The 2 Important Factors In Parental Kidnapping

Parental Kidnapping, An Introduction

Parental Kidnapping occurs when one parent moves with the child and violates the existing court order for custody and visitation (parental access)

These disputes arise when one parent relocates to another state and attempts to modify an existing custody order, which can lead to complex legal and personal conflicts. The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), passed by Congress, aims to address these challenges by establishing clear rules for the recognition and enforcement of custody orders across state lines.

For more on basic New York Custody Law click here: https://nydivorcefacts.com/child-custody/

The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA)

In a typical scenario, one parent, who might have been awarded custody in their home state, faces issues when the non-custodial parent moves to another state and seeks a new custody ruling from the courts there. For example, a father who has custody in his home state might send his child to visit the mother in another state. The mother might then attempt to obtain a new custody order in her new state, potentially leading to a situation where the child is unlawfully retained beyond the visitation period, sometimes referred to as “parental abduction.”

Before the enactment of the PKPA, such actions led to what is known as “forum shopping,” where a parent would move to a state with perceived favorable custody laws to seek a new custody determination. This practice not only created legal confusion but also contributed to cases of child abduction, as courts in different states might issue conflicting custody orders based on differing interpretations of the child’s best interests.

The PKPA provides a robust mechanism to prevent these conflicts by ensuring that custody orders issued in one state are recognized and enforced in all other states, provided they comply with the act’s requirements. This federal statute complements the constitutional full faith and credit clause, which generally mandates that judicial decisions made in one state be respected by others. However, custody orders are unique in that they can be modified based on new circumstances or evidence regarding the child’s best interests.

The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA): The Basics

Under the PKPA, the central issue is jurisdiction, which determines which state’s courts have the authority to hear a custody dispute. The act specifies that:

1. A custody order is valid if it is issued by the child’s home state at the time the legal action is initiated.
2. If no other state has jurisdiction, a state can assert jurisdiction if it is in the child’s best interest, with the child and at least one parent having significant connections to the state, and substantial evidence exists concerning the child’s well-being.

Additionally, the PKPA stipulates that once a state has properly issued a custody order in accordance with its provisions, no other state may modify that order as long as the original state retains jurisdiction over the case and the child or any contestant continues to reside there.

An Example of the PKPA

To clarify these points, consider a hypothetical situation where a mother and father, originally residing in Nevada, go through a custody dispute. Suppose Nevada courts award custody to the mother, and the father later moves to New Jersey. If the father seeks to modify the custody order in New Jersey, the courts there must first determine if the Nevada order was issued in compliance with the PKPA. If so, and if Nevada still maintains jurisdiction over the custody case (because the mother and child continue to reside there), then New Jersey cannot legally alter the custody arrangement.

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA)

The principles of the PKPA are further supported by the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which all 50 states have adopted. The UCCJEA sets forth the specific conditions under which a state can claim jurisdiction over a child custody case, generally requiring the child to have lived in the state for at least six months before the state can assume jurisdiction. It also covers emergency situations, providing a temporary jurisdiction if the child is present in the state and has been abandoned or needs protection due to threats of harm.

Conclusion

Through these legal mechanisms, the PKPA and UCCJEA provide a structured approach to resolving interstate child custody disputes, aiming to minimize conflicts, prevent forum shopping, and most importantly, serve the best interests of the children involved. These laws help ensure that custody decisions are made by the most appropriate court and that once made, they are respected across state lines, reducing the potential for the traumatic experiences associated with parental abductions and legal uncertainties.

Call Port and Sava, (516) 352-2999 for a free 15 minute telephone consultation.