OPPOSE HB 2237 / SB 5205
Dear Concerned Citizens,
My name is Shira Cole. We work with an active dv survivor group of ~30 members, and a larger contact base of ~150 members. Dear Lawmakers,
We urge you to VOTE NO to HB 1121, as it gives civil petitioners the powers reserved to criminal prosecutors to use law enforcement. It claims to prevent abduction but in practice civil petitioners can file ex parte orders to order law enforcement to break onto personal property to take children just to enforce a custody agreement. In practice it creates child abduction by police force. Additionally consider the information from Wikipedia Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act under “States that Declined UCAPA” from the lawmakers who testified against the bill in those states. Please, at least pause this bill so we can work in the interim to create a bill that only addresses international abduction, which is what Louisiana did, and was the original intention of the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act. After the Louisiana review only 5 extremely conservative states went onto adopt this statute: Mississippi, Alabama, Florida and Tennessee and DC. From Wikipedia “The UCAPA legislation has failed in most states since the Louisiana review in 2007. Since Louisiana, the UCAPA law has only passed in states that were not informed of the Louisiana and New Jersey reports.” Below is an itemized list of the most harmful parts of the bill.
The Bill page 8, line 22 says "if... the court find there is a credible risk that the child is eminently likely to be wrongly removed, the court may issue an ex parte warrant to take physical custody of the child."
This language has many implications:
1. This language, essentially the whole bill, gives powers reserved for criminal prosecutors to civil petitioners by essentially allowing civil petitioners to ask for an order for law enforcement officers to forcefully take the child from the other parent. A civil petitioner is created as soon as a person files for divorce or custody/child support, the most insane and abusive people become civil petitioners, we cannot trust this power with just any civilian. This power should be reserved for prosecutors, who have no personal incentive and are trained and educated.
2. The bill enables civil petitioners to be granted this order under ex parte hearings. From Family Law who testified in Louisiana, Alexandria Murry, "but this is going to be abused, I mean, lawyers love ex parte custody orders..."
The Bill page 8, line 23 says "To prevent imminent abduction of a child, a court may ... Direct the use of law enforcement to take any action reasonably necessary to locate the child, obtain return of the child or enforce a child custody determination under this chapter or other laws of this state..." page 9, line 12 says "If the court finds that a less intrusive remedy will not be effective, it may authorize law enforcement officers to enter private property to take physical custody of the child."
3. This process goes against undisputed police best practices to not force entry as it tends to escalate situations.
4. This is a traumatic event for a child who is just beyond the time in their visitation schedule.
5. The language allows this if "a less intrusive remedy will not be effective" instead of "if immediate danger is present" police force should be only used to prevent danger not incite danger.
The bill page 4, line 7 says "In determining whether there is a credible risk of abduction... [a long list of vague actions/behaviors, some even outside the party’s control such as abandoning employment, terminating a lease, has had an application for citizenship denied, and more]" page 8 line 33 "If.. and a court finds there is credible risk... the court may issue an ex parte warrant to take physical custody of the cihld" and these risk factors are many, vague and include normal every day behavior.
6. There are no thresholds to meet or mandatory findings, just complete discretion.
7. Because some of these risk factors are so vague and normal especially for parties going through divorce, and some outside the party’s own control, just about anybody could trigger these risk factors.
8. Additionally the intention of this nationwide act was to prevent international abduction because it cannot be reversed in countries that do not have the Hague agreement. From an attorney who testified at the Louisiana hearing, “[UCAPA] started out as the Uniform International Child Abduction prevention act... At some point, I think in August 2004, somebody appended some additional language to this.” This bill can and should only have language that prevents international abduction, that does not have risk factors that include normal every day behavior/activities. And should not have any loophole that allows parents to use this statute to enforce this for custody time, as the civil court process already has a fair equitable due process for enforcing custody time agreements. Survivors are usually the primary caregiver and often of young children who don't even have time to read their email, we cannot expect them to navigate more unnecessary court procedures.
Thank you for reading