Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Libraries
Parental Kidnapping
A Guide to resources in the Law Library
· International parental kidnapping. “Whoever removes a child from the United States or attempts to do so, or retains a child (who has been in the United States) outside the United States with intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 3 years or both.” 18 USC §1204(a) (2008).
· Custodial interference in the second degree: Class A misdemeanor. (a) A person is guilty of custodial interference in the second degree when: (1) Being a relative of a child who is less than sixteen years old and intending to hold such child permanently or for a protracted period and knowing that he has no legal right to do so, he takes or entices such child from his lawful custodian; (2) knowing that he has no legal right to do so, he takes or entices from lawful custody any incompetent person or any person entrusted by authority of law to the custody of another person or institution; or (3) knowing that he has no legal right to do so, he holds, keeps or otherwise refuses to return a child who is less than sixteen years old to such child's lawful custodian after a request by such custodian for the return of such child. (b) Custodial interference in the second degree is a class A misdemeanor, Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-98 (2008).
· “Custodial interference in the first degree: Class D felony. (a) A person is guilty of custodial interference in the first degree when he commits custodial interference in the second degree as provided in section 53a-98: (1) Under circumstances which expose the child or person taken or enticed from lawful custody or the child held after a request by the lawful custodian for his return to a risk that his safety will be endangered or his health materially impaired; or (2) by taking, enticing or detaining the child or person out of this state..” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-97 (2008).
Sections in this chapter:
§ 1. Hague Convention On The Civil Aspects Of International Child Abduction
§ 2. Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA)
§ 3a.Interstate (Prior To July 1, 2000)
§ 5. Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA)
Appendix A: The Hague Convention On The Civil Aspects Of International Child Abduction
Appendix B: Connecticut’s Parental Abduction Law
Tables in this chapter:
Table 1. Requirements of the Hague Convention
Table 2. Affirmative Defenses to International Parental Kidnapping
Table 3. Enforcement under UCCJEA
Table 4. Tort of custodial interference or child abduction
Table 5. Criminal custodial interference
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic resources relating to parental child abduction to and from the United States with specific emphasis on Connecticut courts.
|
|
DEFINITIONS: |
· Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction Article 13: "Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that — [Article 13]a the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child was not actually exercising the custody rights at the time of removal or retention, or had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; or [Article 13]b there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. The judicial or administrative authority may also refuse to order the return of the child if it finds that the child objects to being returned and has attained an age and degree of maturity at which it is appropriate to take account of its views. In considering the circumstances referred to in this Article, the judicial and administrative authorities shall take into account the information relating to the social background of the child provided by the Central Authority or other competent authority of the child's habitual residence." [emphasis added]. · Habitual residence: “To determine the habitual residence, the court must focus on the child, not the parents, and examine past experience, not future intentions.” Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F2d 1396, 1401 (6th Cir. 1993). · Best interests of the child: “The guiding principle in determining custody is the best interest of the child . . . . The best interest of the child include the child’s interest in sustained growth, development, well-being, and continuity and stability of its environment.” Schult v. Schult, 241 Conn. 767, 777, 699 A.2d 134 (1997). · Comity. “judgments of courts of foreign countries are recognized in the United States because of comity due to the courts and judgments of one nation to another. Such recognition is granted to foreign judgments with due regard to international duty and convenience, on the one hand, and to rights of citizens of the United States and others under the protection of its laws, on the other hand.” Litvaitis v. Litvaitis, 162 Conn. 540, 544, 295 A.2d 519 (1972).
|
|
STATUTES:
|
· Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, 51 Fed. Reg. 10494 (March 26, 1986). [Reprinted in Turner v. Frowein, 253 Conn. 312, 351, 752 A.2d 955 (2000)].
· International Child Abduction Remedies Act, Chapter 121, P.L.100-300, 42 USC §§11601-11610.
· Enforcement of foreign child custody order re return of child under Hague Convention. “A court of this state shall enforce a foreign child custody determination or an order of a federal court or another state court for return of a child under The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction made under factual circumstances in substantial conformity with the jurisdictional standards of this chapter, including reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard to all affected persons, as a child custody determination of another state under sections 46b-115u to 46b-115gg, inclusive, unless such determination was rendered under child custody law which violates fundamental principles of human rights or unless such determination is repugnant to the public policy of this state.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115jj (2008).
|
|
LEGISLATIVE: |
· 1988 U.S.C.C.A.N. vol. 4 pp. 386-403. Excerpts from H. Report # 100-525 including “section-by section analysis of the Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute”
|
|
REGULATIONS: |
· International Child Abduction, 22 C.F.R. §§ 94.1 - 94.8 (rev. 4/1/2007). § 94.6 Procedures for children abducted to the United States § 94.7 Procedures for children abducted from the United States
|
|
COURT CASES:
|
· Wittman v. Wittman, No. FA 07 4006469 S (Conn. Super. Ct. Feb. 21, 2007), 42 CONN. L. RPTR 814 (April 9, 2007). 2007 WL 826536 (Conn. WSuper. 2007). “The applicant, Josef R. Wittman initiated this action pursuant to the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, 42 U.S.C. 11601, commonly known as the Hague Convention (hereinafter ICARA) . . . . The petitioner husband has alleged that the respondent wife wrongfully removed and retained the children in the United States and that he has formally requested their return to Germany. He alleges that he has custody rights under German law. . . . For the foregoing reasons, attorney Matthew Potter is appointed as guardian ad litem for the minor children.”
· Danaipour v. McLarey, 386 F.3d 289, 295-296 (1st Cir. 2004). “Having found by clear and convincing evidence that C.D. was sexually abused by her father, the court then went on to conclude, also by clear and convincing evidence that returning the children to Sweden would create a grave risk of psychological harm and an intolerable situation for them.”
· Turner v. Frowein, 253 Conn. 312, 351, 752 A.2d 955 (2000). “We emphasis that we do not disturb or modify the trial court’s finding that returning the child to the defendant would expose him to a ‘grave’ risk of harm, within the meaning of article 13b. Thus, if the trial court remains unable to find any reasonable means of repatriation that would not effectively place the child in the defendant’s immediate custody, either expressly or de facto, it should deny the petition under the Hague Convention.” · Blondin v. Dubois, 189 F.3d 240, 249 (2d Cir. 1999). “Under the circumstances presented, we think it appropriate to remand this matter to the District Court for further consideration of the range of remedies that might allow both the return of the children to their home country and their protection from harm, pending a custody award in due course by a French court with proper jurisdiction.”
Unreported Connecticut Decisions
· Cruz v. Cruz, No. CV 00-0341008-S, (Superior Court, Danbury, Dec. 27, 2002), 33 Conn. L Rptr. 594 at 595, 2002 Conn. Super. LEXIS 4195, 2002 WL 31955020. “The issue presented in a Hague Convention case for return of a minor child are: 1. Has there been a wrongful removal or retention? 2. Is the child under the age of 18 years? 3. Has the child been removed or retained from his or her habitual residence? 4. Was the removal or wrongful retention of the child committed in violation of the ‘custody rights’ of the ‘left behind’ parent?
The Court's analysis of this case has been limited to determining whether the minor child has been removed or retained from his ‘habitual residence’ in violation of the custody rights of the ‘left behind’ parent.”
· Renovales v. Roosa, No. FA91-0392232 (Sep. 27, 1991), 1991 Conn. Super. LEXIS 2215, 1991 WL 204483 (Sep. 27, 1991). "The court finds that the respondent has failed to prove by 'clear and convincing ' evidence that the children will be ' exposed ' to grave risk of either physical or psychological harm or that they will be placed in an intolerable situation."
· Harliwich v. Harliwich, No. FA 98-68306 S, 1998 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3401, 1998 WL 867328 (Dec. 3, 1998). "There was no substantial evidence that the child's return would expose him to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place him in an intolerable situation."
From Other Jurisdictions
· Ohlander v. Larson, 114 F.3d 1531, 1534 (10th Cir. 1997). “The Convention is meant to provide for a child’s prompt return once it has been established the child has been ‘wrongfully removed’ to or retained in any affiliated state.”
