ACTION ALERT: Please help STOP the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act (UCAPA) [More Details in

The National Conference Commission of Uniform State Laws is seeking to pass the UNIFORM CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION ACT in all 50 states.

Unfortunately, the news media is not reporting on this law, so google news is unreliable as a means of finding out which states are seeking to pass this law this session.

In Alabama it is HB213. It has already made it out of the House Judiciary committee.

1) Please check your state legislature to see if they are considering this horrible, unconstitutional, anti-american law.

2) I need freepers in the following states to seek to repeal this law in their states: Nebraska Utah Kansas South Dakota Nevada Colorado Mississippi (passed last year)

2a) Modified versions of this law Louisiana - International only; must consider all factors. It is a big step in the right direction.

Orgeon - HB3250 A very simple law passed before UCAPA. This version is probably preferable

Texas - has an earlier version of the law which is not as bad. Will probably try again for final version.

California - may have an earlier version. Their law was used as one of the basis for drafting this final law.

3) I following states are known to have considered this law and not passed it. Please make sure they are not reconsidering it again this year! Connecticut Idaho IOWA Michigan South Carolina Texas New Jersey New Hampshire Pennsylvania

4) This bill sails through legislatures unanimously, like a hot knife through butter. UNTIL SOMEBODY ACTUALLY READS IT CLOSELY. If you can get someone to read it, it has been easy to stop.

Since we opposed this legislation in Louisiana, it has only passed in one state - Mississippi - and that was because I did not find out about it until the governor was signing it.

In contrast, at the same time - the New Hampshire Senate Judiciary committee tabled it when they got my email. It had passed unanimously through the House.

In Texas, either I managed to talk to the right Senator, or somebody else woke up, because after passing through the House committee, the full House and the Senate Committee, it was on the Senate calendar for non-controversial passage and it was apparently never presented for that final vote.

Well, here is what Republican Shirley Bowler said about this law when it came before her in the House Civil Law and Procedure Committee.

"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?"

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

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

Because that is a huge problem, I have had cases where the father of the kid for instance is an exchange student from Jordan or he is a merchant from Pakistan and the people split and he is not going to get custody, he takes the kids to that country, and all we can do is write a couple of letters to the consulate, the mom never sees them again, there is no way to get them back. and that is why there is so much in this about the Hague treaty on child abduction, whether or not somebody is from one of these countries where you can take kids and never get them back.

At some point, I think in August 2004, somebody appended some additional language to this, to make this solve all problems, and they took the International, the word international out and they added this thing that if you are from another state or have strong cultural ties to another state, that you are suspect, just like somebody who is from another country and really has the ability to do this sort of thing.

I tell my clients, there are always these threats that well, I am going to take the kid, no I am going to take the kid and you'll be darned if you see him again. I say, let him take the kid to Mississippi, we will have the kid back in two weeks and the judge will put him in jail.

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.

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.

See this thread about Ohio legislation. While this is not the same as what was posted in this thread, it is similar in that it will infringe upon civil liberties.

House Bill 371 (Parental rights under attack in Ohio)

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2433326/posts

HB 371: Children in Need of Protective Services (CHIPS)

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText128/128_HB_371_I_Y.pdf

Introduced: November 17, 2009
Pending: Ohio House Civil and Commercial Law Committee

HB 371 would repeal the terms “abused”, “neglected”, and “dependent” children in major sections of Ohio’s civil code and create a new category – “a child in need of protective services” This shift in core terms in state law will affect every Ohio family with minor children, because it will clearly broaden the net cast by child protective service agencies to justify an increase in the state’s intervention into the home.

Bullet points.

‘child abduction’ is a felony.

This act allows people to be accused of this felony and punished for it in civil court without having done anything.

To be accused, you only need to meet one item on their list of factors. List and link at bottom of post.

Some of those factors are ‘good’, so lets ignore those.
1a) has previously abducted the child

Look at the ‘bad’ factors.

In that list of factors are many ordinary acts. Such as:
(i) abandoning employment;
(ii) selling a primary residence;
(iii) terminating a lease;
(iv) closing bank or
(closing) other financial management accounts,
liquidating assets,
hiding or destroying financial documents, or
conducting any unusual financial activities;

Since when is ‘selling a house’ an indication that someone is fixing to flee with their child?

Sure, it could be.

But it can also mean you are moving your child from one part of town to another.

