UCCJEA - Juvenile Justice Bulletin

8/7/2019 UCCJEA - Juvenile Justice Bulletin

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/uccjea-juvenile-justice-bulletin 1/16

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

December 2001

A Message From OJJDP

America is a society with a substan-tial divorce rate. Each year, morethan 1,000,000 children in the UnitedStates are affected by the divorce oftheir parents, and of all children whoare born to married parents this year,half are likely to experience a divorcein their families before they reachtheir 18th birthdays.

America is also a highly mobile socie-ty. On the dissolution of family ties, itis not uncommon that a parent, per-haps even both parents, may moveout of the State in which the familyresided at the time of their separa-tion. Thus, it is not surprising that

courts in different States are becom-ing involved in child-custody and visi-tation disputes concerning the samechildren.

The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdic-tion and Enforcement Act, which isdescribed in this Bulletin, has beenproposed by the National Conferenceof Commissioners on Uniform StateLaws.The proposed uniform Statelaw is designed to deter interstateparental kidnapping and to promoteuniform jurisdiction and enforcementprovisions in interstate child-custodyand visitation cases. The Act has

been enacted by 25 States and theDistrict of Columbia and introducedinto legislatures in several otherStates.

It is our hope that the informationprovided in this Bulletin will assistthose considering the adoption ofthis model law in their States.

The Act requires State courts to enforcevalid child-custody and visitation determi-nations made by sister State courts. It alsoestablishes innovative interstate enforce-ment procedures.

The UCCJEA is intended as an improve-ment over the UCCJA. It clarifies UCCJAprovisions that have received conflicting

interpretations in courts across the coun-try, codifies practices that have effective-ly reduced interstate conflict, conformsjurisdictional standards to those of theFederal Parental Kidnapping PreventionAct (the PKPA)6 to ensure interstate en-forceability of orders, and adds protec-tions for victims of domestic violence whomove out of State for safe haven.

The UCCJEA, however, is not a substan-tive custody statute. It does not dictatestandards for making or modifying child-custody and visitation decisions; instead,it determines which States’ courts have

and should exercise jurisdiction to do so.A court must have jurisdiction (i.e., thepower and authority to hear and decide amatter) before it can proceed to considerthe merits of a case. The UCCJEA does notapply to child support cases.

Legal BackgroundIn a mobile society with a high rate ofdivorce, courts in different States (andcountries) often become involved in

The Uniform Child-CustodyJurisdiction and

Enforcement Act

Patricia M. Hoff

This Bulletin describes the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act(the UCCJEA),1 the most recent in a seriesof laws designed to deter interstate pa-rental kidnapping and promote uniformjurisdiction and enforcement provisionsin interstate child-custody and visitationcases. The Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is pub-lishing this Bulletin to provide current in-formation about the UCCJEA to legislatorsin States considering its adoption and toparents and practitioners in States thathave already adopted the law. The Bulle-tin is not an official OJJDP endorsementof the Act.

The UCCJEA is a uniform State law thatwas approved in 1997 by the NationalConference of Commissioners on UniformState Laws (NCCUSL) to replace its 1968Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act(the UCCJA).2 NCCUSL drafts and propos-es laws in areas where it believes uniform-ity is important, but the laws becomeeffective only upon adoption by State leg-islatures. As of July 2001, 26 jurisdictionshad adopted the UCCJEA,3 and it had beenintroduced in 2000–01 in the legislaturesof 10 others.4

The UCCJEA governs State courts’ juris-diction to make and modify “child-custodydeterminations,” a term that expresslyincludes custody and visitation orders.5



2

child could choose the forum that woulddecide custody, parents had a legal incen-tive to abduct children. For example, aparent could take a child to a State towhich the child had no previous ties anda court in that State could exercise juris-diction and make or modify a custody

determination. Abducting parents benefit-ed under this system, but their “seize andrun”11 tactics exacted a heavy toll on chil-dren and the judicial system. Children’slives were disrupted, and judicial re-sources were squandered as courts innumerous States often heard custodycases regarding the same children.

Given the interstate nature of the prob-lem, an interstate solution was needed.NCCUSL responded in 1968 with theUCCJA, which governed the existenceand exercise of jurisdiction in initial child-custody determinations and cases involv-

ing modification of existing orders. Thelaw also required States to enforce andnot modify sister States’ orders. The newrequirements were intended to removeparents’ legal incentive to abduct childrenin search of a friendly forum that wouldmake an initial custody order or modifyan existing order.

The UCCJA based jurisdiction on a child’sclose affiliation with a State. Specifically, itestablished four jurisdictional grounds:

x Home State (reserved for the State inwhich the child has lived for at least 6months preceding commencement ofthe action).

x Significant connection (exists when aState has substantial evidence about achild as a result of the child’s signifi-cant connections to that State).

x Emergency (governs situations such asabandonment or abuse that requireimmediate protective action).

x Vacuum (applies when no other juris-dictional basis exists).

Except in emergency cases, the UCCJAeliminated a child’s physical presence in aState as grounds for exercising jurisdic-tion. As a result, a court could no longerbase jurisdiction solely on a child’s pres-ence in the State, nor would a child’sabsence from the State necessarily de-prive the court of jurisdiction. Under theUCCJA’s extended home State rule, a left-behind parent could petition for custodyin the child’s home State even after anabduction. The UCCJA also requiredStates to enforce and not modify validcustody and visitation orders made bysister States.

child-custody and visitation disputes con-cerning the same child. When families areintact, children generally live in one ormore States with both parents. After afamily breakup, one parent may move witha child to another State, often to pursue ajob opportunity or a new relationship or

to return to extended family. The otherparent may remain in the original State ormove to another State. Additional movesmay occur over time, possibly to differentStates, back to the family’s original State,or out of the country.

Interstate and international moves involv-ing children raise challenging legal ques-tions as to which State (or country) hasand should exercise jurisdiction to makean initial child-custody determination ormodify an existing custody order. Ques-tions also arise as to whether a custodydetermination made in one State (or coun-

try) is enforceable in another State and, ifso, what procedures are available to se-cure enforcement.

States and Congress have responded tothese issues by enacting laws (i.e., theUCCJA and the PKPA) that regulate courts’jurisdiction to make and modify custodyand visitation determinations and thatdictate the interstate effect such determi-nations are to be given in sister States.Other laws that affect child custody andvisitation have also been enacted. In fact,it was this veritable alphabet soup oflaws—the UCCJA, the PKPA, the Violence

Against Women Act (the VAWA),7 theHague Convention on the Civil Aspects ofInternational Child Abduction (the HagueConvention),8 and the International ChildAbduction Remedies Act (the ICARA)9—that prompted NCCUSL in 1997 to draft animproved child-custody jurisdiction andenforcement statute. To understand thenew law, it is helpful to examine the legalbackdrop against which the UCCJEA wasdeveloped.

The Uniform Child CustodyJurisdiction Act

Overview. Before 1968, State courtsthroughout the United States could exer-cise jurisdiction over a child-custody casebased on a child’s presence in the State.Courts also freely modified sister States’orders because U.S. Supreme Court rul-ings had never settled the question ofwhether the Full Faith and Credit clause ofthe U.S. Constitution applied to custodydecrees.10 This legal climate fostered childabduction and forum shopping: Becauseparents with physical possession of a

Unresolved problems. Although theUCCJA was a major improvement overpre-1968 law governing jurisdiction inchild-custody cases, some problemsremained. The law did not eliminate thepossibility of two or more States havingconcurrent jurisdiction (e.g., based on

home State and significant connectionjurisdiction), and the statute’s prohibitioagainst simultaneous proceedings was noroutinely effective in preventing courtsin different States from exercising juris-diction and issuing conflicting custodyorders. In addition, contrary to the restritive interpretation of emergency jurisdic-tion intended by the drafters, some judgeused this basis of jurisdiction to providepermanent relief, rather than to temporaily address an urgent problem until thecourt with regular jurisdiction could act.Jurisdictional conflicts also continued inmodification cases. For instance, when a

child moved from his or her original homState and established a new home State,courts in both States frequently assertedjurisdiction to modify an existing order.This overlap often led to conflicting cus-tody orders and uncertainty for childrenand parents.

Although the UCCJA obligated courts toenforce and not modify custody orders osister States, it did not provide enforce-ment procedures to carry out this requirment. Litigants were left to discover locaenforcement procedures on their own,and such procedures varied considerably

across the country (e.g., contempt pro-ceedings, motions to enforce, motions togrant full faith and credit, and habeascorpus proceedings). The variety of Stateenforcement procedures delayed enforcement (sometimes to the point of denyingrelief, as in the case of weekend visitatiointerference), added costs (due to multi-state variations and practices), made outcomes unpredictable, and sometimes al-lowed local courts to modify out-of-Stateorders, contrary to the UCCJA’s intent.

In addition, States passed the UCCJA witvariations in the language. For instance,four States omitted section 23, whichextends the principles of the Act to cus-tody orders made in other countries. Thevariety undermined the uniform interpretation and application of the law acrossthe country and created loopholes thatled to the issuance of conflicting custodyorders. (These and other problems withthe UCCJA were documented by the Ob-stacles to the Recovery and Return ofParentally Abducted Children Project,



3

(e.g., one may have home State and anoth-er significant connection jurisdiction), thePKPA gives priority to home State jurisdic-tion. This priority is intended to limit jur-isdiction in initial custody cases to oneState, the child’s home State. The PKPA’shome State priority is designed to prevent

a significant connection State from exer-cising jurisdiction over a matter when thechild who is the subject of the proceedinghas a “home State.”

Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. Ex-clusive, continuing jurisdiction under thePKPA protects an original decree State’sjurisdiction to modify its own order. Thisprotection addresses an ambiguity in theUCCJA’s modification section that somecourts have interpreted as allowing achild’s new home State to exercise modifi-cation jurisdiction even when the decreeState (i.e., the child’s former home State)

could still exercise jurisdiction on signifi-cant connection grounds. Under thePKPA, the original home State has exclu-sive, continuing jurisdiction to modify itsown order to the exclusion of all otherStates, including the child’s new homeState—assuming that the original homeState has jurisdiction under State law(e.g., significant connection) and that atleast one parent or the child continues tolive there. Moreover, every State, includ-ing a significant connection State, mustgrant full faith and credit to the homeState’s order.