· Friedrich v. Friedrich, 78 F3d 1060, 1067 (6th Cir. 1996). “Once a plaintiff establishes that removal was wrongful, the child must be returned unless defendant can establish one of four defenses.”
· Mohsen v. Mohsen, 715 F. Supp. 1063, 1065 (D.Wyo. 1989). “In light of the fact the petitioner’s daughter was last habitually resident in Bahrain, a noncontracting state, the court concludes that the petitioner has no rights under the Convention and is therefore not entitled to seek redress under its remedial provisions.”
· Com. ex rel. Zaubi v. Zaubi, 423 A.2d 333, 335-336 (Pa.1980). “Thus, the courts below were correct in their determination that a showing of ‘physical or emotionally harmful’ conditions in the custodial household was a necessary prerequisite to the exercise by the Greene County court of its jurisdiction to modify the Danish decree.”
|
|
WEST KEY NUMBERS: |
· Parent and Child #2(1). Custody and control of child. Nature and extent in general. · Parent and Child #18. Enticing away Child · Kidnapping #3. Person liable · Treaties #8. Construction and operation of particular provisions
|
|
DIGESTS: |
· ALR Digest: Kidnapping · ALR Index: Abduction and Kidnapping · Connecticut Family Law Citations: Child Abduction
|
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS:
|
· 1 Am. Jur. 2d Abduction and Kidnapping (2005). Abduction or kidnapping by parent or person in loco parentis § 35. Generally · 59 Am. Jur. 2d Parent and Child (2002). § 123. Enticement or abduction of child; interference with custody · 67A C.J.S. Parent and Child (2002). § 99. Jurisdiction and venue § 377. Other offenses
· 51 C.J.S. Kidnapping (2003). §§ 31-33. Persons liable; defenses § 4. —Kidnapping by parents, or custodians
· Scott M. Smith, Annotation, Construction And Application Of International Child Abduction Remedies Act (42 USCS §§ 11601 et seq.), 125 ALR Federal 217 (1995).
· 5 C.O.A. 799 Cause of action against noncustodial parent for interference with custody rights to child (1983).
· Scott M. Smith, Annotation, Construction And Application Of International Child Abduction Remedies Act (42 USCS §§ 11601 et seq.), 125 ALR Fed 217 (1995).
|
|
TREATISES: |
· 5 Sandra Morgan Little, Child Custody and Visitation (2007). Chapter 32 International Enforcement of Child Custody § 32.02. Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction § 32.03. International enforcement outside the Hague Convention
· Gloria F. DeHart, ed., International Child Abductions: A Guide to Applying the Hague Convention, With Forms (2d ed. 1993).
|
|
LAW REVIEWS: |
· Carol A. Bruch, The Unmet Needs Of Domestic Violence Victims And Their Children In Hague Child Abduction Convention Cases, 38 Family Law Quarterly 529 (Fall 2004).
· Merle H. Weiner, Using Article 20, 38 Family L.Q. 583 (Fall 2004).
· Patricia M. Hoff et al. Jurisdiction In Child Custody And Abduction Cases: A Judge’s Guide To The UCCJA, PKPA, And The Hague Abduction Convention, 48 Juvenile & Family Court Journal CH1 (185) (1997). [Available at the Norwich Law Library].
· Robert J.Levy, Memoir Of An Academic Lawyer: Hague Convention Theory Confronts Practice, 29 Family Law Quarterly 171 (1995). [Available at the Norwich Law Library].
· Linda Silberman, Hague Convention On International Child Abduction: A Brief Overview And Case Law Analysis, 28 Family Law Quarterly 9 (1994). [Available at the Norwich Law Library]. Special Issue on International Family Law.
