Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act
 | This article needs additional citations for verification. (September 2010) |
The Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act ("UCAPA")[1] is a Uniform Act drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws (NCCUSL) and submitted for enactment by jurisdictions within the United States in 2006. This uniform law originated by the parents of internationally abducted children,[2] and parents fearing their children would be abducted.
The act provides States with a valuable tool for deterring both domestic and international child abductions by parents and any persons acting on behalf of the parents. Recognizing that most States have already developed substantial bodies of law regarding child custody determinations and enforcement, including specifically the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), the NCCUSL drafted UCAPA to be compatible with and to augment existing state law.
Under UCAPA, an action for abduction prevention measures may be brought either by a court on its own motion, by a party to a child-custody determination or an individual with a right to seek such a determination, or by a prosecutor or public attorney. The party seeking the abduction prevention measures must file a petition with the court specifying the risk factors for abduction as well as other biographical information including the name, age and gender of the child, the current address of the child and the person against whom the measures are sought, a statement regarding any prior actions related to abduction or domestic violence, a statement addressing any prior arrests for domestic violence or child abuse by either party, and finally any additional information required by existing State child custody law including the UCCJEA.
UCAPA sets out a variety of factors in determining whether there is a credible risk a child will be abducted. If a court determines that a credible risk exists that the child will be abducted, it may then enter an order containing provisions and measures meant to prevent abduction. The act lists a number of specific measures that a court may order. These include imposing travel restrictions, prohibiting the individual from removing the child from the State or other set geographic area, placing the child's name in the United States Department of State's Child Passport Issuance Alert Program, or requiring the individual to obtain an order from a foreign country containing identical terms to the child-custody determination. An abduction prevention order is effective until the earliest of the order's expiration, the child's emancipation, the child's 18th birthday, or until the order is modified, revoked, or vacated.
If abduction appears imminent, a court may issue a warrant to take physical custody of the child, direct law enforcement officers to take steps to locate and return the child, or exercise other appropriate powers under existing state laws. A warrant to take physical custody is enforceable in the enacting state even if issued by different state. The court may authorize law enforcement officers to enter private property, or even to make a forcible entry at any hour, if the circumstances so warrant. Nevertheless, the person on whom the warrant is being executed must be served with the warrant when or immediately after the child is taken into custody and the person must be afforded a hearing no later than the next judicial day or the next possible judicial day if the next day is impossible.
Up to date legislative activity[3] on UCAPA can be found here.
Risk factors[edit]
UCAPA sets out a wide variety of factors that should be considered in determining whether there is a credible risk that a child will be abducted. These factors include overt signs such as previous abductions, attempts to abduct the child, or threats of abduction, as well as signs of general abuse including domestic violence, negligence, or refusal to obey a child-custody determination. The act also includes a wide range of activities that may indicate a planned abduction including abandoning employment, liquidating assets, obtaining travel documents or travel tickets, or requesting the child's school or medical records.
The act also addresses the special problems involved with international child abduction by including several risk factors specifically related to international abduction. In particular, the act requires courts to consider whether the party in question is likely to take a child to a country that isn't a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, or to a country that places the child at risk, has laws that would restrict access to the child, that is on the current list of state sponsors of terrorism, or is engaged in an active military action or war. In addition, a court will consider issues related to citizenship such as a recent change in citizenship status or a denial of United States Citizenship.
States that have adopted UCAPA[edit]
UCAPA has so far been adopted by 16 states and the District of Columbia. The adopters, in alphabetical order, are Alabama,[4] Colorado,[5][6] The District of Columbia,[7] Florida,[8] Kansas,[9] Louisiana,[10] Maryland,[11] Michigan,[12] Mississippi,[13] Nebraska,[14] Nevada,[15] New Mexico,[16] Pennsylvania,[17] South Dakota,[18] Tennessee,[19] Utah[20] and Wyoming.[21][22] The first seven states to hear the UCAPA legislation passed the law with unanimous votes.
Louisiana[edit]
Louisiana made several modifications when adopting UCAPA.
Louisiana Modifications[edit]
Louisiana inserted the word "INTERNATIONAL" into the state's version of the Child Abduction Prevention Act.
Louisiana modified the bill to delete application of the Act between states, with an intent to limit application to non-Hague Convention countries.
Louisiana modified the application of the risk factors from being considered singly to requiring that a judge to consider all statutory factors.
States that declined to adopt UCAPA[edit]
Connecticut[edit]
2007 SB 00595 was referred to the Joint Committee on Judiciary in 2007. No further action was taken after the public hearing before the Joint Committee on Judiciary on 3/1/07.[clarification needed]
Hawaii[edit]
SB2192/HB2250 by Tanaguchi/Karamatsu was introduced on January 20, 2010. It was referred to the HUS, JUD and FIN committees. On 2/1[clarification needed] the HUS committee recommended that it be passed with amendments. The votes were 7 to 0 with 2 excused. The JUD committee recommended it be passed on 2/9/2010[clarification needed] by a 12–0 vote. The FIN committee recommended that it be passed by 14 to 2 vote. The full house passed the legislation with Berg, Ching, Marumoto, McKelvey, Pine, Thielen and Ward voting no. The legislation was referred to the Senate JGO committee on 3/3/2010[clarification needed] where no further action was taken on the legislation.
Idaho[edit]
2008 SB 1263 was passed by the Senate on 1/31/08 34-0-1. It did not get out of the House Committee.
Iowa[edit]
2009 HF713 was passed by the House 95 to 1 with 3 not voting on March 18, 2009. Referred to Judiciary. Subcommittee recommended passage March 19. Referred to full Judiciary committee. No further action.
HF 713 Senate Judiciary. The legislation passed the full House on March 18, 2009, by a 95 to 0 vote. It was recommended for passage by the Senate committee on March 25, 2009. It was then referred back to committee on April 26, 2009. No further action was taken. In 2010, the committee report on March 4, 2010, without recommendation. On March 11, 2010, it was placed on the calendar for unfinished business.
Minnesota[edit]
SF410/HF1133 bill by Champion and Hayden in 2010 was referred to the Public Safety Policy and Oversight committee. No further action was taken on this legislation.
New Hampshire[edit]
HB1383 in 2008 by Rep Merr Foose. The legislation passed through the house by unanimous vote. It was tabled by the Senate committee after receipt of the New Jersey report and the Louisiana concerns of Rep Bowler and Atty Harold Murry. HB694 was tabled in the Senate Committee on June 3, 2009.
New Jersey[edit]
The New Jersey law commission considered the UCAPA, and issued its final report on this bill in December 2008 but did not recommend its adoption.
Rhode Island[edit]
HB5640 by O'Grady, Tanzi, Blazejewski, Guthrie, Carnevale on March 11, 2011
South Carolina[edit]
S 486 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on 3/1/07.[clarification needed] It never progressed beyond the committee. 2009 S 383 was 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.
SB383 in 2010 by Hayes.
UCAPA was introduced in 2023 as HB 3220 by Rep. Weston Newton. The bill passed the House in 2023 and was carried over to the 2024 legislative session.[23]
Texas[edit]
HB1207 by was filed on February 9, 2011, and referred to the Judiciary and Civil Jurisprudence committee.[24][25] The bill was left pending in committee. However, the law on which UCAPA is based—Texas's Prevent International Parental Child Abduction Act—had already been enacted in 2003 as Texas Family Code 153.501-503.
Virginia[edit]
HB1641 by Virginia in 2011.
Washington[edit]
HB1182, by Goodman, Rodne, Miloscia, Williams, Ormsby. The bill was introduced, but failed to move out of the House committee both in 2009 and 2010.
UCAPA was introduced in 2023 as HB 1121 by Rep. Goodman.[26]
See also[edit]
References[edit]
- ^ "UNIFORM CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION ACT". NATIONAL CONFERENCE OF COMMISSIONERS ON UNIFORM STATE LAWS.
- ^ Elrod, Linda. "MATERIALS FOR INTRODUCTORY MEETING OF DRAFTING COMMITTEE FOR "INTERNATIONAL ABDUCTION PREVENTION ACT"*".
- ^ "Acts Child Abduction Prevention".
- ^ https://arc-sos.state.al.us/cgi/actdetail.mbr/detail?page=act&year=2010&act=212
- ^ https://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2007a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont3/C36B0B30311649C5872572600059D41F?open&file=1255_enr.pdf
- ^ https://www.leg.state.co.us/clics/clics2007a/csl.nsf/fsbillcont/C36B0B30311649C5872572600059D41F?Open&target=/clics/clics2007a/csl.nsf/billsummary/AAF0B513C5330E0D8725725F00777B24?opendocument
- ^ https://lims.dccouncil.gov/Legislation/B17-0626
- ^ https://myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=43229
- ^ https://kslegislature.org/historical_data/bills/2008/2007_S_Bill_18.pdf
- ^ https://legis.la.gov/legis/BillInfo.aspx?s=07RS&b=SB73&sbi=y
- ^ https://mgaleg.maryland.gov/mgawebsite/Legislation/Details/hb0267/?ys=2023rs
- ^ https://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(g5p52vamv1nzdkyu4lkte4i1))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=2013-SB-0325&query=on
- ^ https://billstatus.ls.state.ms.us/2009/pdf/history/HB/HB0599.xml
- ^ https://nebraskalegislature.gov/bills/view_bill.php?DocumentID=775
- ^ https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/74th2007/Reports/history.cfm?ID=41
- ^ https://www.nmlegis.gov/Legislation/Legislation?Chamber=H&LegType=B&LegNo=173&year=13
- ^ https://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/billinfo/billinfo.cfm?syear=2013&sind=0&body=S&type=B&BN=0689
- ^ https://sdlegislature.gov/Session/Bill/21403
- ^ https://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/Billinfo/default.aspx?BillNumber=HB2995&ga=106
- ^ https://le.utah.gov/~2007/bills/static/SB0035.html
- ^ https://www.wyoleg.gov/Legislation/2024/SF0036
- ^ Uniform Laws Commission's Chart of Adoptions
- ^ https://www.scstatehouse.gov/billsearch.php?billnumbers=3220&session125&summary=B
- ^ Davis, S. "HB1207 of 2010 Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act". Texas Legislature.
- ^ "Referred to Committees" (PDF). Texas House Journal: 12. 2010. Archived from the original (PDF) on April 9, 2011.
- ^ https://app.leg.wa.gov/billsummary/?BillNumber=1121&Year=2023&Initiative=false