LD 432
pg. 3
Page 2 of 63 An Act to Adopt the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act ... Page 4 of 63
Download Bill Text
LR 316
Item 1

 
jurisdiction. Simultaneous proceedings and conflicting custody
orders have resulted from these different interpretations.

 
Second, the emergency jurisdiction provisions predated the
widespread enactment of state domestic violence statutes. Those
statutes are often invoked to keep one parent away from the other
parent and the children when there is a threat of violence.
Whether these situations are sufficient to invoke the emergency
jurisdiction provision of the UCCJA has been the subject of some
confusion since the emergency jurisdiction provision does not
specifically refer to violence directed against the parent of the
child or against a sibling of the child.

 
The UCCJEA contains a separate section on emergency
jurisdiction at Section 204 [Me. cite section 1748] which
addresses these issues.

 
3. Exclusive continuing jurisdiction for the State that
entered the decree. The failure of the UCCJA to clearly
enunciate that the decree-granting State retains exclusive
continuing jurisdiction to modify a decree has resulted in two
major problems. First, different interpretations of the UCCJA on
continuing jurisdiction have produced conflicting custody
decrees. States also have different interpretations as to how
long continuing jurisdiction lasts. Some courts have held that
modification jurisdiction continues until the last contestant
leaves the State, regardless of how many years the child has
lived outside the State or how tenuous the child's connections to
the State have become. Other courts have held that continuing
modification jurisdiction ends as soon as the child has
established a new home State, regardless of how significant the
child's connections to the decree State remain. Still other
States distinguish between custody orders and visitation orders.
This divergence of views leads to simultaneous proceedings and
conflicting custody orders.

 
The second problem arises when it is necessary to determine
whether the State with continuing jurisdiction has relinquished
it. There should be a clear basis to determine when that court
has relinquished jurisdiction. The UCCJA provided no guidance on
this issue. The ambiguity regarding whether a court has declined
jurisdiction can result in one court improperly exercising
jurisdiction because it erroneously believes that the other court
has declined jurisdiction. This caused simultaneous proceedings
and conflicting custody orders. In addition, some courts have
declined jurisdiction after only informal contact between courts
with no opportunity for the parties to be heard. This raised
significant due process concerns. The UCCJEA addresses these
issues in Sections 110, 202, and 206 [Me. cite sections 1740,
1746, 1750].


Page 2 of 63 Top of Page Page 4 of 63