· Carol S. Bruch, The Central Authority’s Role Under The Hague Child Abduction Convention: A Friend In Deed, 28 Family Law Quarterly 35 (1994). [Available at the Norwich Law Library]. Special Issue on International Family Law. · Raymond R. Norko, Mandatory Implementation Of The Hague Convention On International Child Abduction: An Open Letter To President William Clinton, 8 Connecticut Journal of International Law 575 (1993).
|
|
WEBSITE: |
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman, Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Library, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. Email
|
Table 1 Requirements of the Hague Convention
Caro v. Sher, 687 A.2d 354, 356-357 (N.J. Super. Ch. 1996).
|
1. The nations involved must be signatories to the Convention |
|
2. The children must be “habitual resident(s) in a Contracting State immediately before any breach of custody or access right.” (The Convention, art. 4) |
|
3. The children must be under the age of sixteen. (The Convention, art. 4); and |
|
4. The children’s removal or retention in a country other than their place of habitual residence must have been wrongful, e.g. “it is in breach of rights of custody attributed to a person . . . . , either jointly or alone, under the law of the State in which the child was habitually resident immediately before the removal or retention.” (The Convention, art. 3(a)).
|
Table 2 Affirmative Defenses to International Parental Kidnapping
18 U.S.C. §1204( c) 1-3
|
|
1. The defendant acted within the provisions of a valid court order granting the defendant legal custody or visitation rights and that order was obtained pursuant to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act or the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act and was in effect at the time of the offense;
|
|
2. the defendant was fleeing an incidence or pattern of domestic violence;
|
|
3. the defendant had physical custody of the child pursuant to a court order granting legal custody or visitation rights and failed to return the child as a result of circumstances beyond the defendant’s control, and the defendant notified or made reasonable attempts to notify the other parent or lawful custodian of the child of such circumstances within 24 hours after the visitation period had expired and returned the child as soon as possible.
|
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic resources relating to PKPA as it relates to Connecticut.
|
|
SEE ALSO |
· § 1. Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of Child Abduction
|
|
DEFINITIONS: |
· Purpose: “deter interstate abductions and other unilateral removals of children undertaken to obtain custody and visitations awards.” P.L. 96-611 § 7(c)(7).
· “Under the PKPA, a court of one state generally must enforce, and may not modify, a child custody determination of another state when the custody determination was made consistent with the provisions of the PKPA.” Murphy v. Woerner, 748 P.2d 749, 750 (Alaska 1988).
· Home state: “means the State in which, immediately preceding the time involved, the child lived with his parents, a parent, or a person acting as parent, for at least six consecutive months, and in the case of a child less than six months old, the State in which the child lived from birth with any of such persons. Periods of temporary absence of any of such persons are counted as part of the six month or other period.” 28 USC §1738A(b)(4) (2005).
|
|
STATUTES:
|
· 28 USC § 1738A (2002), Full faith and credit given to child custody determinations.
|
|
COURT CASES:
|
Connecticut· Brown v. Brown, 195 Conn. 98, 119-120, 486 A.2d 1116 (1985). “Geared as the PKPA is toward establishing national jurisdictional standards that endeavor to reduce interstate child abductions, the application of the PKPA to this case initially turns on the definition of a "custody determination." We believe that the orders of the Florida court which, in effect, generated this Connecticut action, fall squarely within the PKPA definition of a ‘custody determination.’” 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (b) (3).
Unreported Connecticut Decisions · Venditti v. Plonski, No. FA01 0076354S (Conn. Super. Ct., Milford, Feb. 5, 2002), 2002 WL 241376. "Even though the facts may be unclear as to the defendant's permanent intentions, this court does not need-to find that Arizona is in fact the home state of the minor child. Using the significant connections test, it is clear that the child has more tied to Arizona and that jurisdiction should reside in that state. The plaintiff will have full opportunity to contest custody and to present all evidence necessary for a thoughtful custody and visitation determination in that state. Therefore, the motion to dismiss is granted." · Rowland v. Rowland, No. FA97 0057152S (Conn. Super. Ct., Milford, Aug. 19, 1999), 1999 WL 669794. “The language of the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A must now be examined. That act requires the states to give full faith and credit to the custody decisions of other states that are consistent with federal law. The requirement, of course, is mandatory because of the Supremacy Clause of the federal constitution.” Other States· Wilson v. Gouse, 441 S.E.2d 57, 59 (Ga. 1994). “As a preliminary matter, we find the PKPA applies in all interstate child custody disputes.” · Murphy v. Woerner, 748 P.2d 749, 750 (Alaska 1988). “To the extent that the PKPA and the UCCJA conflict, the PKPA preempts state law.”