Unresolved problems. The PKPA did notsolve all of the problems it targeted, part-ly because of some confusion about itsrelationship to the UCCJA and the incon-sistencies between the two laws and part-ly because many lawyers and judges ig-nored the PKPA or were unaware of itsimpact on UCCJA practice. These prob-lems and inconsistencies are documentedin the Obstacles Project Final Report.18

Other Relevant Federal Laws

Some laws enacted after the UCCJA addeda Federal dimension to interstate and in-

ternational child-custody practices thatwas unforeseen by the drafters of theUCCJA in 1968 (but which was consideredby drafters of the UCCJEA in 1997). Inaddition to the PKPA, these Federal lawsinclude the Full Faith and Credit provi-sions of the VAWA, enacted in 1994; theHague Convention, ratified in 1986; andthe ICARA, enacted in 1988.19

The VAWA. In recognition of the fact thatdomestic violence victims often leave the

State where they were abused and needcontinuing protection in their new loca-tions, the VAWA provides, among otherthings, for interstate enforcement of pro-tection orders. Custody provisions incorporated into protection orders, however,are not governed by the VAWA.20 These

provisions are “custody determinations,”subject to the PKPA and State law governing jurisdiction in child-custody cases.

Neither the PKPA nor the UCCJA explicitladdresses the key concerns of domesticviolence victims who must litigate childcustody interstate. The UCCJEA, howeveaddresses these concerns with a numberof provisions. For instance, it protectsagainst disclosure of a victim’s address,expands emergency jurisdiction to casesin which a parent or sibling is at risk, andrequires courts to consider family abusein their “inconvenient forum” analysis.

The Hague Convention and the ICARA.The Hague Convention21 and the Federalstatute that implements it (the ICARA)22

deal with international wrongful removaland retention of children. The Hague Convention establishes administrative andjudicial mechanisms to expedite the re-turn of children (usually to their countryof habitual residence) who have beenabducted or wrongfully retained and tofacilitate the exercise of visitation acrossinternational borders. Under the HagueConvention, children who are wrongfullyremoved from or retained in a contractin

State (i.e., a country that is party to theConvention) are subject to prompt returnThe UCCJEA specifically provides for theenforcement of Hague Convention returnorders and authorizes public officials tolocate and secure the return of childrenin Hague Convention cases. The UCCJEAcontains other provisions that clarifywhen foreign custody determinations(from Hague and non-Hague countries) aentitled to enforcement and when courtsin the United States must defer to the cutody jurisdiction of a foreign court.

Rationale Underlyingthe UCCJEACustody contestants have sometimesexploited jurisdictional ambiguities todraw out litigation, secure conflicting custody orders, and delay (or deny) enforce-ment of valid custody and visitation or-ders. In these instances, resources thatcould have been used to help childrenwere instead spent on multistate litigation

which was carried out by the AmericanBar Association Center on Children andthe Law pursuant to a cooperative agree-ment with OJJDP.12) Although every Stateeventually enacted the UCCJA, the handfulof States that were slow to do so becamemagnets for forum-shopping parents.

The Parental KidnappingPrevention Act

To close existing gaps and bring greateruniformity to interstate child-custodypractice, Congress in 1980 enacted thePKPA, which requires State courts to:

x Enforce and not modify (i.e., grant fullfaith and credit to) custody and vis-itation determinations made by sisterStates consistently with the PKPA,unless the original State no longerhas, or has declined to exercise,jurisdiction.13

x Defer to the “exclusive, continuingjurisdiction” (see below) of the de-cree State as long as that State exer-cised jurisdiction consistently with thePKPA when it made its determination,has jurisdiction under its own law, andremains the residence of the child orany contestant.14 (“Contestant” is de-fined as a person, including a parent,who claims a right to custody or visita-tion rights with respect to a child.)

x Refrain from exercising jurisdictionwhile another State is exercising juris-

diction over a matter consistently withthe PKPA.15

x Ensure that the following persons areprovided reasonable notice and oppor-tunity to be heard: contestants, anyparent whose parental rights have notbeen terminated, and any person whohas physical custody of the child.16

State courts that exercise jurisdiction con-sistently with the criteria in the PKPA areentitled as a matter of Federal law to havetheir custody and visitation orders givenfull faith and credit in sister States. Thesecourts also have exclusive, continuing

jurisdiction to modify their own ordersunder circumstances stipulated in the law.

The PKPA’s jurisdictional criteria resemblethose of the UCCJA, but there are signifi-cant differences. PKPA jurisdictional provi-sions are discussed in the sections thatfollow.

Home State priority. The PKPA prioritizeshome State jurisdiction in initial custodycases.17 Whereas two States may havejurisdiction over a case under the UCCJA



4

Eliminating such contentious multistatelitigation of custody is one of the statedpurposes23 of the UCCJA, which is intend-ed to:

(1) avoid jurisdictional competitionand conflict with courts of otherstates in matters of child custodywhich have in the past resulted inthe shifting of children from state tostate with harmful effects on theirwell-being . . . [and] (4) discouragecontinuing controversies over childcustody in the interest of greaterstability of home environment andof secure family relationships forthe child.

Parents bent on “winning” an interstatecustody case (or ensuring that the otherparent “loses”) sometimes employ tacticsthat may hurt children in the process.Ironically, some parents lose sight of theirchildren when fighting for the right tokeep them. In a particularly egregiouscase,24 for example, after 3 years of litiga-tion in Indiana that should have resultedin a child’s immediate return to her moth-er (pursuant to an Indiana order enforcinga Hawaiian order), a juvenile court inter-vened at the last minute and ordered thechild detained for a mental examination.The father’s attorney had orchestrated aCHINS (Child In Need of Services) pro-ceeding in juvenile court to prevent thechild’s return to her mother. The caseremains a strong reminder of the need for

a custody jurisdiction statute that clearlyspecifies the proceedings to which it ap-plies, restricts the use of emergency juris-diction, and establishes enforcement pro-cedures that are expeditious, sure, andpredictable. The UCCJEA accomplishesthese objectives.

Protracted custody litigation and conflict-ing orders not only undermine a child’ssense of stability; they also raise the pos-sibility of criminal liability for either orboth of the child’s parents, who may facecharges in one State when complying withthe order of another. California v. Superior

Court of California, San Bernardino County ( Smolin et al.),25 exemplifies this predica-ment. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Courtrefused to block a California father’s extra-dition to Louisiana, where he was chargedwith simple kidnapping. The criminalcharges stemmed from the father’s “self-help” recovery of his children from Lou-isiana, where they had moved with theirmother. The father argued that he could

not be charged with simple kidnappingunder Louisiana law (and thus should notbe extradited) because he was the lawfulcustodian of the children pursuant to aCalifornia custody order that was entitledunder the PKPA to full faith and credit inLouisiana. The Supreme Court, however,

held that under the Uniform Criminal Ex-tradition Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3182, the placefor the father to assert his defenses to thecriminal charge (however meritorious)was Louisiana, not California.

The UCCJEA’s enforcement mechanismsauthorize public officials to assist in expe-dited enforcement proceedings and allowfor an abbreviated, court-assisted registra-tion process. In doing so, these mecha-nisms should considerably reduce self-help recoveries, which can be emotionallyand physically injurious to children andlegally problematic for parents.

UCCJEA HighlightsThis section provides a brief overviewof the UCCJEA’s jurisdiction and enforce-ment provisions. The cases to which theUCCJEA applies and the law’s jurisdic-tion and enforcement provisions are de-scribed in detail in the next sections ofthis Bulletin.

Jurisdiction: Articles 1 and 2

The UCCJEA is a complete replacementfor the UCCJA. Articles 1 and 2 of the

UCCJEA contain jurisdictional rules thatessentially bring the UCCJA into conformi-ty with the PKPA. Modeling the UCCJEA’sjurisdictional standards on the PKPA’sstandards is intended to produce custodydeterminations that are entitled underFederal law to full faith and credit in sisterStates. The UCCJEA also addresses thepractice and interpretation problems de-scribed earlier in this Bulletin and bringsthe law into harmony with the VAWA andthe Hague Convention.

Under articles 1 and 2, the UCCJEA,among other things:

x Applies to a range of proceedings inwhich custody or visitation is atissue.26

x Grants priority to home Statejurisdiction.27

x Preserves exclusive, continuing juris-diction in the decree State if that Statedetermines that it has a basis for

exercising jurisdiction. Such jurisdic-tion continues until the child, his orher parents, and any person acting asthe child’s parent move away from thedecree State.28

x Authorizes courts to exercise emer-gency jurisdiction in cases involving

family abuse and limits the relief available in emergency cases to temporarycustody orders.29

x Revamps the rules governing inconveient forum analysis, requiring courts tconsider specified factors.30

x Directs courts to decline jurisdictioncreated by unjustifiable conduct.31

Enforcement: Article 3

The UCCJEA also establishes uniform procedures for interstate enforcement of chilcustody and visitation determinations.

In particular, article 3 of the UCCJEA:

x Authorizes temporary enforcement ofvisitation determinations.32

x Creates an interstate registrationprocess for out-of-State custodydeterminations.33

x Establishes a procedure for speedyinterstate enforcement of custody andvisitation determinations.34

x Authorizes issuance of warrants direcing law enforcement to pick up childreat risk of being removed from theState.35

x Authorizes public officials to assist inthe civil enforcement of custody determinations and in Hague Conventioncases.36

Applicability of theUCCJEA

Covered Proceedings

The UCCJEA applies to a variety of pro-ceedings.37 Specifically, courts in UCCJEAStates must comply with the statute whecustody and visitation issues arise inproceedings for divorce, separation, ne-glect, abuse, dependency, guardianship,paternity, termination of parental rights,and protection from domestic violence.The UCCJEA does not apply to child sup-port proceedings38 or adoption cases.39

Identifying the specific proceedings towhich the UCCJEA is applicable clarifies



5

when courts must conform to the UCCJEA,which should minimize the likelihood thatmore than one State will take jurisdictionover the same matter.

Initial and ModificationDeterminations

The UCCJEA governs courts’ jurisdictionto issue permanent, temporary,40 initial,and modification orders. The rules thatgovern courts’ jurisdiction to make an ini-tial custody determination differ fromthose governing jurisdiction to modify anexisting order. The type of custody pro-ceeding determines which rules apply andwhether a court has the authority to act.

