Hawaii at risk [seeks to pass UCAPA (Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act]

LaDads ^ | Feb 7 2010 | Nicholas James

[Pikachu_Dad]

Dear Rep x,

Please do not sponsor the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act (HB2250)

This law has not passed in any state that has closely reviewed this act. The New Jersey Law Commission reviewed this act and issued a final report on Dec 2008. Their report is attached. Here is the conclusion of their report:

Commission Recommendation

The Commission has considered the UCAPA but does not recommend its adoption. The UCAPA does not provide authority beyond the current powers of New Jersey judges in custody matters. The Commission did not address deficiencies in the Uniform Law or possible modifications to sections 7, 8 and 9 of the Official Text to correct them, concluding that the UCAPA is not necessary in light of the broad powers of the New Jersey chancery courts.

The risk factors can be considered singly.

Do you really want to have a civil court label custodial parents as 'potential abudctors' because they:

(3(F) obtained their child(rens) medical records - an act all good parents must do... or

(3)(F) obtained their child(rens) school records - an act all good parents must do... or

(3)(F) obtained their child(rens) birth certificate - an act all good parents must do... or

These acts are not illegal, are committed by all good parents, and in no conceivable way shape or form indicate that a parent is a 'risk' for abducting their children!

Do you really want to have a civil court label a custodial (or noncustodial) parent as a 'potential abductor' because they:

(3)(E) Booked travel reservations (aka 'travel documents' in this act) for their elderly parents for their 50th wedding anniversary?

(3)(E) Booked airline tickets (aka 'travel documents' in this act) for themselves to go to the mainland for a business trip?

Making travel reservations are not a criminal act, and except for a few special cases would not be indicative that the parent is a possible child abductor.

Please read these two 'risk factors' closely. Is this really what you want to do?

(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;

These two lines establish EIGHT independent criteria. These criteria are very poorly defined and in most cases do not indicate that a parent is a risk for abducting their child.

How much money must a parent have to avoid being labeled a 'potential felon' under the 'lacks strong financial connections to Hawaii'?

How much money invested in another state is too much money to be labeled a 'potential felon' because they ahve 'strong financial connections to Texas (or some other state)?

Just what sort of 'strong emotional connection' must be demonstrated to the State of Hawaii?

Just what sort of 'strong emotional connection' must not be made with another state such as California?

How many relatives living in another state such as Maine is sufficient to trigger the 'strong family connections to another state?

How many relatives must live in Hawaii to avoid having 'lack of strong family connections' to Hawaii?

Please, READ THIS LAW CLOSELY. There is a REASON that it has failed to pass in over 8 states.

Sincerely yours,

Nicholas James

--------------------------------------------------- The States House Bill 2250 location is at

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/getstatus.asp?query=HB2250&showtext=on&currpage=1

It was introduced exactly as written UCAPA by the Commission to Promote Uniform Legislation. You will see 2 documents at this link. First, is document HB2250 as it was presented to the HUS Committee. Second document, HB2250 HD1, is HUS amendment (just change of date).

Here is the link to the HUS Committee report:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/getstatus.asp?query=HB2250&showcommrpt=on&currpage=1

Here is the link to HUS Committee Testimony:

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/getstatus.asp?query=HB2250&showtestimony=on&currpage=1

As you see, testimony opposing didn't appear to make a difference to the Committee.

Also, this Bill is being presented to the Senate Judicial Committee, SB2192; hearing date not schedule yet.

http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/lists/measure_indiv.aspx?billtype=SB&billnumber=2192

[Pikachu_Dad]

FREEPERS IN HAWAII NEEDED THE HEARING IS WEDNESDAY FEB 10, 2010

2/5/2010 H Bill scheduled to be heard by JUD on Wednesday, 02-10-10 2:30pm in House conference room 325.

Senate Judicial Committee, SB2192 States House Bill 2250

[Pikachu_Dad]

Do we have any freepers in Hawaii?