LD 432
pg. 16
Page 15 of 63 An Act to Adopt the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ... Page 17 of 63
Download Bill Text
LR 316
Item 1

 
which must usually be followed. Attorneys should consult the Hague
Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial
Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters, 20 U.S.T. 36, T.I.A.S.
6638 (1965).

 
§1739.__Appearance and limited immunity

 
1.__Not subject to personal jurisdiction for other purpose.__A
party to a child custody proceeding, including a modification
proceeding, or a petitioner or respondent in a proceeding to
enforce or register a child custody determination is not subject
to personal jurisdiction in this State for another proceeding or
purpose solely by reason of having participated or of having been
physically present for the purpose of participating in the
proceeding.

 
2.__Not immune from service of process if subject to personal
jurisdiction.__A person who is subject to personal jurisdiction
in this State on a basis other than physical presence is not
immune from service of process in this State.__A party present in
this State who is subject to the jurisdiction of another state is
not immune from service of process allowable under the laws of
that state.

 
3.__Immunity does not extend to unrelated acts.__The immunity
granted by subsection 1 does not extend to civil litigation based
on acts unrelated to the participation in a proceeding under this
chapter committed by an individual while present in this State.

 
Uniform Comment

 
This section establishes a general principle that
participation in a custody proceeding does not, by itself, give
the court jurisdiction over any issue for which personal
jurisdiction over the individual is required. The term
"participate" should be read broadly. For example, if
jurisdiction is proper under Article 2 [Me. cite subchapter II],
a respondent in an original custody determination, or a party in
a modification determination, should be able to request custody
without this constituting the seeking of affirmative relief that
would waive personal jurisdictional objections. Once
jurisdiction is proper under Article 2 [Me. cite subchapter II],
a party should not be placed in the dilemma of choosing between
seeking custody or protecting a right not to be subject to a
monetary judgment by a court with no other relationship to the
party.

 
This section is comparable to the immunity provision of UIFSA
§ 314. A party who is otherwise not subject to personal


Page 15 of 63 Top of Page Page 17 of 63