Conclusion
This Bulletin has highlighted the many ways in which nationwide enactment of the UCCJEA would improve interstate child-custody practice. To recap a few, the UCCJEA adopts the PKPA's priority for home State jurisdiction in initial custody cases and codifies the principle of exclusive, continuing jurisdiction. These provisions will clarify where child-custody proceedings should be brought and substantially reduce the number of competing custody proceedings in sister States. The UCCJEA also includes the following innovative enforcement mechanisms: the expedited enforcement procedure, the warrant to take physical custody of a child, and the public officials sections of the Act, all of which should result in swifter, more streamlined, and more predictable interstate enforcement of custody and visitation orders. The UCCJEA's new interstate jurisdictional rules and procedures reflect sensitivity to the safety needs of parents and children who are the victims of domestic violence.
Readers interested in promoting enactment of the UCCJEA in their State should contact the Governor's office and members of the Judiciary Committees in their State legislature to request action on the legislation. Legislative packets and copies of the law may be obtained from NCCUSL. (Contact information for NCCUSL appears in the "For Further Information" section.)
Once the UCCJEA is enacted, its success will depend on lawyers using it wisely, courts interpreting it uniformly, and public officials using the law's new tools effectively to minimize the harmful effects children endure when they are pawns in interjurisdictional custody battles.
| A Prosecutor’s Perspective
As a general proposition, California’s prosecutors and law enforcement officers are very supportive of the dual civil/criminal approach to custodial interference cases. In 1992, when the State was making programmatic cuts to reduce its deficit, strong statewide support from the criminal justice community fended off an effort to cut a program that implemented this approach. A district attorney with expertise in child abduction cases sums up why the program was well received by California’s criminal justice community and why the UCCJEA should be supported:1
As a prosecutor assigned to the Child Abduction Unit of the Santa Clara County D.A.’s Office for the past 6 years, I can personally attest to the incalculable value of the availability of civil, as well as criminal, enforcement tools in resolving interstate child abduction cases. This office alone has recovered approximately 1,777 children in the last 10 years. The ability to act in a civil context has been an important factor in recovery of these children. In the majority of the custody and visitation disputes I have handled, resolving the issues without criminal proceedings has clearly served the best interests of the children involved. Other states do not have the same ability to serve and recover their children. The most effective deterrent to child abduction in this country would be the nationwide network of law enforcement and prosecutors this bill [the UCCJEA] would create. 1 J.M. Heim, Deputy District Attorney, Child Abduction Unit, Santa Clara County, CA, personal communication, March 1996, to Justice Marian Opala, Chair, UCCJEA Drafting Committee, in support of the prosecutor/law enforcement sections of the UCCJEA. |
| Previous | Contents | Next |
 |
|
| The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act | |