Uniform Child Abduction Prev. Act

The Patriots Flag ^ | February 8, 2009 | Doug

[Pikachu_Dad]

Uniform Child Abduction Prev. Act February 8th, 2010

Today I am flying the Fort Moultrie Patriot Flag, a flag I fly when there is “Liberty Risky” discussion. The “Save-the-Children” do-gooders are at it again, this time with the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act. It has a “globally appealing” moniker … but as usual, look closely at something sounds so good, the center is rotten. South Carolina is considering this bill and we need to, once again, call our S.C. representatives and get this one stopped.

Liberty Risky Discussion

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 Recommendations 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.

Parents become potential abductors in any act where they would:

(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 is 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 set up EIGHT independent criteria. These criteria are very poorly defined and in most cases do not show 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 a state’? * How much money invested in another state is too much money to be labeled a ‘potential felon’ because they have ’strong financial connections to your state (or some other state)? * Just what sort of ’strong emotional connection’ must be demonstrated to the the state in question? * Just what sort of ’strong emotional connection’ must not be made with another state such as South Carolina? * How many relatives living in another state such as Maine is enough to trigger the ’strong family connections to another state? * How many relatives must live in South Carolina to avoid having ‘lack of strong family connections’ to the state?

Legislation text: Please, READ THIS LAW CLOSELY. You can find the text of the act HERE. There is a reason that it has failed to pass in over 8 states.

Wikipedia has some excellent information on this including a good discussion and many external links. Worth the read to learn more about this legislation. You can view the Wikipedia information HERE.

In South Carolina:

2007 S 486 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on 3/1/07. It never progressed beyond the committee. 2009 S 383 reported favorably by the Judiciary on 3/11/2009; Passed by the Senate on 3/24/2009; and referred to the house committee on judiciary 3/25/2009. It did not pass the House committee. I will keep updates coming in the “updates” area below. The Bottom Line

I post this for “awareness” so the folks that read this blog will be informed about this potentially liberty/freedom-breaking legislation. This is an excellent example of the creeping progressivism we are seeing in the country. As usual in a bill from the “do-gooders” … the legislation is well-intended. But the result attacks liberty and freedom. It would “help” in one or two media-hyped cases, but it would “hurt” millions of parents who would get caught in the legislative net.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Thanks Doug.

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