Foreign Custody Orders andProceedings

The UCCJEA requires State courts to rec-ognize and enforce custody determina-tions made by foreign courts under factualcircumstances that substantially conformwith the UCCJEA’s jurisdictional standardsand to defer to foreign courts as if theywere State courts.41 However, State courtsneed not apply the Act (i.e., enforce a for-eign court order or defer to a foreigncourt’s jurisdiction) if the child-custodylaw of the foreign country violates funda-mental principles of human rights. Thislanguage is derived from article 20 ofthe Hague Convention. According to theU.S. Department of State’s legal analysisof the Convention, the “human rights/

fundamental freedoms” defense to returnmay be invoked “on the rare occasion thatreturn of a child would utterly shock theconscience of the court or offend allnotions of due process.”42

Tribal Court Orders andProceedings

The UCCJEA does not apply to custodyproceedings concerning American Indianchildren to the extent that such proceed-ings are governed by the Indian ChildWelfare Act, 25 U.S.C. § 1901 et seq.43 Child-custody proceedings in State courts that

involve tribal-State jurisdictional disputesare subject to the UCCJEA only if the Statehas enacted optional sections 104(b) and(c) of the UCCJEA, which require Statecourts to treat tribes as if they were Statesand tribal court custody proceedings asif they were court proceedings of sisterStates and to enforce tribal court custodyorders.

JurisdictionalProvisions of theUCCJEAThere are two requirements under theUCCJEA for making or modifying a cus-tody determination: (1) the court must

have a basis of jurisdiction under the Act(i.e., subject-matter jurisdiction), and(2) the parties must be given notice andopportunity to be heard. Personal jurisdic-tion over a party or child—based on phys-ical presence in or minimum contacts withthe State—is not required. Moreover, acourt that has personal jurisdiction over aparty or child cannot adjudicate custodyunless it has a basis for exercising juris-diction under the Act.44

The UCCJEA’s jurisdictional provisionsvary, based on whether a case involves aninitial custody or visitation determination

or modification of an existing order. Thissection describes the UCCJEA’s jurisdic-tional provisions and provides examplesthat illustrate the intended effect of manyof these provisions. It also describes twogrounds on which courts may decline toexercise jurisdiction under the UCCJEAand includes examples of each.

Initial Jurisdiction

The UCCJEA establishes four bases forinitial jurisdiction—home State, significantconnection, more appropriate forum, andvacuum jurisdiction. It also authorizes

courts to issue temporary relief on emer-gency grounds. These jurisdictional basesare discussed in the sections that follow.

Home State jurisdiction. The UCCJEAgives home State jurisdiction priority ininitial child-custody proceedings. In doingso, the Act conforms to the PKPA andrejects the UCCJA’s coequal treatment ofhome State and significant connectionjurisdiction. Only in cases in which a childhas no home State or the home State de-clines jurisdiction may another court exer-cise significant connection jurisdiction.This change is intended to significantly

reduce the number of situations in whichmore than one State has jurisdiction overa child-custody matter. In turn, the inci-dence of conflicting custody orders beingissued by courts in different States shouldalso decrease.

Under the UCCJEA, a court has home Statejurisdiction if it is located in the child’shome State (as of the date proceedings are

commenced) or if it is located in the Statethat was the child’s home State within 6months of the proceedings’ commence-ment and the child’s parent (or a personacting as his or her parent) continues tolive in the State even after the child hasbeen removed. This extended home State

rule allows a left-behind parent to com-mence a custody proceeding within 6months of a child’s removal from thehome State.

Example. A 2-year-old child, born andraised in Minnesota, is abducted by hismother before either parent has filed forcustody. The boy and his mother move tIdaho. The left-behind father may file foran initial custody determination in Min-nesota (which has home State jurisdictiowithin 6 months of the child’s removal.The child’s absence from Minnesota doenot deprive the State of jurisdiction. If th

mother commences a custody proceedinin Idaho while Minnesota is the child’shome State under the UCCJEA, the fathercan seek dismissal of the Idaho proceed-ing based on lack of jurisdiction. Assum-ing the notice requirements of section 10are met, any order the father obtains inMinnesota is entitled to enforcement inIdaho.

Significant connection jurisdiction.45

When a child has no home State or whena home State declines jurisdiction,46 an-other State court may exercise jurisdic-tion if the child has sufficient ties to the

State and substantial evidence concerninthe child is available in the State. A childneed not be physically present in a Statefor the State to exercise significant connetion jurisdiction. More than one State mayhave jurisdiction on this basis, but onlyone State may exercise jurisdiction.47 Thestatute resolves the conflict in favor of thfirst-filed proceeding. However, the courtare required to communicate, and thecourt in the State of the first-filed proceeding may defer to the court in the secondState following judicial communication.48

Example. A father and his child go to visi

the child’s paternal grandparents in Colorado. The father is reminded of the beauof the mountains and decides not to re-turn to Iowa, where his marriage hadbeen faltering and his job prospects havedimmed. The family had been living inIowa for 4 years. Within 2 months of hisarrival in Colorado, the father files forcustody there on significant connectiongrounds. The Colorado court lacks juris-diction and may not proceed to the meri



6

of the case unless Iowa, the child’s homeState, declines jurisdiction in favor of Col-orado. However, if the mother does notcommence a custody proceeding in Iowawithin 6 months of the child’s removal,Colorado becomes the child’s home Stateand the Colorado court may then exercise

jurisdiction and decide custody.Example. A mother and father are high-tech professionals who have moved fre-quently during the previous several yearsto work for Internet companies. After 4months in California, the father leaves themother and their infant and returns toNorth Carolina, where the family had livedfor 5 months preceding their move to Cal-ifornia. The infant has been in daycareand has pediatricians and relatives inboth States. The father’s cross-countrymove prompts the couple to assess theviability of their marriage, and they decide

to divorce. However, they cannot agree oncustody, and the mother and father simul-taneously commence separate custodyproceedings in California and North Car-olina. The parents have not lived in anyState long enough for their child to haveestablished a home State. Both Californiaand North Carolina arguably have signifi-cant connection jurisdiction, but underthe UCCJEA only one of them should exer-cise it. If a court learns from the requiredpleadings49 that a proceeding has beencommenced in a sister State, the court isrequired by the UCCJEA to stay its pro-ceeding and communicate with the other

court50 to decide which proceeding shouldcontinue. If they cannot agree, the courtwith the first-filed case may move forwardand the other court should dismiss itsproceeding.

More appropriate forum jurisdiction.Under the UCCJEA, a third basis for initialjurisdiction exists when both the homeState and significant connection State(s)decline jurisdiction in favor of another,more appropriate State on grounds ofinconvenient forum or unjustifiableconduct.51

Example. The parents of a 10-year-old girlare separated but have not filed for cus-tody. Pursuant to her parents’ informalagreement, the girl remains with the fa-ther in the District of Columbia, where shegoes to school. She spends the majority ofher time with a housekeeper because herfather is frequently out of town on busi-ness. The child spends one weekend amonth in West Virginia with her mother.Because the mother works a night shift

involving frequent overtime, many of thegirl’s weekend visits are spent at thehomes of friends in her mother’s neigh-borhood. Both sets of the child’s grand-parents live in Maryland. The father plansto move to Maryland at the end of theschool year so the child can go to her

grandparents after school, and he has acontract to purchase a house in Marylandwhen the school year ends. However,before the move, the father becomesincreasingly concerned about the moth-er’s absence during the child’s visits. Hefiles for custody in Maryland. Based onthese facts, it is conceivable that courts inthe District of Columbia (the child’s homeState) and West Virginia (a significant con-nection State) might decline jurisdiction infavor of Maryland, the child’s soon-to-behome State. A decision to decline jurisdic-tion is discretionary and fact dependent.

Vacuum jurisdiction. Similar to theUCCJA, the UCCJEA provides that if nocourt has home State, significant connec-tion, or more appropriate forum jurisdic-tion, an alternate court may fill the vacu-um and exercise jurisdiction over aninitial custody proceeding.52 This provi-sion would apply to situations in whichchildren fail to remain in any State longenough to form attachments (e.g., home-less children, children of migrant workersor military personnel, or children sentfrom relative to relative for temporarycare).

Temporary emergency jurisdiction.Under the UCCJEA, courts have tempo-rary emergency jurisdiction when a childin the State has been abandoned or whenemergency protection is necessary be-cause a child—or a sibling or parent ofthe child—has been subjected to or isthreatened with mistreatment or abuse.53

The UCCJEA narrows the UCCJA’s defini-tion of “emergency” by excluding neglectcases—thus bringing it into conformitywith the PKPA—while expanding the defi-nition to cover emergencies that put achild’s parent or sibling at risk, such asthose covered by the VAWA.

Under the UCCJEA, courts may exerciseemergency jurisdiction and make tempo-rary orders even if a proceeding has beencommenced in another State. Immediatejudicial communication is mandatory toresolve the emergency, protect the safetyof the parties and the child, and deter-mine how long a temporary order shouldremain in effect.

Notice and opportunity to be heard musbe given54 for a temporary emergencyorder to be enforceable in other Statespursuant to the UCCJEA and PKPA. At aminimum, both laws require that notice bprovided to any parent whose parentalrights have not been terminated and to

any person with physical custody of thechild. Temporary custody or visitationprovisions in a protection order that wasobtained ex parte (i.e., without notice) arunenforceable in sister States under theUCCJEA and the PKPA. These provisions,however, may be enforceable within theissuing State if domestic violence laws orother laws so provide.

The duration of a temporary emergencycustody order depends on whether cus-tody has been or is being litigated else-where. If there is no prior custody orderthat is enforceable under the UCCJEA an

no proceeding has been commenced in acourt with jurisdiction, the temporaryemergency custody order becomes a finadetermination (if it so provides) whenthe issuing State becomes the child’shome State (i.e., in 6 months). Noticemust have been given in accordance withthe UCCJEA. If a previous order existsand/or a custody proceeding has beencommenced in a court with jurisdiction,the temporary emergency custody ordermust specify an adequate period withinwhich the person seeking emergency re-lief may obtain a custody order from theother court. The temporary order remain

in effect until a custody order is obtainedfrom the other State (within the specifiedperiod) or the specified period expires.

