| | |
of and sensitivity to the dangers of domestic violence has | | significantly increased since interstate enforcement of support | | originated. This section authorizes confidentiality in instances | | where there is a serious risk of domestic violence or child | | abduction. Although local law generally governs the conduct of | | the forum tribunal, state law may not provide for maintaining | | secrecy about the exact whereabouts of a litigant or other | | information ordinarily required to be disclosed under state law, | | i.e., Social Security number of the parties or the child. If so, | | this section creates a confidentiality provision that is | | particularly appropriate in the light of the intractable | | problems associated with interstate parental kidnapping, see the | | PARENTAL KIDNAPPING PREVENTION ACT (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. Section | | 1738A. |
|
| | | Sec. 23. 19-A MRSA §3014, sub-§1, as enacted by PL 1995, c. 694, Pt. | | B, §2 and affected by Pt. E, §2, is amended to read: |
|
| | | 1. Personal jurisdiction in another proceeding. | | Participation by a petitioner in a proceeding under this | | chapter before a responding tribunal, whether in person, by | | private attorney or through services provided by the | | department, does not confer personal jurisdiction over the | | petitioner in another proceeding. |
|
| | | (This is Section 314 of the Uniform Act.) |
|
| | | Under Subsection (a), direct or indirect participation in a | | UIFSA proceeding does not subject a petitioner to an assertion | | of personal jurisdiction over the petitioner by the forum | | State in other litigation between the parties. The primary | | object of this prohibition is to preclude joining disputes | | over child custody and visitation with the establishment, | | enforcement, or modification of child support. This | | prohibition strengthens the ban on visitation litigation | | established in Section 305(d). A petition for affirmative | | relief under UIFSA limits the jurisdiction of the tribunal to | | the boundaries of the support proceeding. In sum, proceedings | | under UIFSA are not suitable vehicles for the relitigation of | | all of the issues arising out of a foreign divorce or custody | | cases. Only enforcement or modification of the support portion | | of such decrees or orders are relevant. Other issues, such as | | custody and visitation, or matters relating to other aspect of | | the divorce decree, are collateral and have no place in a | | UIFSA proceeding. Chaisson v. Ragsdale, 914 S.W.2d 739 (Ark. | | 1996). |
|
| | | Subsection (b) grants a litigant a variety of limited immunity | | from service of process during the time that party is | | physically present in a State for a UIFSA proceeding. The | | immunity provided |
|
|