|
|
WEST KEY NUMBERS: |
· Parent and Child #2(1). Custody and control of child. Nature and extent in general. · Parent and Child #18. Enticing away Child · Kidnapping #3. Person liable
|
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS
|
· 1 Am. Jur. 2d Abduction and Kidnapping (2005). Abduction or kidnapping by parent or person in loco parentis § 35. Generally § 36. Federal statutes; kidnapping statute § 37. Federal Kidnapping Prevention Act · 59 Am. Jur. 2d Parent and Child (2002). § 123. Enticement or abduction of child; interference with custody · 67A C.J.S. Parent and Child (2002). § 99. Jurisdiction and venue, Generally § 377. Other offenses · 51 C.J.S. Kidnapping (2003). § 29. Persons liable; defenses, Generally § 31. Kidnapping by parents, Generally § 32. Custodial interference statutes; distinction from kidnapping § 33. Agent or person assisting a parent · Cause of action against noncustodial parent for interference with custody rights to child, 5 COA 799 (1983).
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES: |
· Sandra Morgan Little, Child Custody and Visitation Law & Practice (2007). Chapter 3. Impact of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA): an overview § 3.01[3]. Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act Chapter 4. Interstate child custody jurisdiction under UCCJA, UCCJEA and PKPA § 4.02[7]. Abductions § 4.08. Child snatching; parental misconduct
|
|
LAW REVIEWS: |
· Patricia M. Hoff et al. Jurisdiction In Child Custody And Abduction Cases: A Judge’s Guide To The UCCJA, PKPA, And The Hague Abduction Convention, 48 Juvenile & Family Court Journal CH1 (185) (1997). [Available at the Norwich Law Library].
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman, Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Library, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. Email
|
|
SCOPE: |
Bibliographic resources relating to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) which was effective in Connecticut on July 1, 2000.
|
|
SEE ALSO: |
|
|
DEFINITIONS:
|
· Child custody determination: "means a judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for the legal custody, physical custody or visitation with respect to a child. The term includes a permanent, temporary, initial and modification order. The term does not include an order relating to child support or other monetary obligation of an individual;" Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115a(3) (2008). [emphasis added] Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction & Enforcement Act.
· Home State: “means the state in which a child lived with a parent or person acting as a parent for at least six consecutive months immediately before the commencement of a child custody proceeding. In the case of a child less than six months old, the term means the state in which the child lived from birth with any such parent or person acting as a parent. A period of temporary absence of any such person is counted as part of the period;" Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115a(7)(2008).
· Indian Child Welfare Act: “A child custody proceeding that pertains to an Indian child as defined in the Indian Child Welfare Act, 25 USC Section 1901 et seq., is not subject to this chapter to the extent that it is governed by the Indian Child Welfare Act.” Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115c (2008).
· Exclusive, continuing jurisdiction: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115l (2008).
· Modification of custody determination of another state: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115m (2008).
· Taking testimony in another state. Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115i (2008).
· Temporary Emergency Jurisdiction: Conn. Gen. Stat. § 46b-115n (2008).