Example. Following a fight with her hus-band, a battered wife takes the couple’schild from their Texas home to Utah andseeks refuge at a domestic violence shel-ter. In Utah, the mother files for custodyof the child on emergency jurisdictiongrounds. She gives her husband the requsite notice, but in the interest of safety,asks the court not to disclose her ad-dress to him.55 The child’s father does norespond to the suit. The court in Utah

grants the mother temporary custody,stipulating that the order will become pemanent after 6 months if no proceeding icommenced in Texas, the child’s homeState. The father, however, commences acustody proceeding in Texas soon afterreceiving notice of the Utah action. Themother receives notice of the proceedingvia her attorney, and she petitions theTexas court to decline jurisdiction in favof Utah on inconvenient forum grounds.



7

The two courts communicate. The Texascourt grants the mother’s motion on find-ing that domestic violence has occurredand is likely to continue and that Utah canbest protect the mother and child.56 Fol-lowing a hearing on the merits in the Utahcourt, the temporary Utah order is made

permanent. The mother is granted cus-tody, and the father is granted limited,supervised visitation.

Modification Jurisdiction

The UCCJEA addresses courts’ jurisdic-tion to modify existing child-custody orvisitation determinations in two comple-mentary sections: section 202 establishesrules of continuing jurisdiction in thedecree-granting State, and section 203governs when another State may modifyan existing decree.

Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. TheUCCJEA adopted a rule of exclusive, con-tinuing jurisdiction similar to that in thePKPA.57 Under the UCCJEA, an originaldecree court that exercised jurisdictionconsistent with the Act has exclusive, con-tinuing jurisdiction to modify its decreeuntil one of the following occurs:

x The original decree court loses signifi-cant connection jurisdiction.

x The child, the child’s parents, and anyperson acting as the child’s parent nolonger live in the State.

Only the decree State may determine

whether it has significant connection ju-risdiction. That is, a sister State’s courtmay not substitute its judgment on thisissue for that of the decree State’s court.By contrast, either State court may deter-mine that all parties identified in thestatute have left the State.

Jurisdiction to modify determination.If an original decree State has exclusive,continuing jurisdiction, no other Statemay modify the decree State’s custodyorder—even if the child moves and estab-lishes a new home State. (In such a sce-nario, the noncustodial parent usually

remains in the original decree State.) Acourt in the child’s new home State (orany other State) cannot modify the initialdecree unless the original decree Stateloses exclusive, continuing jurisdiction ordeclines to exercise it on inconvenientforum grounds, and then only if the child’snew home State has jurisdiction under theUCCJEA.58 These requirements are intend-ed to eliminate the practice under theUCCJA in which a child’s original home

State and new home State both assertmodification jurisdiction, which is likelyto result in conflicting custody orders andconfusion as to which order takes prec-edence.59 Conflicting orders have alsocaused many law enforcement officers torefuse help in enforcing an order because

of uncertainty as to its validity.Example. Following proceedings in Kansas(the child’s home State), the child’s fatheris granted custody. The mother moves toOklahoma, where the child spends extend-ed visits over summers and holidays. Twoyears later, when the child reaches schoolage, the mother refuses to return the childto Kansas at the end of the summer andenrolls the child in an elementary schoolin Oklahoma. She also files an action inOklahoma to modify the Kansas order,seeking full custody of the child. The fa-ther challenges the Oklahoma court’s ju-

risdiction and moves to dismiss the suiton grounds that Kansas has exclusive,continuing jurisdiction. He also seeksreturn of the child pursuant to the Kansasorder. The father prevails based on theUCCJEA and the PKPA. Both statutesrequire enforcement of valid orders, andthe validity of the Kansas order was un-contested. Oklahoma could not modifythe Kansas order because Kansas hadexclusive modification jurisdiction.

Declining Jurisdiction

Under the UCCJEA, a court with initial

jurisdiction; exclusive, continuing juris-diction; or modification jurisdiction maydecline to exercise jurisdiction on twogrounds: inconvenient forum and unjus-tifiable conduct.

Inconvenient forum. Under section 207 ofthe UCCJEA, a court may, after taking intoaccount specified factors, determine thatanother State is better able to decide cus-tody. These factors include whether do-mestic violence has occurred and, if so,which State can best protect the partiesand child; how long the child has lived outof State; where the evidence is located;

and which court is most familiar with thecase.

Example. In the Kansas-Oklahoma exampledescribed above, the mother could peti-tion the Kansas court to decline jurisdic-tion on grounds of inconvenient forum.However, the decision would be at thecourt’s discretion, and the fact that themother wrongfully withheld the child inOklahoma might weigh heavily in thecourt’s decision.

Unjustifiable conduct. Subject to specificexceptions,60 section 208 of the UCCJEArequires a court to decline jurisdiction ifsuch jurisdiction was created by the un-justifiable conduct of the party bringingthe action. Furthermore, the Act requiresthe court to assess the wrongdoer neces

sary and reasonable expenses61

unlessthat party can prove that the assessmentwould be clearly inappropriate. Althoughthe statute does not define “unjustifiableconduct,” examples cited in the accompanying comment to section 208 includewrongful removal, retention, or conceal-ment of a child.

Questions may arise as to how this sec-tion of the UCCJEA operates in domesticviolence situations. The comment to sec-tion 208 explains that if a parent flees wita child to escape domestic violence andin the process violates a joint custody de

cree, that parent’s case should not auto-matically be dismissed. Instead, an in-quiry must be made into whether theflight was justified under the circum-stances. The comment goes on to distin-guish the case of an abusive parent whoseizes a child and flees to another State testablish jurisdiction. In this case, he orshe has engaged in unjustifiable conductand the new State must decline to exer-cise jurisdiction.

Example. Without warning, a fathersnatches his son from a school bus stopin Arizona. He takes the child to Oregon

and keeps their location hidden from theleft-behind mother for 10 months. Theboy’s mother mistakenly believes that shcannot file for custody in Arizona (thechild’s home State) because the child isno longer physically present there. (Hadshe consulted a knowledgeable lawyer,she would have known that the child’sabsence from Arizona did not deprive thehome State of jurisdiction as long as acustody action was commenced within6 months of the boy’s departure.) Thefather waits 16 months before filing for ainitial custody order in Oregon and givesthe mother notice of the proceeding. She

promptly files a motion to dismiss ongrounds that the father’s conduct wasunjustifiable. The court agrees, and itdeclines jurisdiction, dismisses the peti-tion, and orders the father to pay themother’s attorney’s fees and investigativcosts. The mother then commences a cutody action in an Arizona court, whichexercises jurisdiction on significant con-nection grounds, the home State havingdeclined its jurisdiction. The mother can



8

then seek enforcement of the Oregon or-der in Arizona, using any of the enforce-ment procedures in the UCCJEA or otherprocedures available in that State. TheUCCJEA and the PKPA require Arizona toenforce the mother’s order.

Duty To Enforce Underthe UCCJEAThe UCCJEA requires State courts to rec-ognize and enforce child-custody determi-nations made in substantial conformitywith the jurisdictional provisions of theAct or made under factual circumstancesthat meet the jurisdictional standards ofthe Act.62 This basic duty to enforce is thesame as that in the UCCJA; however, acustody order is enforceable under theUCCJEA only if the issuing court exer-cised jurisdiction in conformity with the

UCCJEA.In addition to establishing a duty to en-force sister States’ custody and visitationorders, the UCCJEA creates five new inter-state enforcement mechanisms. Thesemechanisms, each described in this sec-tion, supplement any other enforcementprocedures available under State law.

Registration of an out-of-State custodydetermination. The UCCJEA creates aprocess for registering out-of-State cus-tody and visitation orders.63 Parents andother parties are not required to registera custody or visitation determination but

may choose to do so for the followingreasons:

x Registration puts the courts of a Stateon notice of an existing custody deter-mination and of the issuing court’sexclusive, continuing jurisdiction.

x Registration is a pretest of enforceabili-ty; that is, it can be used to obtain as-surance that the custody determinationwill be enforced in the future.64

x Registration limits possible defenses toenforcement at a later date, which sim-plifies and expedites subsequent en-

forcement efforts.x Uncontested registration may obviate

the need for lawyers in a case, whichwould be a great benefit to parentswho cannot afford counsel.

x A registered order is enforceable as ifit were a local order as of the date ofregistration.

The process for registering out-of-Statecustody determinations is straightfor-ward. A party sends a request for registra-tion to a court in another State, along withcopies of the child-custody determinationand other required information. The courtfiles the order as a foreign judgment and

serves notice on the parent (or personacting as a parent) who has been awardedcustody or visitation in the order. Personswho receive notice have 20 days to re-quest a hearing to contest the validity ofthe order. If no such request is made, theorder is confirmed as a matter of law andmay be enforced as if it were a local order.

If the registration is contested, only threedefenses are available:

x That the court making the custody de-termination lacked jurisdiction.

x That the person contesting registra-

tion was entitled to but did not receivenotice of the underlying custody pro-ceeding in accordance with theUCCJEA.

x That the child-custody determinationhas been vacated, stayed, or modified.

The UCCJEA’s registration process differsfrom the UCCJA provision requiring clerksof court to maintain a registry for filingout-of-State decrees. The UCCJA’s registryprovision was omitted from the UCCJEA.65

Temporary visitation orders. Under theUCCJEA, courts may issue temporary

orders to enforce visitation schedules inother States’ court orders or visitationprovisions of out-of-State orders that donot contain a specific schedule.66 For in-stance, courts may order compensatoryvisitation time or give specific meaningto another State’s award of “reasonablevisitation.”

Although this section gives judges theauthority to issue temporary orders tofacilitate visitation that might not other-wise occur, it does not confer modificationjurisdiction to make wholesale changesto sister States’ orders. Consistent with

the UCCJEA and the PKPA, permanentchanges to the underlying custody ordermay be made only by the court with modi-fication jurisdiction, unless that Statedeclines to exercise jurisdiction.

Expedited enforcement of custody de-terminations. Sections 308–310 of theUCCJEA create a new enforcement reme-dy, the object of which is the immediaterecovery of a child.67 It is fast and summa-ry in nature. If there is a risk of serious

physical harm or abduction, this remedymay be used in concert with a warrant totake physical custody of a child (UCCJEAsection 311, as discussed below).

The UCCJEA’s expedited enforcement sections provide for an enforcement hearingnormally within 24 hours of service (i.e.,on the next judicial day after service). Ifthat date is impossible, the hearing mustbe held on the first judicial day possible.In other words, this is a priority proceeding on the fastest track available.

