Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

MICHIGAN ROLL CALL How local legislators voted in Lansing
Holland Sentinel ^ | Posted Sep 17, 2013 @ 01:29 AM | MichiganVotes.org

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 ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; News/Current Events; US: Michigan
KEYWORDS: michigan; rollcall; sb325; senatebill325; ucapa
Well. All 37 Senators in Michigan voted to sell out the people of Michigan.

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

1 posted on 10/13/2013 7:11:31 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

Snooze well Michigan...

While your Legislators sell your rights down the toilet.


2 posted on 10/13/2013 7:12:17 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

Oh looky, here is the link to the legislation

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28nhcrmv45p3qtusrv2njdofnj%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2013-SB-0325

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


3 posted on 10/13/2013 7:13:15 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

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.


4 posted on 10/13/2013 7:14:58 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

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


5 posted on 10/13/2013 7:16:27 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

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


6 posted on 10/13/2013 7:18:00 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

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).


7 posted on 10/13/2013 7:19:32 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
I keep a running thread.

Michigan legislative action thread
8 posted on 10/13/2013 7:22:33 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

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.”


9 posted on 10/13/2013 7:23:24 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

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


10 posted on 10/13/2013 7:24:30 PM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

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.


11 posted on 10/13/2013 7:26:10 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

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. “


12 posted on 10/13/2013 7:28:12 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

Declaring everyone to be a criminal in advance and no trial needed, sounds a bit like tyranny to me.

But what do I know...


13 posted on 10/13/2013 7:29:42 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

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.”


14 posted on 10/13/2013 7:30:34 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Thanks Cripple Creek.


15 posted on 10/13/2013 7:31:12 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

There’s no ping list but I keep it updated and I post a link with the Michigan pings.


16 posted on 10/13/2013 7:32:29 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

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.


17 posted on 10/13/2013 7:34:00 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

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


18 posted on 10/13/2013 7:36:17 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

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.


19 posted on 10/13/2013 7:45:04 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

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.


20 posted on 10/13/2013 7:49:24 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Nifster; cripplecreek

All the law requires is that a parent meet any ONE of the following ‘risk factors to be declared a ‘potential felon’.

Note that this determination is being made in CIVIL court, not in a CRIMINAL court.

See IN RE: SIGMAR for an application of this law by the Texas appeals court.

Note that the law makes much more sense when it is limited to it’s original intent of International abductions to Non-Hague treaty states. Such abductions end the custody game because there is no longer any recourse for the child’s return.

Note that this law is not needed within the State. The existing State custody laws adequately cover abductions within the State.

Note that this law is not needed between the States. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act adequately covers abductions between the States.

Note that this law is not needed for abductions to Hague treaty abiding countries. The existing treaty is sufficient for such cases.

The only reason for this law, and the committees original scope before they twisted it, was to prevent abductions to non-Hague countries where the child cannot be returned home by any legal means.

Now, here are the risk factors. Many of them are inappropriate.


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.


21 posted on 10/13/2013 8:01:45 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; Nifster; cripplecreek

Nifster, under this law

a parent will not even be able to safely apply for a drivers license in the State of Michigan.

a parent will not even be able to safely apply for a drivers license for their child in the State of Michigan.

Ahem, Don’t you need one of those to be able to V.O.T.E ?!?


(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.

which is defined up at the top as:

(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.


22 posted on 10/13/2013 8:06:50 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad
Ahem, Don’t you need one of those to be able to V.O.T.E ?!?

Michigan is a must ask state but you don't have to show it. If you don't show ID you have to sign an affidavit acknowledging that you're a legal voter and know that voting illegally is a crime.
23 posted on 10/13/2013 8:11:02 PM PDT by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; Nifster; cripplecreek

Nifster,

Under this law, a custodial parent can be at risk for performing their ordinary parenting duties.

Since when is obtaining your child’s medical records an indication that parent is a risk of abduction?

It is much more likely that it indicates that they are changing doctors.

It is an act all parents (custodial and noncustodial) do to be a good parent.


Since when is obtaining your child’s school records an indication that a parent is a likely child abductor? IT IS NOT.

It is an act done by all good parents.

Was this bill written by children who get bad report cards?

Sheesh.

...

And a parent obtaining their child’s birth certificate?

First of all, most parents already have that at home and on file. But they probably only have one copy.

When a divorce happens, the other parent obtaining a copy for their records is natural. It does not indicate child abduction is imminent.

