South CarolinaPing
Send FReepmail to join or leave this list.
Posted on 02/07/2010 7:51:21 PM PST by Pikachu_Dad
ASSISTANCE NEEDED:
Need to find people in these eight states to oppose this draconian legislation.
IF YOUR STATE IS NOT ON THIS LIST, PLEASE CHECK THAT YOUR STATE IS NOT SEEKING TO PASS THIS LEGISLATION.
Child Abduction Prevention
1 ALABAMA HB 213 Ward House Judiciary 2 HAWAII SB2192/HB2250 Tanaguchi/Karamats House Judiciary 3 IOWA HF 713 Senate Judiciary 4 MINNESOTA SF410/HF1133 Senate Judiciary 5 PENNSYLVANIA HB 90 Conklin House Judiciary 6 SOUTH CAROLINA SB 383 Hayes House Judiciary 7 TENNESSEE HB2995/SB3065 Woodson/DeBerry In House 8 WASHINGTON HB 1182 Goodman House Judiciary
If this legislation passes, you can be accused in CIVIL court of planning to commit a FELONY (child abduction).
Under this law, you qualify.
Their 'risk factors' cover every single American.
I see South Carolina is on the list and I’ll be happy to ping that list. But first you need to supply some details as to what this is about. The .pdf link is not informative. Thanks. Links?
Bump
Waiting for updates.
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
Thanks for the ping.
This law attacks our basic civil liberties.
Forget about ‘innocent until proven guilty’
Forget about Miranda rights.
Forget about a ‘jury of your peers’.
etc. etc. etc.
If they start passing ‘prevention’ acts - like this.
They can bring you into a civilian court and have that court label you as someone likely to commit a future felony if you meet any the criteria on their list.
In this specific case, they claim they are seeking to prevent ‘child abductions’ (by their parents not by strangers)
On their long list of ‘risk factors’ are many actions that all ordinary Americans do.
LEGAL actions.
On their list of ‘risk factors’ are many simple factors of life.
Is poverty now a crime?
One of factors they list is that you must have strong financial ties to your current state.
SAY WHAT?
Just exactly how much money do you have to have in your current state to not be considered a ‘potential felon’ ?!?
Is being too rich now a precrime?
Under this law, if you have ‘strong financial ties to another state’, you can be considered a risk for abducting your child.
How much money do you need to have ‘strong financial ties’ to another state?
So if you own property in another state, you may now be labeled by the courts as a ‘potential child abductor’.
Washington State Ping
Selected Comments from the Louisiana Committee hearings
[edit] Excerpt from comments by Representative Bowler
Rep. Bowler
“My reluctance with the bill, and it is with all due respect to this group of people, who got together and decided this was a good idea is that it does something, it departs from what I think is a real important concept in America and that is you are innocent until proven guilty, and this actually causes you to be penalized by a court for something they think you might do. I think that is a real departure in thinking in America to do that. I would hope that we would send this back to that group of Uniform lawmakers that come up with these models, say lets rethink this and I would hope that we don’t pass it. Its not that I don’t think the problem is serious enough to... In Louisiana we have in our statutes, which I think operates as a huge deterrent, is under our simple kidnapping law, we say that, “the intentional taking, enticing, or decoying and removing from the state by any parent his or her child from whom custody has been... blah, blah blah ... it creates within ... this bill is trying to address, we create in the definition of simple kidnapping and actually threaten somebody with a fine of $5,000, imprisonment for five years or both. I think that provides a real discouragement from any person in Louisiana doing what this bill seeks to prevent. Do we know how often this happens in Louisiana that we need to go to these extraordinary measure?”
Excerpt from Harold Murry Family Law Attorney, Alexandria
Murry:
Hello, My name is Harold Murry, I am a family law attorney in Alexandria, I am also on the Supreme Courts domestic violence along with Anne Styre, who is a friend of mine, who I believe is speaking in favor of the bill. My problem with this bill, is I think it started out as a really good idea, if you go look at the web site, you see that it started out as the Uniform International Child Abduction prevention act.
Because that is a huge problem, I have had cases where the father of the kid for instance is an exchange student from Jordan or he is a merchant from Pakistan and the people split and he is not going to get custody, he takes the kids to that country, and all we can do is write a couple of letters to the consulate, the mom never sees them again, there is no way to get them back. and that is why there is so much in this about the Hague treaty on child abduction, whether or not somebody is from one of these countries where you can take kids and never get them back.
At some point, I think in August 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.
Alabama ping.
Is this bill in response to the Sean Goldman case? If so, they need to be more focused on demanding that other signatories to the Hague actually enforce it.
I would really appreciate a more informative explanation. Including—who does this legislation potentially benefit? Why was it introduced? What did those who introduced it expect to accomplish?
No, They have been pushing this bill for several years - since 06.
However, they may use the Goldman case as an incentive.
THE FAST ONE THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO PULL IS THAT THEY EXPANDED THEIR SCOPE FROM INTERNATIONAL ONLY CASES TO COVER ‘ALL CASES.’
This law makes much more sense when it is only applied to International abductions to non-Hague cases.
Many attorneys are still under the impression that it only applies to international cases.
The expanded scope, however, makes this law an extremely extremely dangerous.
For example, check out the provisions where they allow the judge, on the basis of an ex-parte petition, to decide if you are an ‘exigent’ risk of fleeing with your child.
They can order a no-knock dynamic entry of your house at any hour.
They can require that you not be allowed to travel TO OTHER STATES until you present your paper work to the other state.
This law is very scary in its scope.
So I guess it is no surprise that the FIRST governor to sign this perversion of our laws is none other than Governor Sibelius.
The bill is being pushed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL)
Who else is sponsoring it?
The bill is also endorsed by the American Bar Association
What do they do?
NCCUSL provides states with non-partisan, well-conceived and well-drafted legislation that brings clarity and stability to critical areas of the law. NCCUSL’s work supports the federal system and facilitates the movement of individuals and the business of organizations with rules that are consistent from state to state.
What was the committees scope?
They were supposed to be drafting a law to prevent international child abductions. What did those who introduced it expect to accomplish?
In their words: This act provides courts with guidelines to follow during custody disputes and divorce proceedings, to help courts identify families at risk for abduction, and to provide methods to prevent the abduction of children.
Read more here: http://www.nccusl.org/Update/uniformact_summaries/uniformacts-s-ucapa.asp
Who does this legislation potentially benefit?
Lawyers who live vicious divorce cases.
This law is so broad and poorly worded that some poor families are going to spend years litigating the meaning of these words.
Does NCCUSL usually propose good legislation?
Yes
Is this good legislation?
No. Somebody on the committee hijacked the legislation.
Where did they go wrong?
When they expanded the legislation from trying to cover only international abductions to countries that do not comply with the Hague Treaty or who did not sign the Hague treaty.
How many states have passed this legislation?
Before Louisiana - seven states. With minimal review.
Louisiana modified their version back to being only an international abduction law. Now it is only a xenophobic law and not an anti-American law.
Is there an organized opposition to this legislation
Other than me? No.
Is the NCCUSL being honest in their presentation?
No. They continue to push the unrevised version of this legislation. Even after Louisiana and New Jersey
Is there really a danger of this legislation passing?
Yes. This legislation tends to pass unanimously. Mainly because the proponents are not being honest about the effects of this legislation.
How many states have not passed this legislation?
Connecticut Since Louisiana, it has only passed in Mississippi.
It failed in Connecticut; Texas; Idaho; Iowa; Michigan; South Carolina; New Jersey; New Hampshire; Pennsylvania;
In many of these states, the law was passing through the legislature by unanimous votes UNTIL we got them to read it.
For example, New Hampshire's Senate committee tabled it after it had sailed through the house.
Where can I find out what the proponents are saying about this law?
Here is what was heard in Hawaii just this last week. http://www.capitol.hawaii.gov/session2010/Testimony/HB2250_TESTIMONY_HUS_01-28-10_.pdf Where can I find a neutral opinion on this law?
The New Jersey law commission reviewed this law for their legislature. They declined to recommend this legislation. You can read their report on why this is a (very) bad law here: http://www.lawrev.state.nj.us/ucapa/ucapaFR122208.pdf
Thanks.
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.