At the hearing, the respondent has limitedefenses, the availability of which de-pends on whether the order has been registered. If so, the only available defense ithat the order has since been vacated,stayed, or modified. If the custody orderhas not been registered, the respondentmay assert the three defenses that couldhave been raised in a registration pro-ceeding: (1) lack of jurisdiction in the is-suing court; (2) the underlying custodyorder has been vacated, stayed, or modi-fied; and (3) lack of notice.

At the conclusion of the hearing, unlessthe respondent has established a defensethe court must issue an order authorizinthe petitioner to take immediate physicacustody of the child. Pursuant to section312, the court must also order the re-spondent to pay the petitioner’s neces-sary and reasonable expenses68 unless threspondent shows that such award woulbe clearly inappropriate. (If the respond-ent had prevailed, the court would assesthe petitioner with costs and expenses bcause section 312 expressly provides foran award to the “prevailing party.”) Thereturn order may also include a directivefor law enforcement assistance.

Warrants to take physical custody of a child. The UCCJEA also includes a procedure to ensure a child’s safety and pres-ence in the jurisdiction when notice of anenforcement proceeding might cause therecipient to harm or flee with the child.69

On a finding that a “child is imminentlylikely to suffer serious physical harm orbe removed from the State,” section 311specifically authorizes a court to issue awarrant directing law enforcement officeto take immediate physical custody of thchild.

Warrants to take physical custody of achild (also known as “pickup” orders) arobtained under the UCCJEA in conjunc-tion with an enforcement action. The pettioner files a verified application to obtaia warrant to take physical custody of the



9

child upon filing an enforcement action.The court must take testimony from thepetitioner or another witness. The testi-mony may be taken by phone, in person,or by any other means allowed underlocal law. If the court finds that the childis imminently likely to suffer serious

physical harm or be removed from theState, the court may issue a warrant totake physical custody of the child. Thewarrant must direct law enforcement offi-cers to pick up the child immediately, andit must provide for the child’s placementpending the enforcement hearing. Therespondent must be served with the peti-tion, warrant, and order immediately afterthe warrant is executed (i.e., after thechild is picked up), and the enforcementpetition must be heard on the next judicialday unless that date is impossible.

This remedy may be especially helpful in

preventing international abductions. TheICARA contemplates that courts hearingHague Convention cases may take meas-ures under State and Federal law to pro-tect the well-being of a child or to preventfurther removal or concealment beforefinal disposition of the petition. Section311 of the UCCJEA provides the authorityto do so.

Public enforcement provisions. Sections315–317 of the UCCJEA provide a mecha-nism for enforcing custody and visitationorders70 that is modeled on a system thathas functioned remarkably well in Cal-

ifornia for more than 20 years with widesupport from the criminal justice commu-nity. (See “The Role of Prosecutors andLaw Enforcement in Civil Custody Enforce-ment: California’s Experience,” page 10.)

State legislatures may designate any pub-lic officials they deem appropriate to im-plement sections 315 and 316. Althoughmost States will select prosecutors andlaw enforcement, legislatures may desig-nate other public officials, such as a“Friend of the Court.” California’s experi-ence exemplifies the advantages of allow-ing district attorneys, criminal investiga-

tors, and other law enforcement officersto play an active part in civil enforcementof custody determinations. The followingexplanation of sections 315–317 assumesthat State legislatures have designatedprosecutors and law enforcement officersto exercise the new discretionary powers.

Section 315(a) of the UCCJEA gives prose-cutors statutory authority to take any law-ful action—including instituting a proceed-ing under article 3 or any other available

civil proceeding—to locate a child, facili-tate a child’s return, or enforce a child-custody determination. Any actions takenby the prosecutor are done on behalf ofthe court. The prosecutor does not repre-sent any party.

The prosecutor may act if one of the fol-lowing exists:

x A prior custody determination.

x A request from a court in a pendingchild-custody proceeding.

x A reasonable belief that a criminalstatute has been violated.

x A reasonable belief that a child hasbeen wrongfully removed or retainedin violation of the Hague Convention.

Under section 315, prosecutors may re-quest the assistance of law enforcementofficers, and section 316 expressly author-

izes them to respond to such a request.71

Under section 317, prosecutors and lawenforcement agencies may recover theirdirect costs and expenses from a non-prevailing party.

The authority granted under these sec-tions is discretionary, meaning that prose-cutors may elect to use their new civilauthority to resolve custody and visitationinterference cases but are not required todo so. For example, a prosecutor may optfor civil remedies under the UCCJEA whenthis approach would best serve the childand family. Compared with criminal pro-

ceedings, civil proceedings tend to be lesstraumatic for children. In all cases, prose-cutors may choose, under State criminallaw, to prosecute the perpetrator-parent ifprosecution is in the interest of justice.Civil and criminal remedies may be pur-sued simultaneously in some circum-stances. In short, the UCCJEA adds civilremedies to the tools prosecutors alreadyhave under criminal statutes but allowsprosecutors to choose how to proceed inparental kidnapping cases.

Sections 315–317 offer potential advan-tages to prosecutors, children, and par-

ents. Specifically, the provisions may:

x Deter abductions and encourage citi-zens to respect the terms of courtorders.

x Deter self-help recoveries (“reabduc-tions”), which can be harmful tochildren and may have civil or criminalconsequences for parents.

x Create an interstate network of recipro-cal assistance to resolve custodial

interference cases. This networkshould result in faster resolution ofmany interstate custody and visitationdisputes, thereby sparing children thetrauma of protracted custody litigatioreducing litigation costs for parents,and limiting more costly prosecutions

by allowing prosecutors to pursue civremedies.

x Give prosecutors the authority to assiwith civil enforcement, thereby providing custodial parents of limited finan-cial ability lawful means by which tosecure return of their children.

x Involve public authorities in handlinginternational child-custody and visita-tion disputes under the Hague Convention. Their involvement should improthe United States’ standing with treatypartners—many of whom now providefree legal assistance to U.S. citizens

seeking return of their children fromabroad—and may foster the return ofmore children who have been abductefrom this country.

x Give the criminal justice communitythe option of using civil remedies ininterstate and international custodyand abduction cases, while leaving thedoor open to prosecute the abductingparent when circumstances warrant.This leeway should facilitate resolutioof these difficult cases in the best inteests of children and society.

ConclusionThis Bulletin has highlighted the manyways in which nationwide enactment ofthe UCCJEA would improve interstatechild-custody practice. To recap a few, thUCCJEA adopts the PKPA’s priority forhome State jurisdiction in initial custodycases and codifies the principle of exclu-sive, continuing jurisdiction. These pro-visions will clarify where child-custodyproceedings should be brought and sub-stantially reduce the number of competincustody proceedings in sister States. TheUCCJEA also includes the following inno-

vative enforcement mechanisms: the expdited enforcement procedure, the warranto take physical custody of a child, andthe public officials sections of the Act, alof which should result in swifter, morestreamlined, and more predictable inter-state enforcement of custody and visita-tion orders. The UCCJEA’s new interstatejurisdictional rules and procedures reflecsensitivity to the safety needs of parentsand children who are the victims of do-mestic violence.



10

Readers interested in promoting enact-ment of the UCCJEA in their State shouldcontact the Governor’s office and membersof the Judiciary Committees in their Statelegislature to request action on the legisla-tion. Legislative packets and copies of the

law may be obtained from NCCUSL. (Con-tact information for NCCUSL appears inthe “For Further Information” section.)

Once the UCCJEA is enacted, its successwill depend on lawyers using it wisely,

courts interpreting it uniformly, and pub-lic officials using the law’s new tools ef-fectively to minimize the harmful effectschildren endure when they are pawns ininterjurisdictional custody battles.

District attorneys and law enforcementofficers in California have had the statu-tory authority to intervene in civil child

custody enforcement cases for morethan 20 years. The UCCJEA’s “publicofficials” provisions are modeled onCalifornia law. Although California’s en-actment of the UCCJEA has changedsome enforcement practices,1 it is usefulto examine the extensive pre-UCCJEAexperience of California’s prosecutorsand law enforcement officers in thesecases.

A California prosecutor seeking to re-cover a child being wrongfully kept inanother State (in violation of a custodydetermination) may evaluate the caseto determine whether to initially proceed

criminally or civilly. The prosecutor willconsider several factors in determininghis or her approach. Factors affectingthe decision include the following:

x Facts surrounding the abduction.

x Evidence that the child is in danger.

x The child’s age.

x Date the child was initially taken.

x The likelihood that the child will beremoved from the country.

x Concealment of the child.

x Allegations or evidence of domestic

violence or child abuse.

x The criminal history of both parties.

x The probability of recovering thechild without pressing criminal

charges against the abductor.

x The assistance available from the

other State without pressing criminalcharges.

The Role of Prosecutors and Law Enforcement in Civil Custody Enforcement:California’s Experience

x The likelihood of flight.

x The health and welfare of the child.

Although the prosecutor may initiallychoose a civil approach, he or she re-tains the discretion to proceed criminallyagainst the abductor if the facts and cir-cumstances warrant (e.g., where facts areuncovered that indicate that the child maybe endangered or abused).

Under civil enforcement, once the abduct-ing parent and the child are located, thedistrict attorney may contact the abduct-ing parent by telephone, explain the law,and request a voluntary return. If theabducting parent refuses to cooperate orif such contact may trigger flight and con-cealment of the child, the district attorneywill secure an order from the Californiacourt directing the district attorney to re-cover the child. This order gives the dis-trict attorney temporary custody of thechild for the purpose of the child’s recov-ery and designates temporary placementof the child. (The court may order thechild placed with the left-behind parent, infoster care, or otherwise, depending onthe facts and circumstances of the case.)The district attorney (or criminal investiga-tor working with the district attorney) thencontacts the law enforcement agency andthe court in the jurisdiction where thechild is located to arrange for pickup of

the child (and to inquire about a UCCJEAenforcement proceeding, if applicable).The district attorney ascertains the pro-cedures and requirements of the law en-forcement agency and the court regardingenforcement practices and any other per-tinent issues, such as arrangements forovernight shelter and care.

If the law enforcement agency is coopera-tive, pickup of the child generally goessmoothly. If a court hearing is required,the presence and/or testimony of the dis-trict attorney’s investigator may be suffi-cient for the court to order the return ofthe child with the investigator. If the locallaw enforcement agency is not coopera-tive or if an enforcement action is re-quired, the district attorney may retain a

lawyer (at State expense) to bring theaction under local law.

