Representative Cam Ward Introduces Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act (ACTION ALERT)

Representative Cam Ward Introduces Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act November 25, 2009 (ALABASTER, ALABAMA) – Representative Cam Ward (R-Alabaster) today announced the introduction of the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act. The act, which Rep. Ward is sponsoring is aimed at preventing child abductions in the state of Alabama.

Child abduction is one of the most frightening and heartbreaking crimes faced by parents and families today. According to the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, despite the familiar image in the news of children abducted by predatory strangers, the majority of child abductions are perpetrated by family members.

To combat this problem, the Uniform Law Commission promulgated the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act (UCAPA). Representative Ward and former Chief Justice Gorman Houston represented Alabama on this national drafting committee. This Act will provide Alabama with a valuable tool for deterring both domestic and international child abductions by parents and any persons acting on behalf of the parents.

The Act sets out a wide variety of factors that should be considered in determining whether there is a credible risk that a child will be abducted. These factors include overt signs such as previous abductions, attempts to abduct the child, or threats of abduction, as well as signs of general abuse including domestic violence, negligence, or refusal to obey a child-custody determination. The act also addresses the special problems involved with international child abductions by including risk factors specifically related to international abduction.

If a court determines that a credible risk exists that the child will be abducted, it may then enter an order containing provisions designed to prevent abduction including imposing travel restrictions, prohibiting the individual from removing the child from the State or place the child’s name in the United States Department of State’s Child Passport Issuance Alert Program.

If abduction appears imminent, a court may issue a warrant to take the child or direct law enforcement officers to take steps to locate and return the child.

The Act anticipates the need for cooperation and communication among the courts of different states. Because abduction situations will likely involve more than one state, it is vital that courts communicate effectively. The Act provides the court with guidance for emergency jurisdiction.

“This bill will go a long way to protect the children of Alabama,” commented Rep. Ward. “Although we already have good laws in place in regard to child abductions, the legislature needs to set some specific guidelines for the judicial system to ensure that our children are as safe and secure as possible. This bill will do that.”

“This bill is a product of a lot of hard work and dedication on the part of a number of individuals who need to be commended for their commitment to the children of Alabama,” continued Rep. Ward. “This bill would not be what it is without the help of former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice J. Gorman Houston and Robert McCurley of the Alabama Law Institute.”

Rep. Ward was elected to the Alabama House of Representatives in 2002 to represent District 49, which includes parts of Bibb and Shelby Counties. He is running for the Senate to represent District 14, which includes parts of Bibb and Shelby Counties and all of Chilton County. Mr. Ward, his wife Julie and daughter Riley live in Alabaster.

The Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act will be considered by the Alabama Legislature when it reconvenes in January 2010.

Heads up Alabama freepers.

Cam Ward was one of the original drafters of this Unconstitutional, draconian, dictatorial legislation. http://www.nccusl.org/Update/DesktopModules/NewsDisplay.aspx?ItemID=162

We need your help in defeating this horrible legislation !!!

Here is the New Jersey Law commissions review of this horrible law. They refused to recommend it to their legislature. http://www.lawrev.state.nj.us/ucapa/ucapaFR122208.pdf

The danger is that this legislation tends to sail through legislatures UNANIMOUSLY with NO OPPOSITION.

It passed in 7 or 8 states that way.

Until it got to Louisiana.

We managed to get it seriously modified in Louisiana House committee - after getting rolled over by the Senate Committee and the full Senate.

WE ACTUALLY GOT THEM TO READ THE BILL.

Here is Republican House committee member Shirly Bowler:

Rep. Bowler

Quote: "My reluctance with the bill, and it is with all due respect to this group of people, who got together and decided this was a good idea is that it does something, it departs from what I think is a real important concept in America and that is you are innocent until proven guilty, and this actually causes you to be penalized by a court for something they think you might do.

I think that is a real departure in thinking in America to do that.

I would hope that we would send this back to that group of Uniform lawmakers that come up with these models, say lets rethink this and I would hope that we don't pass it.

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

WOW. Thank you Rep Bowler.

Next up, we have Harold Murry. Mr. Murry is a family law attorney from Alexandria.

When I sent out the mass email asking for help fighting this bill, Mr. Murry was responded saying that it was not a problem - that it only applied to international abduction cases. I asked him to read the final bill - the committee had changed their scope from international cases to ALL cases. He did. He changed his mind. He made the committee hearing on short notice and this is what he had to say:

Quote: Murry: Hello, My name is Harold Murry, I am a family law attorney in Alexandria, I am also on the Supreme Courts domestic violence along with Anne Styre, who is a friend of mine, who I believe is speaking in favor of the bill.

My problem with this bill, is I think it started out as a really good idea, if you go look at the web site, you see that it started out as the Uniform International Child Abduction prevention act.

Because that is a huge problem, I have had cases where the father of the kid for instance is an exchange student from Jordan or he is a merchant from Pakistan and the people split and he is not going to get custody, he takes the kids to that country, and all we can do is write a couple of letters to the consulate, the mom never sees them again, there is no way to get them back.

and that is why there is so much in this about the Hague treaty on child abduction, whether or not somebody is from one of these countries where you can take kids and never get them back. At some point, I think in August of 2004, somebody appended some additional language to this, to make this solve all problems, and they took the International, the word international out and they added this thing that if you are from another state or have strong cultural ties to another state, that you are suspect, just like somebody who is from another country and really has the ability to do this sort of thing.

I tell my clients, there are always these threats that well, I am going to take the kid, no I am going to take the kid and you'll be darned if you see him again. I say, let him take the kid to Mississippi, we will have the kid back in two weeks and the judge will put him in jail. I'd love it. Don't worry about it.

