skip navigation

PUBLICATIONS

Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

 

NCJ Number: 65815 Find in a Library
Title: CHILD SNATCHING - WHY AND WHEN THE COURTS COUNTENANCE IT
Journal: HUMAN RIGHTS  Volume:7  Dated:(SEPTEMBER 1978)  Pages:46-50
Author(s): D SPILLANE
Corporate Author: American Bar Assoc Press
Publications Coordinator
United States of America
Date Published: 1978
Page Count: 5
Sponsoring Agency: American Bar Assoc Press
Chicago, IL 60637
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: IN CUSTODY CASES WHEREIN A PARENT ABSCONDS TO ANOTHER STATE, THE COURT BEARS A HEAVY BURDEN BECAUSE THE EFFECTS OF ITS DECISION REACH FAR BEYOND THE INTERESTS OF THE CHILD AND PARENTS TO THE INTERESTS OF SOCIETY.
Abstract: IN RESOLVING COMPETING CLAIMS, COURTS HAVE USED AN OVERRIDING GUIDELINE OF FURTHERING THE 'BEST INTEREST OF THE CHILD.' THIS GUIDELINE IS COMMON TO COURTS IN ALL 50 STATES. THE 'BEST INTERESTS' STANDARD HAS ALSO BEEN USED TO EXEMPT CUSTODY DECREES FROM THE APPLICABILITY OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT CAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION. AS STATED BY THE ARIZONA SUPREME COURT, RIGID APPLICATION OF THE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT RULE, MANDATING A STATE TO ENFORCE A FINAL JUDGMENT OF A SISTER STATE, WOULD SUBVERT THE CHILD'S BEST INTERESTS WHICH MUST BE OPEN TO CONTINUING REVIEW. THE 1968 UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION ACT SEEKS TO DISCOURAGE CHILD SNATCHING BY GIVING THE STATE OR COUNTY THAT GRANTED THE INITIAL DECREE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION. A NONCUSTODIAL PARENT IN A DISTANT STATE, THEREFORE, WHOM THE CHILD IS VISITING, CANNOT OBTAIN A CHANGE OF JURISDICTION IN HIS OR HER OWN STATE SINCE IT DIFFERS FROM THE JURISDICTION OF THE CHILD. THE NEW YORK NEHRA V. UHLAR CASE SHOWED A CLOSE RELATIONSHIP TO THE PRINCIPLES AND SPIRIT OF THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION ACT BY, FOR EXAMPLE, THE IMPORTANCE THE COURT GAVE TO THE ORIGINAL STATE DECREE AND THE ULTIMATE DENIAL OF CUSTODY TO AN ABDUCTING PARENT. TWO FEDERAL PROPOSALS MAY HELP RESOLVE THE PROBLEM OF CHILD-SNATCHING: A BILL THAT WOULD REQUIRE A STATE TO GIVE FULL FAITH AND CREDIT TO A SISTER STATE'S CUSTODY DECREE AND A BILL MAKING RESTRAINT OF A CHILD FOR MORE THAN 7 DAYS IN VIOLATION OF A CUSTODY OR VISITATION RIGHT A MISDEMEANOR PUNISHABLE BY 6 MONTHS' IMPRISONMENT AND A $10,000 FINE. (AOP)
Index Term(s): Child custody; Domestic relations; Jurisdiction; New York; State courts
To cite this abstract, use the following link:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=65815

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.