In predecree abduction cases (i.e.,when there is no custody determinationat the time of the abduction), the districtattorney usually requires the left-behindparent to initiate a custody proceeding.However, the district attorney can filethe appropriate initial pleading in certaincases.

In cooperation with the California StateAttorney General, California districtattorneys also play an important role ininternational child abduction cases in-volving the Hague Convention.When achild is abducted to California from aHague Convention country, the district

attorney may seek the voluntary returnof the child or pursue a court actionunder the Convention for the return ofthe child. When a child is abducted fromCalifornia to a Hague Convention coun-try, the district attorney is involved inlocating the child and may file an appli-cation with the U.S. Department ofState or directly with the foreign CentralAuthority under the Hague Conventionseeking the child’s return.

Based on California’s experience, thecost of using prosecutors and law en-forcement in the civil enforcement ofcustody matters should be modest.

Using civil remedies to resolve custodialinterference cases typically costs lessthan prosecuting wrongdoer parents. In1989, the California Controller’s Officepaid counties $3.3 million for their workin 5,890 cases statewide. The 1991–92budget was also $3.3 million, but prose-cutors assisted in almost 8,000 casesof civil custody enforcement and recov-ered 3,000 abducted children. The vol-ume of cases has grown since then,with corresponding increases in Statespending, as more counties have be-come involved in civil custody enforce-ment. Other States can expect to spend

less than California because California,the most populous State, probably hasthe highest volume of custodial interfer-ence cases in the country.

1 One of the most important changes since enact-

ment of the UCCJEA is the increase in interstate

judicial communication to address jurisdictional andenforcement issues.



11

For Further InformationFor additional information on the UCCJEA,readers may contact the organizationslisted and described below. Brief descrip-tions of selected publications availablefrom each organization are also provided.

OrganizationsAmerican Bar Association (ABA)Center on Children and the Law 740 15th Street NW., Ninth FloorWashington, DC 20005–1009202–662–1720202–662–1755 (fax)[email protected]/child

The ABA Center on Children and the Lawconcentrates on legal issues that directlyaffect children. The Center’s Obstacles tothe Recovery and Return of ParentallyAbducted Children Project, funded by

OJJDP and directed by Linda Girdner,Ph.D., documented problems that parentsface when children are abducted inter-state and internationally. Among the manyrecommendations contained in the origi-nal Obstacles Project’s final report wasthe need for streamlined, uniform proce-dures to expedite interstate enforcementof custody and visitation orders. In fur-therance of that goal, the Obstacles Proj-ect’s Legal Director, Patricia M. Hoff, J.D.,served as an advisor to the UCCJEA

drafting committee. Although the Centercurrently has no ongoing projects relatedto parental kidnapping, its Web site in-cludes an extensive collection of literatureabout parental kidnapping and links toother resources.

American Bar Association (ABA)Section of Family Law 750 North Lake Shore DriveChicago, IL 60611–4497Attn: Jeff Atkinson, ABA advisor to the

UCCJEA drafting committee312–988–5000www.abanet.org/family/home.html

The ABA is the largest voluntary associa-tion of lawyers in the United States, andits Section of Family Law is devoted tostabilizing and preserving the family. Thespring 1998 issue of Family Law Quarterly,one of the section’s two publications,focused on two uniform laws that affectchildren and families: the UCCJEA and theUniform Interstate Family Support Act.The ABA advisor to the UCCJEA draftingcommittee, Jeff Atkinson, is an activemember of the Section of Family Law.

National Center for Missing andExploited Children (NCMEC)Charles B. Wang International Children’s

Building699 Prince StreetAlexandria, VA 22314–3175800–843–5678

703–274–2220 (fax)[email protected]

NCMEC is a private, nonprofit clearing-house that was established in 1984 andoperates under a congressional mandateA resource center for child protection,NCMEC collects and distributes informa-tion on missing and exploited childrenand operates a national toll-free hotline,800–THE–LOST (800–843–5678), for indi-viduals to report missing children or re-quest information. NCMEC assists fami-lies and can be of tremendous help to lawenforcement in case management, casetracking, lead and information analysis,and coordination of responses acrossjurisdictional lines.

National Center for Prosecution of ChilAbuse (NCPCA)99 Canal Center Plaza, Suite 510Alexandria, VA 22314703–739–0321703–549–6259 (fax)www.ndaa-apri.org/apri/NCPCA/Index.htm

The National Center for Prosecution ofChild Abuse recognizes child abuse as acrime for which perpetrators must beheld accountable. Because no area ofcriminal justice has changed so rapidly ithe past 15 years, the need for professioal specialization is especially great. Committed to excellence in training, technicaassistance, and publications, the NationaCenter for Prosecution of Child Abuse ismeeting that need. In cooperation withprosecutors and other child abuse profesionals in the United States and interna-tionally, the Center demonstrates concerfor a particularly vulnerable group ofcrime victims based on the premise thatchildren are entitled to equal treatmentunder the law.

National Conference of Commissionerson Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL)211 East Ontario Street, Suite 1300Chicago, IL 60611312–915–0195312–915–0187 (fax)www.nccusl.org

For more than 100 years, NCCUSL has prmoted uniformity in State law and inter-state cooperation by developing uniformacts and endeavoring to secure their en-actment by the voluntary action of eachState government. The conference in-cludes commissioners from each State,the District of Columbia, the Common-wealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. VirginIslands. Drafting committees made up of

A Prosecutor’s Perspective

As a general proposition, California’s prosecutors and law enforcement officers arevery supportive of the dual civil/criminal approach to custodial interference cases. In1992, when the State was making programmatic cuts to reduce its deficit, strongstatewide support from the criminal justice community fended off an effort to cut aprogram that implemented this approach. A district attorney with expertise in childabduction cases sums up why the program was well received by California’s crimi-nal justice community and why the UCCJEA should be supported:1

As a prosecutor assigned to the Child Abduction Unit of the Santa ClaraCounty D.A.’s Office for the past 6 years, I can personally attest to the incalcu-lable value of the availability of civil, as well as criminal, enforcement tools inresolving interstate child abduction cases. This office alone has recovered ap-proximately 1,777 children in the last 10 years. The ability to act in a civil con-text has been an important factor in recovery of these children. In the majorityof the custody and visitation disputes I have handled, resolving the issueswithout criminal proceedings has clearly served the best interests of the chil-dren involved. Other states do not have the same ability to serve and recovertheir children. The most effective deterrent to child abduction in this countrywould be the nationwide network of law enforcement and prosecutors this bill[the UCCJEA] would create.

1 J.M. Heim, Deputy District Attorney, Child Abduction Unit, Santa Clara County, CA, personal communication,

March 1996, to Justice Marian Opala, Chair, UCCJEA Drafting Committee, in support of the prosecutor/law

enforcement sections of the UCCJEA.



12

commissioners are appointed to draft spe-cific acts, and advisors and observersoften participate in the drafting process.A draft uniform act must be read, sectionby section, at no fewer than two annualmeetings before a decision is made, byvote of States, to promulgate the act as a

Uniform Act.NCCUSL approved the UCCJEA in 1997.Copies of the law are available fromNCCUSL’s Chicago address and may bedownloaded from the NCCUSL Web site(www.nccusl.org).

Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

Child Protection Division (CPD)810 Seventh Street NW.Washington, DC 20531202–616–3637202–353–9093 (fax)www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org

OJJDP’s Child Protection Division admin-isters programs related to crimes againstchildren and provides leadership andfunding in the areas of enforcement, inter-vention, and prevention. CPD promoteseffective policies and procedures to ad-dress the problems of abused, neglected,missing, and exploited children. Activitiesinclude conducting research, providingtraining and technical assistance, andsupporting demonstration and serviceprograms related to child victimization.CPD also supports the National Centerfor Missing and Exploited Children (seeabove), a clearinghouse and resourcecenter that collects and distributes dataregarding missing and exploited childrenand operates a national toll-free hotline(800–843–5678).

Publications

ABA Center on Children and the Law.The following documents are availablefrom the Center (see Issues/ParentalKidnapping on its Web site).

Hague Child Abduction Convention IssueBriefs. This 1997 material consists of four

issue briefs that can help attorneys han-dle cases that fall under the Hague Con-vention on the Civil Aspects of Inter-national Child Abduction.

The Hague Convention: A Curriculum for American Judges and Lawyers. This 1997publication explains how the Hague Con-vention can be used effectively within theUnited States in international parentalkidnapping cases.

Parental Kidnapping: Prevention and Remedies. This paper is designed to helpattorneys better understand parentalabduction cases and applicable laws. Itincludes practical tips on protections thatcan be placed in child custody ordersthat may help prevent an abduction, tips

that lawyers can give their parent clients,a review of possible legal actions that canbe taken on parents’ behalf, and govern-mental resources that can be used to helpin these cases.

Parental Kidnapping Law Reform Package(consists of three proposed State laws:Parental Kidnapping Crime Act, MissingChildren Record Flagging Act, and Tor-tious Interference With Child Custodyand Visitation Act). This package, pro-duced in 1996, contains three proposedState laws related to parental abductionthat can be adopted by State legislatures.

ABA Section of Family Law. The followingdocument is available from the Section(see Publications on its Web site).

International Child Abductions: A Guide toApplying the 1988 Hague Convention, WithForms, Second Edition. This guide providesall the basic information needed to invokeand apply the Hague Convention and theforms necessary for its use.

NCMEC. The following documents areavailable from NCMEC (see Education& Resources on its Web site or call800–843–5678).

Family Abduction. This handbook guidesparents through the civil and criminal jus-tice systems, explains the laws that willhelp them, outlines prevention methods,and provides suggestions for aftercarefollowing the abduction. It thoroughlydetails search and recovery strategiesand contains advice for attorneys, prose-cutors, and family court judges handlingthese cases.

International Forum on Parental Child Abduction: Hague Convention ActionAgenda. This report details the findings

of a forum held in September 1998 tostudy the Hague Convention on the CivilAspects of International Child Abduction.It offers 12 action/agenda items to helpstrengthen the implementation of theHague Convention.