We have all the laws we need. We have the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act; We have the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act - which is the federal statute to prevent children from being snatched from State to State.

They talk about strong cultural ties to another State should make you suspect. Well, I can't imagine them saying that somebody in Nebraska has cultural ties to Kansas that are suspect, they don't even have culture. I mean, its all the same, they are from the mid-west. (audience laughter) I mean, I think it is going to be used against Cajuns or something, I don't know. If you live in Houston and you have LSU season tickets you are suspect.

This should be, we need to send a message back to the committee to fix this thing back the way it was, to strike out the provisions that are just pasted in there where it says things like from another country or state, that that should be taken out and it should be an International act.

We need this protection, but this is going to be abused, I mean, lawyers love ex-parte custody orders. When I started practicing in '85 that was part of your stock in trade, if you could get your party ex-parte custody before the hearing came up a month later, your phone did not ring, the other attorney's phone would ring.

We went to a lot of trouble, you guys passed Code of Civil Procedure Article 3945 a few years ago making it extremely difficult to come in and get temporary custody, you had to show immediate irreparable harm.

And this has these factors like um, has previously abducted or attempted to abduct that could be taking the kid on a day when it wasn't your day. There is all sorts of things, Ms. Bowler is absolutely right, there is no number, what if you just meet two of them, I mean you don't have to meet them all, they terminate a lease, all of the things that happen when you are going through a divorce are present here.

I think it had the potential to be a very great act, but it is now extremely flawed by adding the business about the state, being from another state will trigger these incredible sanctions against you. I don't know if it is appropriate to amend a Uniform Act its been done before because I remember the UCCJA when it was first passed, there were a couple of states with asterisk's by their name because they had taken some provisions out of it. {Rep Walker sits down} I think probably the best is to just not pass it, but if you do pass it you can.

* [http://www.law.upenn.edu/bll/ulc/ucapa/2006_finalact.htm Full Text of Act with Commentary]

* [http://house.louisiana.gov/Agendas_2007/May_07/0524_07_CL.pdf Agenda for the Louisiana hearing] * [http://house.louisiana.gov/rmarchive/Ram/RamMay07/0524_07_CLP.ram First house committee hearing on the bill. Testimony starts at 2:24 to 3:04]

More information here: http://ladads.info/modules/newbb/viewforum.php?forum=32

The Act sets out a wide variety of factors that should be considered in determining whether there is a credible risk that a child will be abducted.

Oh really? And what are those factors?

These factors include overt signs such as

previous abductions,

attempts to abduct the child,

or threats of abduction,

as well as signs of general abuse

including domestic violence,

negligence,

or refusal to obey a child-custody determination.

The act also addresses the special problems involved with international child abductions by including risk factors specifically related to international abduction.

Really?

Here are the actual factors! You ONLY need to meet any ONE of these factors to be considered a criminal.

SECTION 7. FACTORS TO DETERMINE RISK OF ABDUCTION.

(a) In determining whether there is a credible risk of abduction of a child, the court shall consider any evidence that the petitioner or respondent:

(1) has previously abducted or attempted to abduct the child;

(2) has threatened to abduct the child;

(3) has recently engaged in activities that may indicate a planned abduction, including:

(A) abandoning employment;

(B) selling a primary residence;

(D) closing bank or other financial management accounts, liquidating assets, hiding or destroying financial documents, or conducting any unusual financial activities;

(E) applying for a passport or visa or obtaining travel documents for the respondent, a family member, or the child; or

(F) seeking to obtain the child's birth certificate or school or medical records;

(4) has engaged in domestic violence, stalking, or child abuse or neglect;

(5) has refused to follow a child-custody determination;

(6) lacks strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural ties to the state or the United States;

(7) has strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural ties to another state or country;

(8) is likely to take the child to a country that:

(A) is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and does not provide for the extradition of an abducting parent or for the return of an abducted child;

(B) is a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction but:

(i) the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is not in force between the United States and that country;

(ii) is noncompliant according to the most recent compliance report issued by the United States Department of State; or

(iii) lacks legal mechanisms for immediately and effectively enforcing a return order under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction;

(C) poses a risk that the child’s physical or emotional health or safety would be endangered in the country because of specific circumstances relating to the child or because of human rights violations committed against children;

(D) has laws or practices that would:

(i) enable the respondent, without due cause, to prevent the petitioner from contacting the child;

(ii) restrict the petitioner from freely traveling to or exiting from the country because of the petitioner’s gender, nationality, marital status, or religion; or

(iii) restrict the child's ability legally to leave the country after the child reaches the age of majority because of a child’s gender, nationality, or religion;

(E) is included by the United States Department of State on a current list of state sponsors of terrorism;

(F) does not have an official United States diplomatic presence in the country; or

(G) is engaged in active military action or war, including a civil war, to which the child may be exposed;

(9) is undergoing a change in immigration or citizenship status that would adversely affect the respondent’s ability to remain in the United States legally;

(10) has had an application for United States citizenship denied;

(11) has forged or presented misleading or false evidence on government forms or supporting documents to obtain or attempt to obtain a passport, a visa, travel documents, a Social Security card, a driver’s license, or other government-issued identification card or has made a misrepresentation to the United States government;

(12) has used multiple names to attempt to mislead or defraud; or

(13) has engaged in any other conduct the court considers relevant to the risk of abduction.

(b) In the hearing on a petition under this [act], the court shall consider any evidence that the respondent believed in good faith that the respondent’s conduct was necessary to avoid imminent harm to the child or respondent and any other evidence that may be relevant to whether the respondent may be permitted to remove or retain the child.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.