Legislation watch
2007 House Bill 4925: Establish likely spousal child abduction guidelines and procedures
Comments on this legislation Post new comment Text and Analysis Add to Watch List
Previous Next
- Introduced by Rep. David Law (R) on June 14, 2007, to establish guidelines based on certain behaviors specified in the bill (selling a house, emptying bank accounts, buying airline tickets, etc.) for courts to follow during custody disputes and divorce proceedings to identify situations where a parent has a greater likelihood of abducting a child (especially to certain countries that do not abide by international conventions in this area); and to authorize procedures to prevent the abduction of child by a parent, such as limiting visitation or requiring supervised visitation, requiring bond to be posted, etc. In certain extreme cases where the abduction of a child to an illiberal nation is imminent a court could actually issue a warrant to take physical custody of a child. The bill is based on model legislation drafted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, and versions of have been adopted in six other states.
- Referred to the House Judiciary Committee on June 14, 2007.
Comments
1) What guidelines? by Anonymous Citizen on August 7, 2007"establish guidelines based on certain behaviors"
Utter rubbish.
This bill can be applied against every American citizen. There are no guidelines. It is just an laundry list of everything we all already do.
For example:
It lists activities that all good parents are required (or should) do.
If you pick up your child's school records - WHAM - you are a potential child abductor according to this bill.
If you pick up your child's medical records - WHAM - you are also a potential child abductor according to this bill.
If you pick up your child's birth certificate - WHAM - you are also a potential child abductor.
So this bill directs the courts to label any good parent as a potential child abductor.
Okay, so you are not a good parent, well then they can get you for your ordinary living activities.
If you close a bank account - WHAM - you are a potential child abductor.
If you sell your house - WHAM - you are a potential child abductor.
If you terminate a lease - WHAM - you are a potential child abductor.
Okay, lets say you are not a good parent and live the life of a vegetable. It doesn't matter. They can get you for:
Having 'strong family connections' in another state. So if your sister lives in Louisiana - WHAM - you are a potential child abductor. If your brother lives in Maine - WHAM - you are a potential child abductor.
Or for having 'strong cultural or emotional connections' to another state. Now what do these flim flam words mean. Are you a potential child abductor if you cry during 'Sleepless in Seattle"? How about if you love the Steelers? That wording is extremely vague.
Worse yet, your ex doesn't even have to file. If the judge takes a shine to you and wants you to service her, this bill gives the judge the leverage to coerce you into cooperation.
"... that looks like it was written by professionals."
Yes, but professional what?
This bill undermines a basic principal in American jurisprudence. That is a person is innocent until proven guilty.
It takes a felony (child abduction) and allows the court, on its own motion, or your ex to punish you in CIVIL court for a crime that you have not committed.
This bill is horrific.
my ex took my child, and everything i owned and took off.
no warning, no nothing. all because she thought it would be 'fun'. she stole all 'our' money, as well as lost everything for me.
she abused my credit, and i'm still suffering the after effects.
several people went to jail, unfortunately, she wasn't one of them. there should be a tougher law.
Your new comments should be made in the box below.