“The Kid Is With a Parent, How Bad Can It Be?”: The Crisis of Family Abductions. Thisissue brief discusses the seriousness ofthe problem of family abduction, consid-ers whether the problem is growing, and

examines the challenges and opportuni-ties this crime poses to policymakers.

Missing and Abducted Children: A Law- Enforcement Guide to Case Investigationand Program Management. This guide,authored by a team of 38 professionalsfrom local, State, and Federal agencies,outlines a standard of practice for lawenforcement officers handling severaltypes of missing child cases, includingrunaways, thrownaways, family/nonfamiabductions, and disappearances in whichthe circumstances are unknown.

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival Guide. Also available fromOJJDP; see page 13 for description.

NCPCA. The following documents areavailable from NCPCA (see Publicationson its Web site).

Charging the Parental Kidnapping Case.This monograph assists prosecutors indetermining appropriate charges and sentencing recommendations. It notes that aaggressive investigative and prosecutoriapproach sends the message that parental kidnapping is a serious crime withserious consequences for both victimsand abductors and recommends thatprosecution be seriously considered inevery parental kidnapping case.

Investigation and Prosecution of Parental Abduction, 2000 (Training ConferenceNotebook). This notebook contains train

ing materials compiled for the 2000NCPCA Conference, Investigation andProsecution of Parental Abduction.

Parental Kidnapping, Domestic Violence anChild Abuse: Changing Legal Responses toRelated Violence. This monograph assistinvestigators and prosecutors in developing appropriate responses to the inter-related crimes of parental kidnapping,domestic violence, and child abuse.

NCCUSL. Copies of acts, drafts, and legislation are available from NCCUSL (seeNCCUSL Acts, Drafts & Legislation on itsWeb site).

OJJDP. The following documents are avaable from OJJDP (see Publications on itsWeb site or call the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800–638–8736) or from theNational Criminal Justice Reference Serv-ice (visit www.ncjrs.org or call800–851–3420).

Addressing Confidentiality of Records inSearches for Missing Children (NCJ 155183This Report makes recommendations



13

concerning law enforcement agencies’access to records maintained by schools,hospitals, child welfare agencies, domes-tic violence shelters, and runaway shel-ters. The Report also covers informationrelease procedures and includes a check-list for maximizing record access from

service providers. The Report’s appen-dixes contain additional information andother relevant statistical data on the con-fidentiality of records in searches formissing children, jurisdictions that allowrecord access or impose reporting re-quirements in missing children cases,and State laws affecting record access.

The Criminal Justice System’s Response toParental Abduction (NCJ 186160). ThisBulletin summarizes primary findingsfrom a study of the criminal justice sys-tem’s response to parental abduction.Funded by OJJDP and conducted jointly

by the American Bar Association Centeron Children and the Law and Westat, thestudy examined all aspects of the system’sresponse, including the reporting of theincident, investigation of the case, loca-tion and recovery of the child, and crimi-nal prosecution of the abductor. The Bul-letin reports results from the study’snational survey of law enforcement agen-cies and prosecutors, site visits, and casefile reviews and presents implications forlegal, programmatic, and policy reforms.

Early Identification of Risk Factors for Parental Abduction (NCJ 185026). This

Bulletin presents the design and findingsof four OJJDP-funded projects on prevent-ing family abductions: a documentarystudy, a criminal sanctions study, aninterview study, and an interventionstudy. The findings provide informationregarding the risk factors associated withparental kidnapping and strategies thatcan be used to intervene with at-riskfamilies.

Family Abductors: Descriptive Profiles and Preventive Interventions (NCJ 182788). ThisBulletin describes preventive interventions,such as counseling, conflict resolution, andlegal strategies, that seek to settle custodyand access disputes for families identifiedas at risk for parental abduction.

A Family Resource Guide on International Parental Kidnapping (NCJ 190448). Thisguide presents practical and detailedadvice about preventing international kid-napping and increasing the chance thatchildren who are kidnapped or wrongfullyretained will be returned. It provides de-scriptions and realistic assessments of

the civil and criminal remedies availa-ble in international parental kidnappingcases, explains applicable laws and identi-fies both the public and private resourcesthat may be called upon when an interna-tional abduction occurs or is threatened,and prepares parents for the legal and

emotional difficulties they may experience.International Parental Kidnapping: A LawEnforcement Guide (forthcoming). Thisguide provides practical information onthe public and private resources andservices that are available to assist lawenforcement in international parentalabduction cases. It explains applicablelaws, defines agency roles and responsi-bilities, describes criminal and civil reme-dies, examines methods for preventionand interception, and discusses impor-tant issues and procedures to be ad-dressed during an international parental

abduction case.Issues in Resolving Cases of International Child Abduction (NCJ 182790). This Reportdocuments a lack of uniformity in theapplication of the Hague Conventionacross countries. It includes case histo-ries, survey findings on left-behind par-ents, selected practices in internationalfamily abduction cases, and recommenda-tions for the judicial and legal systems.

Issues in Resolving Cases of International Child Abduction by Parents (NCJ 190105).This Bulletin provides an overview of themajor survey findings, selected goodpractices, and recommendations fromthe Report Issues in Resolving Cases of International Child Abduction (see previousentry).

Obstacles to the Recovery and Return of Parentally Abducted Children (Report: NCJ144535; Research Summary: NCJ 143458).These publications present the results ofa 2-year study of the legal, policy, proce-dural, and practical obstacles to the loca-tion, recovery, and return of parentallyabducted children. They include recom-mendations to overcome each obstacleand extensive appendixes that describethe pros and cons of existing legal proce-dures for enforcing a custody order, sam-ple forms to be used with existing legalprocedures, and summaries of both civiland criminal appellate decisions.

Parental Abduction: A Review of theLiterature (Available online only: ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/missing.html#186160).This online resource summarizes currentresearch and literature relating to the

primary issues involved in parentalabduction.

Prevention of Parent or Family AbductionThrough Early Identification of Risk Facto(NCJ 182791). Based on analyses of datafrom several California studies related tochild abductions by a noncustodial par-ent, this Report outlines a set of charac-teristics of parents who abduct theirchildren and presents indepth socio-demographic and legal informationabout the families of abducted children

Using Agency Records To Find Missing Children: A Guide for Law Enforcement (NCJ 154633). This Summary focuses onprocedures for obtaining and using therecords of certain types of human servicproviders to find missing children. It ex-amines the use of, access to, barriers tosecuring, and limitations of records fromschools, medical care providers, runawayshelters, and domestic violence shelters

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival Guide (NCJ 170022; Spanish ver-sion: NCJ 178902). This guide, written byparents and family members who haveexperienced the disappearance of a childexplains how parents can best participatin the search for a missing child. It dis-cusses the parents’ relationship withlaw enforcement, examines issues relateto the media, and presents practical in-formation about distributing fliers andphotos, organizing volunteers, and man-aging monetary donations.

BibliographyGonzalez, R.M., Tumonis, E.F., and Dun-ham, R. 1998. Attorney General Child Ab- duction Reference Manual. Sacramento,CA: State of California Department ofJustice, Office of the Attorney General.

Hoff, P.M. 1998. The ABC’s of the UCCJEAInterstate child-custody practice underthe new act. Family Law Quarterly 32(2):267–299.

Spector, R.G. 1998. Uniform Child-CustodJurisdiction and Enforcement Act (with

Prefatory Note and Comments). Family Law Quarterly 32(2):301–384.

Endnotes1. Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction anEnforcement Act (1997), 9(1A) U.L.A. 657(1999). The text is accessible online atwww.nccusl.org.

2. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Ac9(1A) U.L.A. 271 (1999).



14

3. Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Cali-fornia, Colorado, Connecticut, the Districtof Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas,Maine, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico,North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma,Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia,Washington, and West Virginia.

4. Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Mary-land, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey,New York, and Rhode Island.

5. The terms “child-custody determina-tion,” “custody determination,” and“order,” as used in this Bulletin, refer tocustody determinations and visitationdeterminations.

6. Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of1980, 28 U.S.C. § 1738A.

7. Violence Against Women Act of 1994;Violence Against Women Act of 2000, 18U.S.C. §§ 2265, 2266.

8. The complete text of the Hague Conven-tion can be found at 51 Fed. Reg. 10,494 et seq. (1986) or online via the U.S. Depart-ment of State’s Web site at www.travel.state.gov, under “International ParentalChild Abduction.”

9. International Child Abduction RemediesAct, 42 U.S.C. § 11601 et seq.

10. Uniform Child Custody JurisdictionAct, Prefatory Note. The Full Faith andCredit clause requires that full faith andcredit “be given in each state to the publicacts, records, and judicial proceedingsof every other state” (U.S. Constitution,article IV, § 1).

11. Id.

12. Girdner, L.K., and Hoff, P.M., eds. 1993.Final Report: Obstacles to the Recovery and Return of Parentally Abducted Children.Washington, DC: American Bar Associ-ation Center on Children and the Law(hereinafter Obstacles Project Final Re- port ). The Obstacles Project Final Report was considered by the UCCJEA draftingcommittee, and numerous recommenda-tions from the report are reflected in theuniform act. In addition to suggesting

amendments to the UCCJA and the PKPA,the Obstacles Project Final Report pro-posed an original “Act To Expedite En-forcement of Child Custody Determina-tions.” The purpose of the statute was toalleviate the shortcomings and lack of uni-formity in then-existing procedures forenforcing child-custody and visitationorders that had frustrated many parentstrying to exercise their lawful court-ordered rights. Article 3 of the UCCJEAincorporates many ideas from theproposed statute.

13. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A, “Full Faith and CreditGiven to Child Custody Determinations.”

14. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(d). This section es-tablishes the principle of “exclusive, con-tinuing jurisdiction.”

15. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(g). This section pro-

hibits simultaneous proceedings.16. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(e).

17. Like the UCCJA, the PKPA defines“home State” as the State in which a childhas lived with a parent or person actingas a parent for at least 6 months preced-ing the commencement of a child-custodyproceeding.

18. See endnote 12, supra.

19. See endnotes 6–9, supra.

20. 18 U.S.C. § 2266. The VAWA’s definitionof “protection order” expressly excludeschild-custody orders issued pursuant to

State child-custody laws (except to theextent that they are entitled to Full Faithand Credit under Federal law).

21. As of July 2001, the Hague Conventionwas in force between the United Statesand 49 countries. For a complete list ofcountries that are party to the Conven-tion, see the U.S. Department of State’sWeb site (www.travel.state.gov) or theHague Conference on Private InternationalLaw’s Web site (www.hcch.net).