78B-16-107. Factors to determine risk of abduction.
(1) In determining whether there is a credible risk of abduction of a child, the court shall consider any evidence that the petitioner or respondent:
(a) has previously abducted or attempted to abduct the child;
(b) has threatened to abduct the child;
(c) has recently engaged in activities that may indicate a planned abduction, including:
(i) abandoning employment;
(ii) selling a primary residence;
(iii) terminating a lease;
(iv) closing bank or other financial management accounts, liquidating assets, hiding or destroying financial documents, or conducting any unusual financial activities;
(v) applying for a passport or visa or obtaining travel documents for the respondent, a family member, or the child; or
(vi) seeking to obtain the child’s birth certificate or school or medical records;
(d) has engaged in domestic violence, stalking, or child abuse or neglect;
(e) has refused to follow a child custody determination;
(f) lacks strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural ties to the state or the United States;
(g) has strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural ties to another state or country;
(h) is likely to take the child to a country that:
(i) is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and does not provide for the extradition of an abducting parent or for the return of an abducted child;
(ii) is a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction but:
(A) the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is not in force between the United States and that country;
(B) is noncompliant according to the most recent compliance report issued by the United States Department of State; or
(C) lacks legal mechanisms for immediately and effectively enforcing a return order under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction;
(iii) poses a risk that the child’s physical or emotional health or safety would be endangered in the country because of specific circumstances relating to the child or because of human rights violations committed against children;
(iv) has laws or practices that would:
(A) enable the respondent, without due cause, to prevent the petitioner from contacting the child;
(B) restrict the petitioner from freely traveling to or exiting from the country because of the petitioner’s gender, nationality, marital status, or religion; or
(C) 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;
(v) is included by the United States Department of State on a current list of state sponsors of terrorism;
(vi) does not have an official United States diplomatic presence in the country; or
(vii) is engaged in active military action or war, including a civil war, to which the child

may be exposed;
(i) is undergoing a change in immigration or citizenship status that would adversely affect the respondent’s ability to remain in the United States legally;
(j) has had an application for United States citizenship denied;
(k) has forged or presented misleading or false evidence on government forms or supporting documents to obtain or attempt to obtain a passport, a visa, travel documents, a Social Security card, a driver license, or other government-issued identification card or has made a misrepresentation to the United States government;
(l) has used multiple names to attempt to mislead or defraud; or
(m) has engaged in any other conduct the court considers relevant to the risk of abduction.
(2) In the hearing on a petition under this chapter, 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.

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE78B/htm/78B16_010700.htm

BULLET POINT: Your papers please!

The bill allows severe restrictions on a persons right to travel within the United States.

Understand that this law was originally written to prevent people in a divorce from fleeing to Saudi Arabia, Russia, or other exotic destinations with the children where U.S. law could not reach.

The committee took this bill, with its draconian provisions and expanded it to cover acts within the U.S. States.

Take this factor:

78B-16-107. Factors to determine risk of abduction.
(v) applying for
a passport or
visa or
obtaining travel documents
for
the respondent,
a family member, or
the child; or

If a parent applies for a passport, visa, or makes reservations to go to Russia for themselves or their child - GO GET THEM...

But this also covers

- a parent making reservations for themselves to go to the Super Bowl.

- buying your elderly parents a honeymoon cruise to the Caribean.

- booking reservations for rooms at Disney World Florida.

Bullet point: They cover ordinary parental duties. These factors should never be listed.

(vi) seeking to obtain the child’s birth certificate or school or medical records;

A parent has a right and a duty to have their child’s birth certificate.

A parent has a right and a duty to obtain their child’s school records.

A parent has a right and a duty to obtain their child’s medical records.

Consider an ordinary married couple.

One parent decides to get a divorce; the other does not know it yet.

The plotting parent says; ‘honey, I mislaid the birth certificate, we need it to enroll junior in school this year, would you be a dear and got pick us up a new one’

The innocent parent does so.

The plotting parent then uses this act to file a petition claiming that they are plotting to ‘abduct’ the child to another state.

Bullet point: These factors are vague. They cover everybody in this country. Are we now all ‘pre abductors’?

(f) lacks strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural ties to the state or the United States;
(g) has strong familial, financial, emotional, or cultural ties to another state or country;

Do you want people to be treated and labeled as if they are ‘abductors’ if they have a sister that lives in another state?

own property in another state?

are of german, english, or spanish heritage and because they have links to these communities in other states?

are ‘emotionally attached’ to Seattle somehow?

if you don’t have any family living in your present State, are you at risk?

if you are poor and don’t have any money are you at risk?

if you are not ‘culturally connected’ somehow to your current state, are you at risk?

if you are not ‘emotionally connected’ to your current state, are you at risk?

According to the Uniform Law Web site, the following states have actions pending on this law:

Child Abduction Prevention
ALABAMA Ward Pre-filed
MINNESOTA SF410/HF1133 Carry over
PENNSYLVANIA HB 90 Conklin House Judiciary
SOUTH CAROLINA SB 383 Hayes House Judiciary
http://www.nccusl.org/nccusl/LegByAct.pdf

Alabama : Introduced as in 2010 - Pre-filed
Alaska
Arizona
Arksansas
California
Connecticut
Delaware
District of Columbia
Florida
Georgia
Hawaii
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Maine
Maryland
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota : Introduced as SF410/HF1133 in 2010 - Carry Over
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
Nebraska
Nevada
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Oregon
Pennsylvania : Introduced as HB 90 in 2010 - House Judiciary
Puerto Rico
Rhode Island
South Carolina : Introduced as SB 383 in 2010 - House Judiciary
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
U.S. Virgin Islands
Utah
Vermont
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Wisconsin
Wyoming

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.