|
|
STATUTES:
|
Connecticut· Conn. Gen. Stat. (2008). Chapter 815p. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act §§ 46b-115 et seq. Part I. General provisions Part II. Jurisdiction Part III. Enforcement (see Table 3) Part IV. Foreign child custody Uniform Law· 9 Part 1A Uniform Laws Annotated 655 (1999). Prefatory Note, pp. 649-654 · 1 Sandra Morgan Little, Child Custody and Visitation (2007). Appendix 3-C. Uniform
|
|
CASES: |
· Lamptey-Mills v. Ward, No. FA 01 0726826 (Conn. Sup. Ct., June 16, 2005, J.D. Hartford , 39 Conn. L. Rptr. 523,525."The purposes of the UCCJEA are to avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody; promote cooperation with the courts of other states; discourage continuing controversies over child custody; deter abductions; avoid re-litigation of custody decisions; and to facilitate the enforcement of custody decrees of other states . . . The UCCJEA addresses inter-jurisdictional issues related to child custody and visitation. The UCCJEA allows a Connecticut court to maintain exclusive, continuing' jurisdiction over child custody determinations until one of the enumerated events under § 46b-115l occurs . . . In subsection (a) of § 46b-115l, the decree-granting state retains exclusive continuing jurisdiction until: (1) A court of this state or a court of another state determines that the child, the child's parents and any person acting as a parent do not presently reside in this state; or (2) a court of this state determines that (A) this state is not the home state of the child, (B) a parent or a person acting as a parent continues to reside in this state but the child no longer has a significant relationship with such parent or person, and (c) substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal relationships. Subsection (b) provides: A court of this state which has made a child custody determination but does not have exclusive, continuing jurisdiction under this section may modify that determination only if it has jurisdiction to make an initial determination under section 46b-115k." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.)
· Davis v. Kania, 48 Conn. Sup. 141, 146, 836 A.2d 480 (2003). “Since both the plaintiff and defendant were parties to the California action and the judgment neither contravenes Connecticut policy nor violates its laws, the plaintiff can, therefore, enforce his legal right in the state of Connecticut.”
· Lord v. Lord, No. CV01 038 02 79 (Conn. Super. Ct., Fairfield at Bridgeport, Aug. 20, 2002), 33 Conn. L. Rptr. 88, 90 (November 4, 2002), 2002 WL 31125621. “If parties could consent to jurisdiction in any forum, provisions of the UCCJEA itself would be meaningless. General Statues § 46b-115k provides that ‘a court of this state has jurisdiction to make an initial child custody determination if’ certain facts are present. Notably, an agreement by the parties that a court shall have subject matter jurisdiction is not one of those factors. General Statues § 46b-115l provides that ‘a court of this state which has made a child custody determination pursuant to sections 46b-115k to 46b-115m, inclusive, has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until’ certain determinations are made by Connecticut or other state courts. Again, not included in this determination is whether the parties have agreed that a court shall take subject matter jurisdiction.”
· Crawford v. Calayag, No. FA01-034 44 98 S (Conn. Super. Ct., Danbury, March 22, 2002) 2002 WL 653241. “Connecticut is not the ‘home state’ of the minor child as that term is defined by § 46b-115a (7) of the Connecticut General Statutes. Under the provisions of the UCCJEA, the court has exercised temporary jurisdiction in this matter and has entered the temporary emergency orders recited above in what it found to be the best interests of the minor child and to address the concerns raised by the plaintiff regarding alleged efforts by the defendant to deny the plaintiff access to his minor child.”
· Guillory v. Francks, FA 010065736S (Conn. .Super. Ct., Windham ata Willimantic, February 14, 2002), 2002 WL 442145. “From the record before this court the court concludes that the Florida court continues to exercise jurisdiction in the case . . . . This court is convinced, based upon the continuing activity in the Florida court, that Samantha's presence here in Connecticut is due to a temporary custody order in favor of the plaintiff and thus pursuant to § 46b-115(7) Florida remains the home state of Samantha.”
· Graham v. Graham, No. FA 92 65185 (Conn. Super. Ct., Middlesex at Middletown, Feb. 6, 2002), 2002 WL 241493. “Under the UCCJEA, jurisdiction largely depends on the status of the involved individuals on the date of the commencement of the proceeding. Jurisdiction attaches at the commencement of a proceeding. C.G.S. § 46b-115a (5).”
· Gilman v. Gilman, No. 0121957S (Conn. Super. Ct., New London at Norwich, May 22, 2001), 2001 WL 688610. “The new act represents a marked difference from what had been Connecticut General Statute § 46b-93. Under the former statute, a court of this state could exercise jurisdiction if this state was the home state of the child at the time the proceeding was commenced or it was in the best interest of the child that the court exercise jurisdiction because the child and his parents had a significant connection to the state. The UCCJEA alters the analysis of the initial determination of child custody. Specifically, the new act requires that the ‘home state’ determination be made as a condition precedent to an examination as to whether the child and parent have significant connections with this state. The new act also eliminates that analysis on the basis of ‘the best interest of the child.’”
