USA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Valentina Shaknes and Grace Chamoun Taranto, Krauss Shaknes Tallentire & Messeri LLP
Krauss Shaknes Tallentire & Messeri LLP Empire State Building 350 Fifth Avenue Suite 7620
New York NY 10118 USA Tel: +1 212 228 5552 Email: info@kstmlaw.com Web: www.kstmlaw.com
US legislative framework for child relocation In ordinary circumstances, a parent who seeks to relocate with a child without the other parent’s con - sent must seek a court order allowing them to do so. In the absence of such prior permission, sub - sequent litigation often ends with an order directing the child’s return, whether under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (when the relocation is international), or general state statutes. The UCCJEA, adopted by 49 states and the District of Columbia (all states except for Massachusetts), was enacted to harmonise custody jurisdiction rules across state lines. It aims to prevent forum-shopping, discourage parental abduction, and ensure that custo - dy decisions are made by the court best situated to do so – typically, the child’s “home state”. The UCCJEA grants exclusive, continuing jurisdiction to the state that entered the original custody order (or the child’s home state if a prior custody order was not rendered), provided the child or a parent maintains a significant connection to that state. Critically, it prohibits multi - ple states from simultaneously asserting jurisdiction, thereby reducing conflict and confusion in cross- border cases. The UCCJEA is a powerful tool for the enforcement of custody determinations and one that streamlines procedures throughout the country. Federal law also addresses the dangers of unilateral child removal. The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) establishes national standards for interstate
Unilateral Relocation and Domestic Violence: Safety Must Always Come First Courts across the USA are virtually unanimous in their view that unilateral relocation by a parent without a court order or the other parent’s consent is presump - tively disfavoured. In fact, it is often a factor weigh - ing heavily against the relocating party in subsequent custody litigation. When it comes to child relocation, the familiar refrain is to seek permission, not forgive - ness. But what happens when there is domestic vio - lence? Or when the cost of seeking approval comes at the expense of the safety of the other parent or their child? In instances of domestic violence, courts must ask: “Does following this procedure endanger a victim’s safety?” In those scenarios, should safety not come first? Domestic violence is not a theoretical problem. It is a national crisis, recognised by the US Surgeon Gener - al, which demands a legislative and judicial response infused with empathy, urgency and discernment. When parents flee with a child to escape violence, they are not circumventing the law, but are instead invoking its highest ideals: protection, dignity and justice. It is vital that courts have the tools, training and courage to meet those ideals head-on. At the first instance, this requires proper legislation, followed by appropriate training to ensure that courts are able to recognise and implement the legislation needed to protect victims of domestic violence.
168 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook