Posted on 02/08/2010 12:25:35 PM PST by Pikachu_Dad
According to the NCCUSL, the UCAPA law is still alive in IOWA.
Here are the actions on the bill as of February 8, 2010 per the IOWA legislative web site:
------------------------------------------------- Bill History for HF 713 By Judiciary.
A bill for an act creating the uniform child abduction prevention Act. (Formerly HSB 220)
March 12, 2009 Introduced, placed on calendar. H.J. 776.
March 18, 2009 Passed House, ayes 95, nays none. H.J. 863.
March 18, 2009 Immediate message. H.J. 865.
March 18, 2009 Message from House. S.J. 702.
March 18, 2009 Read first time, referred to Judiciary. S.J. 702.
March 19, 2009 Subcommittee, Kreiman, Sodders, and Ward. S.J. 737.
March 25, 2009 Committee report, recommending passage. S.J. 860.
April 26, 2009 Referred to Judiciary. S.J. 1277.
January 7, 2010 * * * * * END OF 2009 ACTIONS * * * * * -------------------------------------------------
It looks like the bill is before the Senate Judiciary Committee.
That committee is currently meeting. They have a long list of bills they are considering, and they are mostly looking at senate bills, but I see a few House bills were slipped through.
We need folks to speak up and oppose this bill to the members of the IOWA Senate Judiciary
They are: mmittee Members
* Keith A. Kreiman (D, District 47), Chair * Robert M. Hogg (D, District 19), Vice Chair * Steve Kettering (R, District 26), Ranking Member * Nancy J. Boettger (R, District 29) * Gene Fraise (D, District 46) * Tom Hancock (D, District 16) * Wally E. Horn (D, District 17) * Pam Jochum (D, District 14) * Larry L. Noble (R, District 35) * Herman C. Quirmbach (D, District 23) * Brian Schoenjahn (D, District 12) * Steven J. Sodders (D, District 22) * Pat Ward (R, District 30) * Steve Warnstadt (D, District 1) * Brad Zaun (R, District 32)
95-0
Do they even know what is in it or do they just say it sounds like a good thing?
keith.kreiman@legis.state.ia.us
Dear Rep Kreiman,
Please do not sponsor the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act (HF713)
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 Iowa’?
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 Iowa ?
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 Iowa to avoid having ‘lack of strong family connections’ to Iowa?
There
Please, READ THIS LAW CLOSELY. is a REASON that it has failed to pass in over 8 states.
Sincerely yours,
Nicholas James
This is the ‘first’ Funnel Week in the Iowa Legislature. That means that any/all HOUSE FILE must be passed from House Committees and any/all Senate File must be passed from Senate Committees.
This House file was acted on last year, didn’t make it through the funnel, so lives on to be considered in the Senate this year.
I would be really surprised if they took it up for discussion this week, as they will be far more interested in keeping their own Senate Files alive for further discussion.
My apologies if this is a lot more than you cared to know about moving stuff through the Iowa General Assembly.
Committee Members
* Keith A. Kreiman (D, District 47), Chair
* Robert M. Hogg (D, District 19), Vice Chair
rob.hogg@legis.state.ia.us
* Steve Kettering (R, District 26), Ranking Member
steve.kettering@legis.state.ia.us
* Nancy J. Boettger (R, District 29)
nancy.boettger@legis.state.ia.us
* Gene Fraise (D, District 46)
eugene.fraise@legis.state.ia.us
* Tom Hancock (D, District 16)
tom.hancock@legis.state.ia.us
* Wally E. Horn (D, District 17)
wally.horn@legis.state.ia.us
* Pam Jochum (D, District 14)
Pam.Jochum@legis.state.ia.us
* Larry L. Noble (R, District 35)
larry.noble@legis.state.ia.us
* Herman C. Quirmbach (D, District 23)
herman.quirmbach@legis.state.ia.us
* Brian Schoenjahn (D, District 12)
brian.schoenjahn@legis.state.ia.us
* Steven J. Sodders (D, District 22)
steve.sodders@legis.state.ia.us
* Pat Ward (R, District 30)
pat.ward@legis.state.ia.us
* Steve Warnstadt (D, District 1)
steve.warnstadt@legis.state.ia.us
* Brad Zaun (R, District 32)
brad.zaun@legis.state.ia.us
Thanks Granny,
I am not sure that I understand yet.
When is it likely to be considered in IOWA?
and how do we make sure that they do not resurrect this beast?
Nick
FYI: Remember that this law tends to sail through the legislatures unanimously UNTIL we get them to actually read the law. And then it tends to tie quickly.
Alright, I emailed each and every one of the Judiciary committee.
Who else is there to bug in IOWA?
I think because it sounds like a good thing.
The nasty stuff is buried in the document. You have to read it closely to find it.
Think like a lawyer.
It doesn’t matter what their intent was, once it is law, it only matters how it reads. And attorneys will abuse the **** out of it.
Many attorneys still think that the law only applies to international abductions (the committees original scope).
Cause ‘prevention’ sounds nice - lets protect all the wee kiddies (from their own parents).
{sarcasm on}
I say we need a UNIFORM CORRUPT LEGISLATION PREVENTION ACT.
Risk factors: Any legislature with a phone line
{sarcasm off}
They seem to have forgotten the principals that this country was founded on.
The biggest liberty issues are coming in through the family laws of this country.
States don’t make foreign policy as far as I know.
True that. They are not supposed to.
(As I was proof-reading this before sending it to my elected representatives, ... ) Did you perhaps mean non-custodial parents?
No sir, I meant CUSTODIAL parents.
This law can be applied equally against custodial or non-custodial parents.
Perhaps the point needs to be clarified a bit better. They may subconciously assume that I meant non-custodial.
Perhaps the parents most at risk, however, are married parents. Those who are not yet aware they are at risk of getting divorced. This law is most likely to be used as the opening salvo in a divorce case.
There was also a Senate Study Bill 1172
http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/default.asp?Category=billinfo&Service=Billbook&frame=1&GA=83&hbill=SSB1172
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.