Jurisdiction Continued from page 17 cusrody action by the abductor-parent In Careful compliance with Ilocice requirements is important so mat the child custOdy determination will be entitled to registration and enforcement under UCCjEA and PKPA.
another S[3rc.
me
8. How should a d~cision to give Full Faitb and Credit to an order of custody from anoth" staU be nuuk a"d by whom?
or visitation through the order. Norice is to be served on those persons named to allow
9. Must an out-ofstate order be a final order to be recogniud?
them an opportunity ro conresr registration of rhe foreign order.
The notice must
No.
A «child custody determination
inform them that to contest the validity of
means a judgment, decree, or other order of
the foreign order they must request a
a court providing for me legal custody,
hearing wimin 20 days after service of me
physical cusrody, or visitation wim respect
notice. and that failure ro contest the
ro a child. The term includes a permanent,
registration will preclude humer COntest of
temporary. initial, and modification order."
the out-of-state determination.
(ACA § 9-19-102(3))
To contest
the registration, a person would have to
Enforcement of foreign child custody
establish one of the following: I) that the
determinations is not a self-help process. The first step for recognition of an our-ofstate child custody determination is to make a request co register a certified copy with rhe appropriate circuit court, along with a statemem under penalty of perjury that ro the best knowledge and belief of the person
issuing court did nor have jurisdiction under
seeking registration the order has not been modified. Unless excepted because of the
the UCCj EA. or 2) that the determination
10. 01lce a" out-ofstate order is regi.steret4 wbat else call a court do beside giving it Full Faith alld Credit?
sought to be registered has been modified, vacated or stayed by a Court having
When an oue-of-state order has been
jurisdiction to do so under the Act, or 3)
registered, the court may grant any relief
that the person contesting registration was
normally available under state law to enforce
entitled ro notice under the Act, but that
the order. The UCCj EA also provides an
notice meeting the requirements of ACA §
expedited enforcement procedure, which
9-19-108 was not given in the proceedings
provides for a judicial hearing the next court
safety of the child or a party, the request for registration must also include the names and
which resulted in the order.
day after service, and relief including
request for a hearing is made, registration of
immediate physical custody of the child,
addresses of the declaranr and of any parenr
the order is confirmed as a matter of law,
attorney's
or person acting as a parem who has cusrody
and all persons served must be so notified.
enforcement. (ACA § 9-19-308)
If no timely
fees
and
help
from
law Other
relief may include issuing a warrant co take physical custody of the child based on a verified petition and testimony that the child is likely to suffer immediate physical
ELECTRICAL ACCIDENTS
harm or ro be removed from the state. The warrant is directed co law enforcement officials, who must serve the petition, warrant and order on the respondent
Paul D. Mixon, Ph.D., P.E.
immediately after taking the child into
Engineering Consultant PO. Box 3338 State University, AR 7467 (870) 972-2088 (870) 972-3948 FAX pmixon®navajo.astate.edu
custody. The petition must be heard on the next judicial day after execution of the warrant.
(ACA §
9-19-311)
In
an
enforcement action, the prevailing parry is entitled
to
reasonable
attorney
and
investigative fees, COSts. travel and child care expenses and COsts. (ACA § 9-19-312)
Electrical Accident Investigation and Analysis, Contact Cases and Electrocutions, Electrical Injuries, Property and Equipment Damage, Electrical Fires, Safety Codes (NEC, NESC, UL), Expert Witnessing for Plaintiff and Defense Related Cases.
This overview of the statutory scheme should pur every lawyer on notice that custody decrees in every case must be crafted with a view toward future disputes that might involve courtS of other states. ENDNOTES I Bruner v. Tadlock, 991 S.W.2d 600 (1999). Decided under the definition in
30 l1le Arkansas La~'er
www.arkbar.com