SOME UCCJEA INTERNATIONAL APPLICATION PROVISIONS

In any international child abduction and child custody case that concerns American residents and the possible application in a U.S. court of a foreign court’s custody order, it will most likely be critical to know the precise terms of the provision in the state’s UCCJEA law that governs child custody determinations made under the child custody law of a foreign country.

Accordingly, we have collected each state’s version of Section 105 of the model Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act.

The statutory provisions are in most cases substantially the same but there are significant differences in the provisions adopted by Connecticut, New York and New Jersey, which might have a profound effect on the enforceability of foreign custody orders brought before courts in those states as compared to the other states that have adopted the standard language recommended in the model Uniform Law.

For reasons discussed elsewhere, we are very strongly in favor of the approaches adopted by Connecticut, New York and New Jersey and we would urge legislators in the few states that have not yet adopted the UCCJEA to include statutory language similar to that used by Connecticut, New York and New Jersey rather than the language in the model Uniform Law which imposes far too heavy a burden on American-resident litigants and provides far too easy an opportunity for parents to procure unfair custody orders from foreign countries with unfair or corrupt legal systems and to then have such unfair orders rubberstamped and enforced by American courts. (read on)

MOTHER AND CHILD'S OVERSEAS MOVE DID NOT DIVEST COURT OF JURISDICTION

New York has continuing jurisdiction over a custody dispute involving a child who, at the time his father retained him following visitation, had lived in Norway with the custodial mother for two years, New York’s Appellate Division, Second Department has ruled. Bjornson v Bjornson 2005 N.Y.Slip Op. 05998 July 18, 2005 Appellate Division, Second Department.

Addressing for the first time application of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act in a case where the underlying custody order was issued prior to the Act's effective date and the modification request was made after such date, the court rebuffed the mother's contention that Norway has home state jurisdiction under the Act's predecessor, the UCCJA. It said that because the father remained in New York following the parties' divorce and issuance of the custody order, the state retained jurisdiction.-

We handled this case through excellent local counsel in New York.

We handle international child custody matters, as well as custody cases within the United States that involve conflicting jurisdictional issues.

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) is complex and requires careful analysis. In international cases it must often be reviewed in conjunction with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

We provide advice to family law practitioners and to clients concerning these laws. When advising clients, we work with local counsel wherever appropriate in jurisdictions outside New York.