22. The Hague Convention, ratified in1986, took effect in the United States in1988 following enactment of the Interna-

tional Child Abduction Remedies Act.

23. UCCJA, section 1 (Purposes of Act;Construction of Provisions). The UCCJEAomitted a “purposes” clause for stylisticreasons: NCCUSL no longer includes claus-es of this type in its uniform acts. The offi-cial comments note, however, that manyof the original purposes of the UCCJAremain valid.

24. In re Michelle Lemond, 413 N.E.2d 228(Ind. 1980). An extraordinary judicialpanel—consisting of the Supreme Court ofIndiana; the Court of Appeals of Indiana,First District; and the Chief Judge of theCourt of Appeals—held two judges, a pri-vate attorney, and a county prosecutor inindirect criminal contempt for willfullyand intentionally disobeying orders of theState Supreme Court and the mandate ofthe Court of Appeals in an interstate cus-tody enforcement case brought pursuantto the UCCJA. Each judge and lawyer wasfined $500 and charged with costs. Thecontempt proceeding stemmed from acustody dispute between a mother in

Hawaii and her ex-husband, who retainedcustody of their daughter in Indiana.Proceeding in accordance with the UCCJthe mother sought to enforce the Ha-waiian court order in Indiana. The fatherresisted at every level of the State’scourts.

After 3 years of litigation, the mother finaly prevailed; the father had exhausted hisremedies in the State courts, and it wasexpected that the orders of the State Su-preme Court and the Court of Appealswould be honored and the child returnedto her mother. However, the father’s counsel staged an 11th hour attempt to shieldhis client from the orders of Indiana’s higest courts by initiating the filing of a CHIN(Child In Need of Services) petition by thcounty prosecutor in juvenile court. Thejuvenile court issued the CHINS petitionminutes before the Circuit Court’s issu-

ance of a writ of habeas corpus orderingthe return of the child to her mother.However, the Circuit Judge assisted thefather’s efforts by ordering that the writnot be executed for 4 hours and then dis-qualifying himself from hearing the CHINSpetition. A new judge was named to hearthe CHINS petition, and it was this judgewho found the daughter in need of servi-ces and ordered that she be detained for mental examination.

Characterizing the sole legal issue in thecontempt proceeding as whether the juvnile court’s jurisdiction was properly in-voked, the courts in this case held thatthey would “not tolerate the attempteduse of emergency jurisdiction to reopen afully litigated and decided custody battle(413 N.E.2d at 245). The courts “becameconvinced that [the CHINS hearing] wasnot a good faith effort to help a child inneed of services. Rather, it was a well-orchestrated effort to thwart the ordersof these Courts by prostituting the emer-gency authority of a juvenile court” (id. a238). The juvenile court judge should havrecognized the CHINS petition for what itwas: “nothing more than a pretense forthe judge assuming jurisdiction,” a sham

designed to avoid the force and effect ofthe writ (id. at 242).

25. 716 P.2d 991 (Cal. 1986), rev’d, 484 U.S400, 107 S. Ct. 2433 (1987).

26. UCCJEA, section 102(4) (definition of“child-custody proceeding”).

27. UCCJEA, section 201 (Initial Child-Custody Jurisdiction).

28. UCCJEA, section 202 (Exclusive, Con-tinuing Jurisdiction). See also UCCJEA,



15

section 102(13), which defines a “personacting as a parent” as “a person, otherthan a parent, who: (A) has physical cus-tody of the child or has had physicalcustody for a period of six consecutivemonths, including any temporary absence,within one year immediately before the

commencement of a child-custody pro-ceeding; and (B) has been awarded legalcustody by a court or claims a right tolegal custody under the law of this State.”

29. UCCJEA, section 204 (Temporary Emer-gency Jurisdiction).

30. UCCJEA, section 207 (InconvenientForum).

31. UCCJEA, section 208 (Jurisdiction De-clined by Reason of Conduct).

32. UCCJEA, section 304 (TemporaryVisitation).

33. UCCJEA, section 305 (Registration of

Child-Custody Determination).

34. UCCJEA, sections 308–310 (ExpeditedEnforcement of Child-Custody Determina-tion; Service of Petition and Order; Hear-ing and Order).

35. UCCJEA, section 311 (Warrant To TakePhysical Custody of Child).

36. UCCJEA, sections 315–317 (Role of[Prosecutor or Public Official]; Role of[Law Enforcement]; Costs and Expens-es). In States that enact these sections,prosecutors (or other designated publicofficials) and law enforcement officers

are able to use the procedures to locatechildren, return them to the jurisdictionof the court, and enforce custodydeterminations.

37. UCCJEA, section 102(4) (definition of“child-custody proceeding”).

38. UCCJEA, section 102(3)(d). See com-ment to UCCJEA, section 102: “By exclud-ing proceedings involving monetary obli-gations, this Act continues the notion ofdivided jurisdiction. A court may wellhave jurisdiction to dissolve the marriageor to make an order for child supportwithout having jurisdiction to make a cus-

tody determination. For a recent case, seeStevens v. Stevens, 682 N.E.2d 1309 (Ind.Ct. App. 1997).”

39. UCCJEA, section 103 (ProceedingsGoverned by Other Law).

40. UCCJEA, section 102(3). Temporaryorders are expressly included in theUCCJEA’s definition of “child-custody de-termination.” This definition is consistentwith the PKPA definition and clarifies an

ambiguity in section 2(2) of the UCCJA.

41. UCCJEA, section 105 (InternationalApplication of [Act]).

42. 51 Fed. Reg. 10,510.

43. UCCJEA, section 104 (Application toIndian Tribes).

44. UCCJEA, section 201(c). Personal juris-diction over a party or a child is neithernecessary nor sufficient to make a cus-tody determination.

45. See UCCJEA, section 201(a)(2)(A) and(B), which provide that significant connec-

tion jurisdiction exists when “(A) the childand the child’s parents, or the child and atleast one parent or a person acting as aparent, have a significant connection withthis State other than mere physical pres-ence; and (B) substantial evidence is avail-able in this State concerning the child’scare, protection, training, and personalrelationships; . . . .”

46. Under the UCCJEA, a court with juris-diction may decline to exercise it if anoth-er State is a more convenient forum (sec-tion 207) or the petitioner has engaged inunjustifiable conduct (section 208).

47. UCCJEA, section 206 (SimultaneousProceedings), part (a).

48. UCCJEA, section 206 (SimultaneousProceedings), part (b); section 110 (Com-munication Between Courts).

49. UCCJEA, section 209 (Information ToBe Submitted to Court).

50. UCCJEA, section 206 (SimultaneousProceedings), part (b).

51. UCCJEA, section 201(a)(3).

52. UCCJEA, section 201(a)(4).

53. UCCJEA, section 204.

54. UCCJEA, section 205(a), and PKPA, 28U.S.C. § 1738A(e).

55. UCCJEA, sections 209(a) and (e) pro-tect against disclosure of addresses andother identifying information in the plead-ings when disclosure would jeopardize a

child’s or a party’s health, safety, or liberty. If a State has adequate protections inexisting law, it may reference them in section (a) and delete section (e).

56. UCCJEA, section 207(b)(1).

57. UCCJEA, section 202 (Exclusive, Con-

tinuing Jurisdiction).58. UCCJEA, section 203 (Jurisdiction ToModify Determination).

59. The UCCJA prohibition against simultneous proceedings was designed to pre-vent this situation, but courts in two ormore States often proceed with their custody actions and issue conflicting ordersnotwithstanding the statutory prohibitio

60. UCCJEA, section 208(a)(1), (2), (3).

61. UCCJEA, section 208(c). Necessary anreasonable expenses include costs, com-munication expenses, attorney’s fees, in-

vestigative fees, expenses for witnesses,travel expenses, and childcare expensesduring the course of the proceedings.

62. UCCJEA, section 303 (Duty ToEnforce).


64. See comment to UCCJEA, section 305which gives as an example a foreign par-ent seeking an advance determination ofwhether a foreign custody order will berecognized and enforced before sending child to the United States for visitation.

65. This author favors retaining a child-

custody registry provision in State enactments of the UCCJEA. For a detailed dis-cussion of this issue, see Hoff, 1998.



68. Recoverable costs include communiction expenses, attorney’s fees, investiga-tive fees, expenses for witnesses, travelexpenses, and childcare expenses duringthe course of the proceedings.

69. UCCJEA, section 311 (Warrant To TakPhysical Custody of Child).

70. UCCJEA, section 315 (Role of [Prose-

cutor or Public Official]).71. This statutory authority should re-move the threat of civil liability that influences many law enforcement decisions inchild recovery situations.



U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

NCJ 189181Bulletin

PRESORTED STANDAR

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Acknowledgments

This Bulletin was written by Patricia M. Hoff, J.D., a legal consultant on interstateand international child-custody, visitation, and parental kidnapping law. She was anadvisor to the drafting committee of the UCCJEA on behalf of the ABA Center onChildren and the Law while serving as Legal Director of the Center’s Obstacles tothe Recovery and Return of Parentally Abducted Children Project. The authorgratefully acknowledges the contribution of Janet Heim, J.D., Deputy DistrictAttorney, Santa Clara County District Attorney’s Office, who wrote the Bulletin’ssidebars on California prosecutors’ long-time involvement in civil child-custodyenforcement. The author also thanks Linda Girdner, Ph.D., former Director ofResearch at the ABA Center on Children and the Law and Project Director of theObstacles Project, for her thoughtful comments on the Bulletin as it was beingdeveloped.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this document are those of the author andhave not been approved by the House of Delegates or the Board of Governors ofthe American Bar Association. The views, accordingly, should not be construed as

representing the official position or policies of the ABA.

This Bulletin is intended for educational and informational purposes and does notconstitute legal advice. Readers with specific cases should consult their legalcounsel.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant number

92–MC–CX–0007 from the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. De-

partment of Justice.

Points of view or opinions expressed in this

document are those of the author and do not

necessarily represent the official position or

policies of OJJDP or the U.S. Department of

Justice.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delin-

quency Prevention is a component of the Of-

fice of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

UCCJEA - Juvenile Justice Bulletin

Documents

Transcript of UCCJEA - Juvenile Justice Bulletin