· Anselmo v. Anselmo, No. FA000181708 (Conn. Super. Ct., Stamford, March 28, 2001), 2001 WL 358851. “. . . the question becomes on what basis can this court, or any court for that matter, accept jurisdiction regarding custody of an unborn infant.”
· Heath v. Heath, No. FA91 0117282 S (Conn. Super. Ct., Norwalk at Stamford, Nov. 16, 2000), 2000 WL 1838932. “Jurisdiction is found in Section 13 of the act since this state has made an initial child custody determination and has exclusive, continuing jurisdiction over the determination until (1) neither parent nor the child reside in this state or (2) that this state is not the home state of the child, and that although one parent continues to reside in this state the child no longer has a significant relationship with such parent and that substantial evidence is no longer available in this state concerning the child's care, protection, training and personal relationships. The facts in this case are that the father does reside in this state and no evidence has been introduced to show that he no longer has a significant relationship with the boy. Connecticut has the jurisdiction to act in the matter.”
|
|
ENCYCLOPEDIAS
|
· 1 Am. Jur. 2d Abduction and Kidnapping (2005). Abduction or kidnapping by parent or person in loco parentis § 38. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act · 51 C.J.S. Kidnapping (2003). § 29. Persons liable; defenses; Generally § 31. Kidnapping by parents or custodians; Generally
· 59 Am. Jur. 2d Parent and Child (2002). § 123. Enticement or abduction of child; interference with custody
· 67A C.J.S. Parent and Child (2002). § 321. Action by parent for enticing away child or other interference with relationship § 322. — Nature and elements of cause of action § 323. — Pleading § 324. — Evidence § 325. — Trial and recovery for damages § 326. Action by child for enticing away or harboring parent
· David Carl Minneman, Annotation, Construction and Operation Of Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction And Enforcement Act, 100 ALR5th 1 (2002).
· William B. Johnson, Annotation, Liability Of Legal Or Natural Parent, Or One Who Aids And Abets, For Damages Resulting From Abduction Of Own Child, 49 ALR4th 7 (1986).
· William B. Johnson, Annotation, Kidnapping Or Related Offense By Taking Or Removing Child By Or Under Authority Of Parent Or One In Loco Parentis, 20 ALR 4th 823 (1983).
|
|
TEXTS & TREATISES: |
· 1 Sandra Morgan Little, Child Custody and Visitation (2007). Chapter 3 Impact of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA): An Overview § 3.01[2]. Evolutionary developments—UCCJEA § 3.01[4][b]. Interstate overview—UCCJEA § 3.01[6][b]. Applicability—UCCJEA § 3.02[2]. Objectives—UCCJEA § 3.02A[2]. Jurisdiction to decide this dispute—UCCJEA § 3.02B[2]. Enforcement provisions in UCCJEA [b]. Duty to enforce foreign-state orders [c]. Enforcement under Hague Convention § 3.02C. Extraordinary enforcement under UCCJEA; warrant for physical custody—UCCJEA § 3.04[2]. Due process requirements—UCCJEA § 3.05[2]. Pleadings and testimony—UCCJEA § 3.06[2]. Joinder of additional parties; appearances—UCCJEA § 3.07[2]. Cooperation between courts—UCCJEA
|
|
LAW REVIEWS: |
· Patricia M. Hoff, The ABC’s Of The UCCJEA: Interstate Custody Practice Under The New Act, 32 Fam. L.Q. 267 (1998). [Available at the Norwich Law Library].
|
|
COMPILER: |
Lawrence Cheeseman, Connecticut Judicial Branch Law Library, One Court Street, Middletown, CT 06457. (860) 343‑6560. Email
|
Table 3 Enforcement under UCCJEA
Enforcement under UCCJEAConn. Gen. Stat. (2008)
|
|
§ 46b-115gg |
Appeals
|
§ 46b-115ee |
Costs, fees and expenses |
§ 46b-115x |
Enforcement of child custody determinations |
§ 46b-115v |
|