Or, say a storm comes along (Katrina, Sandy, etc.) and damages your existing files. Getting a new record is not an indication of abduction.

This law is WAAAAAY out of bounds.


(vii) Seeking to obtain
A the child’s birth certificate
B or school (records)
C or medical records.


24 posted on 10/13/2013 8:13:11 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

Anytime it is unanimous it is a bad thing for the people


25 posted on 10/13/2013 8:14:32 PM PDT by GeronL
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; Nifster; cripplecreek

Nifster,

Lets say you want to make travel plans for your parents to visit the Statue of Liberty (assuming it has reopened and is not surrounded by Park Ranger dragoons.)

Under this law, if you have children, you can be accused of being a potential abductor.

(v) Applying for a
A passport
B or visa
C or obtaining travel documents
for the
A respondent,
B a family member,
C or the child.

(m) “Travel document” means records relating to a
A travel itinerary,
B including travel tickets,
C passes,
D reservations for transportation,
D or {reservations for} accommodations.

Travel document does not include a passport or visa.


26 posted on 10/13/2013 8:20:16 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: GeronL

Very good point for most detailed bills.


27 posted on 10/13/2013 8:21:34 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; Nifster; cripplecreek

Nifster,

In a divorce, someone has to move out of the house. Often the family house gets sold. Often the apartment lease is terminated.

In Louisiana, 2007 was just after Katrina. Everybody in New Orleans had done all of these activities because of the storm.

None of these indicate a likely abduction.


losing a job
selling a home
terminating a lease (on a car)
closing a bank account
closing a financial management account.
‘liquidating’ assets
or ‘other unusual financial activities’.


28 posted on 10/13/2013 8:25:35 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; Nifster; cripplecreek

Nifster,

You just have to admire the brilliance of these two points. They apply to every single person in the United States. They are that broad. There are 8 criteria on these two lines. Lets parse them. We will just look at the State requirements since they are the most stringent.

1. Lacks strong familial ties to Michigan
2. Lacks strong financial ties to Michigan
3. Lacks strong emotional ties to Michigan
4. Lacks strong cultural ties to Michigan

5. Has strong familial ties to another state (Texas, NY, etc)
6. Has strong financial ties to another state (Texas, NY, etc)
7. Has strong emotional ties to another state (Texas, NY, etc)
8. Has strong cultural ties to another state (Texas, NY, etc)

So simply having a brother in Texas makes you a potential abductor.

So simply being the only person in your family living in Michigan makes you a potential abductor.

So being poor in Michigan makes you a potential abductor.

So having property in NY makes you a potential abductor.

Really?

Lets not even get into what the emotional or cultural requirements would be.

These points are absurdly vague.


(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.


29 posted on 10/13/2013 8:34:16 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: GeronL; Nifster; cripplecreek

And what of the punishment?

Do you really want parents labeled by civil court as ‘potential felons’ because of the above points?

This act allows the court to act in an ex-parte manner. (Without the offending parent knowing about the legal action about to come down)

In fact, it allows the court to act without either parent/party knowing about the action. The court is empowered to act on its own.

The court can order the children arrested.

Do you really want the courts to be able to order an Elian Gonzales style raid of your house... without your knowledge?

... on the basis of the claim of a vindictive ex-spouse?

... on the motion of a corrupt divorce judge?

Such an act is much more likely to result in harm to the child than help.


“If required by exigent circumstances, the court may authorize law enforcement officers to make a forcible entry at any hour.”


30 posted on 10/13/2013 8:42:16 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

Testimony from the hearing in Louisiana:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzsA6K_HQqE


31 posted on 10/13/2013 8:44:33 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

and round 2. Modified

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=StGWChM4wyA


32 posted on 10/13/2013 8:45:10 PM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Pikachu_Dad

Just so you know....I didn’t bother to read your multiple posts back to me. You are so far gone there really is no point


33 posted on 10/14/2013 5:20:44 AM PDT by Nifster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

Got it.

You have your head in the sand and are singing ‘la la la la’.

What on earth are you doing on free republic? .


34 posted on 10/14/2013 8:56:33 AM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

Got it.

You have your head in the sand and are singing ‘la la la la’.

What on earth are you doing on free republic? .


35 posted on 10/14/2013 8:56:42 AM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Nifster

Would you take your head out of the sand long enough to listen to a lawyer?

“Excerpt from Harold Murry Family Law Attorney, Alexandria[edit]
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.”


36 posted on 10/14/2013 9:07:41 AM PDT by Pikachu_Dad (Impeach Sen Quinn)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson