Rationale Underlying the UCCJEA

Custody contestants have sometimes exploited jurisdictional ambiguities to draw out litigation, secure conflicting custody orders, and delay (or deny) enforcement of valid custody and visitation orders. In these instances, resources that could have been used to help children were instead spent on multistate litigation.

Eliminating such contentious multistate litigation of custody is one of the stated purposes²³ of the UCCJA, which is intended to:

(1) avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody which have in the past resulted in the shifting of children from state to state with harmful effects on their well-being . . . [and] (4) discourage continuing controversies over child custody in the interest of greater stability of home environment and of secure family relationships for the child.

Parents bent on "winning" an interstate custody case (or ensuring that the other parent "loses") sometimes employ tactics that may hurt children in the process. Ironically, some parents lose sight of their children when fighting for the right to keep them. In a particularly egregious case,²⁴ for example, after 3 years of litigation in Indiana that should have resulted in a child’s immediate return to her mother (pursuant to an Indiana order enforcing a Hawaiian order), a juvenile court intervened at the last minute and ordered the child detained for a mental examination. The father’s attorney had orchestrated a CHINS (Child In Need of Services) proceeding in juvenile court to prevent the child’s return to her mother. The case remains a strong reminder of the need for a custody jurisdiction statute that clearly specifies the proceedings to which it applies, restricts the use of emergency jurisdiction, and establishes enforcement procedures that are expeditious, sure, and predictable. The UCCJEA accomplishes these objectives.

Protracted custody litigation and conflicting orders not only undermine a child’s sense of stability; they also raise the possibility of criminal liability for either or both of the child’s parents, who may face charges in one State when complying with the order of another. California v. Superior Court of California, San Bernardino County (Smolin et al.),²⁵ exemplifies this predicament. In this case, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to block a California father’s extradition to Louisiana, where he was charged with simple kidnapping. The criminal charges stemmed from the father’s "self-help" recovery of his children from Louisiana, where they had moved with their mother. The father argued that he could not be charged with simple kidnapping under Louisiana law (and thus should not be extradited) because he was the lawful custodian of the children pursuant to a California custody order that was entitled under the PKPA to full faith and credit in Louisiana. The Supreme Court, however, held that under the Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, 18 U.S.C. § 3182, the place for the father to assert his defenses to the criminal charge (however meritorious) was Louisiana, not California.

The UCCJEA’s enforcement mechanisms authorize public officials to assist in expedited enforcement proceedings and allow for an abbreviated, court-assisted registration process. In doing so, these mechanisms should considerably reduce self-help recoveries, which can be emotionally and physically injurious to children and legally problematic for parents.

The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act	Juvenile Justice Bulletin • December 2001