skip navigation


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: 98695 Find in a Library
Title: Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act - Application and Interpretation
Journal: Journal of Family Law  Volume:23  Issue:3  Dated:(1984-85)  Pages:419-436
Author(s): S T Dickens
Date Published: 1984
Page Count: 18
Format: Article
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: The Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) has made it more difficult for an abducting parent to challenge successfully an adverse custody determination by seeking a favorable custody decree in the refuge State, but the act has weak enforcement mechanisms.
Abstract: The core of the PKPA is its requirement that one State may not modify a child custody determination made by the court of another State unless (1) the State seeking to modify has jurisdiction to make such a child custody determination and (2) the court of the other State no longer has jurisdiction or has declined to exercise jurisdiction. The key distinction between the PKPA and the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) is that under the UCCJA any one of the two conditions set in the PKPA is sufficient to confer jurisdiction upon a State court, thus creating the possibility of concurrent jurisdiction between two States. The PKPA, on the other hand, eliminates the possibility of concurrent jurisdiction by conferring exclusive modification jurisdiction upon the State which rendered the initial decree. Various court decisions involving the interpretation of PKPA have validated its intent. For example, in Pierce v. Pierce, the Montana Supreme Court ruled that the State considering modification of another State's custody decree must apply the law of the State rendering the initial decree in determining whether jurisdiction existed in the decree State. In Flood v. Braaten, the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Federal courts are a proper forum for resolving the impasse created by competing decrees of two States. The major weakness in PKPA involves enforecement barriers which typically characterize the Federal system due to shortages of money and manpower. The Federal Parental Locator Service, designed to locate and apprehend parental abductors who flee across State lines, has not been as effective as hoped. Sixty-seven footnotes are provided.
Index Term(s): Child Abduction; Judicial decisions; Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act; Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*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.