Section 27.33 Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980

LibraryFamily Law Deskbook and 2014 Supp

E. (§27.33) Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1738A of the PKPA, a federal duty is imposed on the states, under standards derived from the UCCJA/UCCJEA, to give full faith and credit to the custody decrees of other states. The PKPA was adopted primarily to reduce the incentive for parental child snatching created by the refusal of a significant number of states to give effect to the child custody decrees of other states. Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174 (1988).

Through the enactment of the PKPA, Congress hoped to alleviate inadequacies in the operation of the UCCJA by imposing on the states a uniform set of standards identical to those found in the UCCJA. When the PKPA was enacted in 1980, not all the states had adopted the UCCJA, and those states without the UCCJA continued to provide havens for child snatchers. The variations in interpretation and application of the UCCJA among the states created the potential for the dual exercise of jurisdiction and conflicting custody adjudications. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174.

“The appropriate authorities of every State shall enforce according to its terms . . . any custody determination . . . made consistently with the provisions of this section by a court of another State.” 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(a). The statute proceeds to set forth the conditions under which a state may assert jurisdiction to enter its own child custody determination to modify the custody determination of a court of another state. The PKPA permits the modification of the custody decree of another state by the enforcing state only if:

“(1) it has jurisdiction to make such a child custody determination; and

(2) the court of the other State no longer has jurisdiction, or it has declined to exercise such jurisdiction to modify such determination.”

28 U.S.C. § 1738A(f).

The Federal Parent Locator Service as an aid in tracking down parents who have abducted their children in violation of existing custody decrees or to avoid potential decrees is provided for in 42 U.S.C. § 653.

There is a significant conflict among the various United States Circuit Courts of Appeal as to whether federal courts have jurisdiction under the PKPA to determine which of two inconsistent state custody decrees is valid. The Circuit Courts of Appeal for the Third, Fifth, and Eleventh Circuits have held that the PKPA does create a cause of action enforceable in the federal courts. See:

· Flood v. Braaten, 727 F.2d 303 (3rd Cir. 1984)

· Heartfield v. Heartfield, 749 F.2d 1138 (5th Cir. 1985)

· McDougald v. Jenson, 786 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 860 (1986), reh’g denied, 479 U.S. 1001 (1986)

The Circuit Courts of Appeal for the Seventh, Ninth, and District of Columbia Circuits have...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT