Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act

The Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act ("UCAPA") is a Uniform Act drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and submitted for enactment by jurisdictions within the United States in 2006. As of January 1, 2008, the UCAPA was adopted in some form by 7 States and under consideration in 6 other jurisdictions. The UCAPA provides courts with guidance in handling child custody disputes, help in identifying families at risk for abduction, and provides methods to prevent the abduction of children. Generally, the UCAPA does not provide any new remedies for child abduction, but sets forth remedies already used in state courts to enforce child custody decrees and protect against violation of those orders. In addition to preventive measures, UCAPA provides a procedure under which a warrant can issue to return the child to the State that has child custody jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.

UCAPA Adoptees

Nebraska, South Dakota, Utah, Kansas, Colorado, Nevada.

Nebraska (2/07), Utah (3/07), Kansas (4/07), South Dakota (07), Nevada (5/07), Colorado (5/07), and

Pending in at least nine more jurisdictions according to a letter from the UCAPA staff to the New Jersey Law Revision Commission on May 5, 2008.

Idaho – SB 1263 was passed by the Senate on 1/31/08 and still awaiting a House vote;

Michigan – HB 4925 was introduced on 6/19/07 and referred to the House Committee on Judiciary, nothing further is reported;

New Hampshire – HB 1383 is in interim study, pending before the House Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety; last hearing was in March 2008; --

Pennsylvania – HB 1546 was introduced on 6/18/07 and nothing further is reported; District of Columbia – 17-626 is scheduled for hearing 5/20/08 before the Committee on Public Safety;

Texas – HB 2770 passed the House and is pending in the Senate as of 5/07 when it was recommended for the local and uncontested calendar;

Connecticut – SB 00595 was referred to the Joint Committee on Judiciary in 2007, nothing further to report;

South Carolina – S 486 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on 3/1/07, nothing further to report; and

Virgin Islands – was introduced as part of large Government Reform Bill in 2006, nothing further to report.

The bill’s introduction in New Mexico apparently died, though it is unclear why.

UCAPA Adoptees with significant modifications

Louisiana

Louisiana Modifications

Louisiana inserted the word "INTERNATIONAL" into the state's version of the Child Abduction Prevention Act.

Louisiana modified the bill to delete application of the Act between states, with an intent to limit application to non-Hague Convention countries.

Louisiana modified the application of the risk factors from being considered singly to requiring that a judge to consider all statutory factors.

Selected Comments from the Louisiana Committee hearings

Excerpt from comments by Representative Bowler

Rep. Bowler

"My reluctance with the bill, and it is with all due respect to this group of people, who got together and decided this was a good idea is that it does something, it departs from what I think is a real important concept in America and that is you are innocent until proven guilty, and this actually causes you to be penalized by a court for something they think you might do. I think that is a real departure in thinking in America to do that. I would hope that we would send this back to that group of Uniform lawmakers that come up with these models, say lets rethink this and I would hope that we don't pass it.

Its not that I don't think the problem is serious enough to... In Louisiana we have in our statutes, which I think operates as a huge deterrent, is under our simple kidnapping law, we say that, "the intentional taking, enticing, or decoying and removing from the state by any parent his or her child from whom custody has been... blah, blah blah ... it creates within ... this bill is trying to address, we create in the definition of simple kidnapping and actually threaten somebody with a fine of $5,000, imprisonment for five years or both. I think that provides a real discouragement from any person in Louisiana doing what this bill seeks to prevent. Do we know how often this happens in Louisiana that we need to go to these extraordinary measure?"

Excerpt from Harold Murry Family Law Attorney, Alexandria

Murry:

Hello, My name is Harold Murry, I am a family law attorney in Alexandria, I am also on the Supreme Courts domestic violence along with Anne Styre, who is a friend of mine, who I believe is speaking in favor of the bill. My problem with this bill, is I think it started out as a really good idea, if you go look at the web site, you see that it started out as the Uniform International Child Abduction prevention act. Because that is a huge problem, I have had cases where the father of the kid for instance is an exchange student from Jordan or he is a merchant from Pakistan and the people split and he is not going to get custody, he takes the kids to that country, and all we can do is write a couple of letters to the consulate, the mom never sees them again, there is no way to get them back. and that is why there is so much in this about the Hague treaty on child abduction, whether or not somebody is from one of these countries where you can take kids and never get them back. At some point, I think in August of 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.

External links

* [http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ucapa/2006_finalact.htm Full Text of Act with Commentary]
* [http://house.louisiana.gov/Agendas_2007/May_07/0524_07_CL.pdf Agenda for the Louisiana hearing]
* [http://house.louisiana.gov/rmarchive/Ram/RamMay07/0524_07_CLP.ram First house committee hearing on the bill. Testimony starts at 2:24 to 3:04]
* [http://www.lawrev.state.nj.us/newprojects/ucapaM050508.doc UCAPA staff letter to the New Jersey Law Commission on 5/8/2008]