the respondent surrender to the court
or the petitioner’s attorney his or her enhanced driver license or
enhanced official state personal identification card issued in the
child’s name.
(iv) A prohibition on the respondent applying on behalf of the
child for a new or replacement passport or visa.
(e) As a prerequisite to exercising custody or visitation, a
requirement that the respondent provide 1 or more of the following:
(i) 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) To the court, 1 or both of the following:
(A) Proof that the respondent has provided the information in
subparagraph (i).
(B) 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.
(iii) 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 1 of the parties objects.
(iv) A written waiver under 5 USC 552a, popularly known as the
privacy act, with respect to any document, application, or other
information pertaining to the child authorizing its disclosure to
the court and the petitioner.
(f) On 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.
(4) In an abduction prevention order, the court may impose
conditions on the exercise of custody or visitation that do 1 or
more of the following:
(a) 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.
(b) 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
attorney fees and costs if there is an abduction.
(c) Require the respondent to obtain education on the
potentially harmful effects to the child from abduction.
(5) To prevent imminent abduction of a child, a court may do 1
or more of the following:
(a) Issue a warrant to take physical custody of the child
under section 9 or other law of this state.
(b) 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 other
law of this state.
(c) Grant any other relief allowed under the law of this
state.
(6) The remedies provided in this act are cumulative and do
not affect the availability of other remedies to prevent abduction.
Sec. 9. (1) If a petition under this act alleges 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.
(2) The respondent to a petition under subsection (1) shall 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. If a
hearing on the next judicial day is impossible, the court shall
hold the hearing on the first judicial day possible.
(3) An ex parte warrant under subsection (1) to take physical
custody of a child shall do all of the following:
(a) Recite the facts on which a determination of a credible
risk of imminent wrongful removal of the child is based.
(b) Direct law enforcement officers to take physical custody
of the child immediately.
(c) State the date and time for the hearing on the petition.
(d) Provide for the safe interim placement of the child
pending further order of the court.
(4) If feasible, before issuing a warrant under this section
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.
(5) A petition and warrant under this section shall be served
on the respondent when or immediately after the child is taken into
physical custody.
(6) 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.
(7) If the court finds, after a hearing, that a petitioner
sought an ex parte warrant under subsection (1) for the purpose of
harassment or in bad faith, the court may award the respondent
reasonable attorney fees, costs, and expenses.
(8) This act does not affect the availability of relief
allowed under other law of this state.
Sec. 10. An abduction prevention order remains in effect until
the earliest of the following:
(a) The time stated in the order.
(b) The emancipation of the child.
(c) The child’s attaining 18 years of age.
(d) The time the order is modified, revoked, vacated, or
superseded by a court with jurisdiction under sections 201 to 203
of the uniform child-custody jurisdiction and enforcement act, 2001
PA 195, MCL 722.1201 to 722.1203, or other applicable law of this
state.
Sec. 11. In applying and construing this uniform act, a court
shall consider the need to promote uniformity of the law with
respect to its subject matter among states that enact it.
Sec. 12. This act modifies, limits, and supersedes the federal
electronic signatures in global and national commerce act, 15 USC
7001 to 7031, but does not modify, limit, or supersede 15 USC
7001(c) or authorize electronic delivery of any of the notices
described in 15 USC 7003(b).
Don’t you just love section 4.
LITIGANTS NOT REQUIRED.
The Court is authorized to act on its OWN motion.
So mom or dad don’t even have to ask. The court can just order child protection measures.
SURPRISE, SURPRISE, SURPRISE.
” Sec. 4. (1) A court on its own motion may order abduction prevention measures in a child-custody proceeding if the court finds that the evidence establishes a credible risk of abduction of the child.”
You have over reacted on this big time. There isa requirement of establishing probable cause in court that one of the parents is going to violate a custody agreement. There are plenty of cases where one parent tales a child and flees to another country.
I do not know what your personal circumstances are but I think they are coloring your understanding of what the bill requires
True, that is bad, but Section 4(2) may be just as bad.
That is a very broad definition on who can file for action.
What ‘other individuals or entities’ are they talking about?
Department of Social Services?
Aunts?
Uncles?
Grandparents?
Seems to be a very broad list.
(2) A party to a child-custody determination or another individual or entity having a right under the law of this state or any other state to seek a child-custody determination for the child may file a petition seeking abduction prevention measures to protect the child under this act.
