Historically, the federal government has had little involvement with child custody disputes. It leaves issues of family law up to each individual state. This became a significant problem in 1947 when the United States Supreme Court ruled that states did not have to abide by other states' custody orders.
History
In 1968, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws enacted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, or UCCJA, to address the problems created by the 1947 Supreme Court decision. The Act established a list of guidelines to determine which state had rightful jurisdiction in custody disputes. Since this was the nation’s first attempt to regulate such things, the UCCJA had flaws. It was eventually rewritten and these new terms were passed as the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, or UCCJEA in 2002.
Improvements
While the original UCCJA ruled that only one state could have jurisdictional rights over a child, the guidelines were vague and state courts interpreted them differently. When it was redesigned into the UCCJEA, the guidelines were made more specific to eliminate this problem. The new UCCJEA was also revised to comply with various other federal acts that had been introduced and passed between 1968 and 2002, such as the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. The UCCJEA created an umbrella of interlocking federal legislation.
Rationale
The primary focus of the UCCJEA has been to minimize “jurisdiction shopping” and to impede parental kidnapping. When custody is being sought in more than one state, it defines which state has priority. It also requires states to abide by orders entered elsewhere. In theory and in practice, this has discouraged parents from jumping state lines in search of a court that might rule more favorably toward them, or simply disappearing with their children, because in the past they knew that the state they left behind had no power to control them any longer.
Terms
The UCCJEA has four categories of jurisdiction, ranked by priority. “Home state jurisdiction" is where the child was born. This state would have the first right to jurisdiction and any custody order entered here would be controlling. “Significant connection jurisdiction” comes into play only if the state where the child was born declines jurisdiction. It applies when a child has established significant ties to a state where he was not born, and it does not necessarily have to be the state where he is currently living. “More appropriate forum jurisdiction” is applicable when both the home state and the significant connection state decline jurisdiction. It would give jurisdiction to wherever the child is currently living. Extreme circumstances would warrant “no other state jurisdiction,” also called “vacuum jurisdiction.” This addresses situations where a child has never lived anywhere long enough for any state to have jurisdiction over him. This is generally only enacted in cases of the homeless and parents who travel continuously, such as circus performers.
Limitations
The UCCJEA doesn’t rule on custody or parenting plans. All it does is decide which state has jurisdictional rights to rule. Nor does it apply to Native American children because custody issues involving them come under the jurisdiction of the Indian Child Welfare Act. The UCCJEA has not yet been adopted by all 50 states.
Exceptions
The UCCJEA offers certain emergency provisions in cases of domestic violence. Any state where a parent is residing is permitted to make temporary orders under such circumstances for protective purposes.
References
- U.S. Department of Justice: The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act; Patricia M. Hoff; December 2001
- New York Divorce and Family Law: An Overview of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act; Joel R. Brandes
- Fordham Urban Law Journal: The UCCJEA--What it is and How Does it Affect Battered Women in Child Custody Disputes; Joan Zorza; 2000
- American Bar Association: Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act–A Primer
