Family & Divorce Law Services

II   FEDERAL LAW: PARENTAL KIDNAPING AND PREVENT ACT (PKPA) 1

When the UCCJA was promulgated, each state adopted a different version of the Act. The Parental Kidnaping and Prevention Act (PKPA) was adopted to establish a national policy with regards to custody jurisdiction. To the extent a state custody statute conflicts with the PKPA, the federal statute controls. In re Bean 132 NCApp 363, 511 SE2d 683, 1999; Beck v Beck 123 NCApp 629, 473 SE2d 789, 1996.   The UCCJEA and PKPA are in substantial conformity except that the UCCJEA has a more restrictive definitions of which persons may have significant connections to a state.  This difference does not place the PKPA and UCCJEA in conflict as it is one exception in which the PKPA specifically allows the states to define the relationship more restrictively.

Many of the provisions of the PKPA are similar to the provisions of the UCCJEA.  “The PKPA and the UCCJA provide substantially the same jurisdictional prerequisites.” Potter v. Potter 131 NCApp 1, 4, 505 S.E.2d 147 (1998). “Both permit the state wherein a custody claim is filed to assume jurisdiction if that state is the home state of the affected child.” And, both the PKPA and the UCCJEA require that a second court decline jurisdiction if the first court complied with the provisions of each respective statute.   Notwithstanding the above similarities between the PKPA and the UCCJEA, there are also several differences between the two statues.  First, one should note that the desired goal of each statute is different; the UCCJEA is a jurisdictional statute, and the PKPA is a full faith and credit statute. Potter v. Potter at 5, 505 S.E.2d Thus, while the UCCJEA is designed to afford states the opportunity to assume jurisdiction in a custody case, the PKPA is designed to ensure that the judicial decisions of one state are respected by the other states. “The PKPA extends full faith and credit to child custody determinations, including temporary orders, made according to its jurisdictional guidelines.”In re Bhatti at 495, 391 S.E.2d at 202. Any order made by a state court not in compliance with the PKPA, will not be granted full faith and credit by another jurisdiction.  Even thought he PKPA is a full faith and credit statute, it does not create a right for a state to look only to its custody laws in the absence of the existence of a pending foreign action. As the court noted in Potter v. Potter 131 NCApp 1,505 S.E.2d 147(1998) at page 6, “Child custody in no way should be determined with a “race to the courthouse” mentality if the best interests of the child are truly the goal.”

____________________________________

1) 28 U.S.C. §1738A (1980).

FAIR PLAY, SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, AND NO FORUM SHOPPING:
   Jurisdictional Considerations In Child Custody Cases
   By Victoria Bender and Hope Murphy

I. STATE LAW - UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT (UCCJEA)

II   FEDERAL LAW - PARENTAL KIDNAPING AND PREVENT ACT (PKPA)

III  INTERNATIONAL LAW - THE HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION

IV CONCLUSION

Copyright © 2005 Bender Law Offices P.C., All Rights Reserved.
Divorce Lawyers, Separation Attorneys, Family Law, International Divorce, Mediation, Agreements, Child Custody, Court Services, Alimony, Domestic Violence, Child Support, Property Distribution, Spousal Support

6608-204 Six Forks Road . Raleigh, NC 27615 . USA

Phone: 919-870-9600 . Fax: 919-847-2473