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
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’.
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.