I wonder if ‘Park Rangers’ are included on that list?
Not to worry, your friendly prosecutor and/or attorney general is here to save the day.
To make sure that one of the two parents does not abduct their own child, the prosecutor (or attorney general) will do it for them.
Nothing says a State loves your children like the State obtaining a warrant to ARREST the child.
” (3) A prosecutor or the attorney general may seek a warrant to take physical custody of a child under section 9 or other appropriate prevention measures. “
Declaring everyone to be a criminal in advance and no trial needed, sounds a bit like tyranny to me.
But what do I know...
I mean, it is not like Michigan has judges selling kids for cash. That was way over there in Pennsylvania where the judges were rotten.
And then you are protected by the jurisdiction laws. I mean, it is not like the judge could declare an emergency and take jurisdiction of a case...
OH WAIT, THEY CAN.
” Sec. 5. (1) A petition under this act may be filed only in a court that has jurisdiction to make a child-custody determination with respect to the child at issue under the uniform child-custody jurisdiction and enforcement act, 2001 PA 195, MCL 722.1101 to 722.1406.
(2) A court of this state has temporary emergency jurisdiction under section 204 of the uniform child-custody jurisdiction and enforcement act, 2001 PA 195, MCL 722.1204, if the court finds a credible risk of abduction.”
Thanks Cripple Creek.
There’s no ping list but I keep it updated and I post a link with the Michigan pings.
You are correct.
Some more info here.
http://www.ucapa.us/
List of the states it has been defeated in is here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform_Child_Abduction_Prevention_Act
(2012 still needs to be added. Five more losses for them.)
A little pressure and the bill dies and goes down the rabbit hole (til the next state).
No pressure, and the bill passes into law by unanimous vote.
I suggest you read the bill. What you stated does not exist.
Or you could read the New Jersey Law Commissions final report on this same legislation issued Dec 2008.
They went from recommending the legislation in May to ruling it to be UnConstitutional in December.
http://www.lawrev.state.nj.us/ucapa/ucapaFR122208.pdf
My circumstances?
I am in Louisiana. When it came before our legislature in 2007, we got the legislation modified. OUR version only applies to the original scope of the legislation - international abductions to non-Hague countries. OUR version also requires that all the factors be considered and weighed - not just one factor. OUR version is now only slightly Unconstitutional. {They reneged on a review to fix the unconstitutional parts after it was passed}
In response to your post:
“There is a requirement of establishing probable cause in court that one of the parents is going to violate a custody agreement.”
No, this is incorrect.
1) There are a list of factors establishing a parent as being a risk of abducting their child.
2) Only ONE of the factors on the list must be met.
3) Many of those factors are ordinary acts that good parents are under a duty to perform.
4) Many other acts are normal things that happen during divorces and/or ordinary life.
5) You are under the misapprehension that the applies to abductions to foreign countries. You would be correct in asserting that was the scope that was given to the committee that developed this legislation. However, the committee decided to broaden its scope to cover all ‘abductions’ between the states (as in Florida and Texas) and within a state.
6) No, there are only a few cases where parents flee the country.
7) The presenters claim there are 255,000 abductions per year. However, if you read their report, you will see that they defined an ‘abduction’ as a parent having a child more than one hour outside of the custody agreement. Over 1/2 of their alleged ‘abductions were not considered abductions by the parents who’s children were involved. Many of them were simple disagreements over the wording of the custody order in place.
This is what the law requires. No ‘probable cause’ requirement in the petition to be filed.:
Sec. 6. A petition under this act shall be verified and include a copy of any existing child-custody determination, if available. The petition shall specify the risk factors for abduction, including the relevant factors described in section 7.
Subject to section 209(5) of the uniform child-custody jurisdiction and enforcement act, 2001 PA 195, MCL 722.1209, if reasonably ascertainable, the petition must contain all of the following:
(a) The name, date of birth, and gender of the child.
(b) The customary address and current physical location of the child.
(c) The identity, customary address, and current physical
location of the respondent.
(d) 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.
(e) 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.
(f) Information regarding any protection order previously entered involving either party or the child.
(g) Any other information required to be submitted to the
court for a child-custody determination under section 209 of the uniform child-custody jurisdiction and enforcement act, 2001 PA 195, MCL 722.1209.
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.