STAND. COM. REP. NO.3072
Honolulu, Hawaii
, 2002
RE: H.B. No. 2120
H.D. 1
S.D. 1
Honorable Robert Bunda
President of the Senate
Twenty-First State Legislature
Regular Session of 2002
State of Hawaii
Sir:
Your Committee on Judiciary, to which was referred H.B. No. 2120, H.D. 1, entitled:
"A BILL FOR AN ACT RELATING TO THE UNIFORM CHILD-CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT,"
begs leave to report as follows:
The purpose of this measure is to enact the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act of 1997 (UCCJEA).
Testimony in support of this measure was received from the Judiciary, Domestic Violence Clearinghouse and Legal Hotline (Clearinghouse), Uniform Law Commissioners, and Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. The Legislative Reference Bureau (LRB) submitted comments.
The UCCJEA replaces the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act of 1968, codified as chapter 583, Hawaii Revised Statutes. This measure:
(1) Eliminates the differences between the 1968 enactment and the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act;
(2) Enhances home state custody continuing exclusive jurisdiction;
(3) Authorizes enforcement proceedings in a state other than the state issuing the custody order;
(4) Authorizes prosecutors to locate the child and enforce custody orders; and
(5) Provides uniformity among the states, which is necessary for a mobile population.
This measure is intended to address the common situation today whereby a mobile population has resulted in jurisdictional conflicts among states which often work to the detriment of enforcing child custody orders. This measure would allow one state to modify and enforce another state's order, under certain circumstances. According to testimony, this measure has important implications in domestic violence situations that often result from child custody disputes.
Your Committee has amended this measure by deleting its contents and inserting S.B. No. 2523, S.D. 1, which differs with the House version in the following respects:
(1) Clarifies the definition of "record" to allow the court greater flexibility in operations;
(2) Requires the court to hold the hearing on the petition after not less than 48 hours notice to the respondent, rather than on the first judicial day possible because of the scheduling difficulties for the court; and
(3) Deletes the saving clause, on the grounds that it is not part of the uniform law and should be left to the courts to determine.
On the recommendation of the LRB, reference to publishing the commentaries has been deleted, because of copyright concerns and the questionable authority of the LRB to make changes to the commentaries.
As affirmed by the record of votes of the members of your Committee on Judiciary that is attached to this report, your Committee is in accord with the intent and purpose of H.B. No. 2120, H.D. 1, as amended herein, and recommends that it pass Second Reading in the form attached hereto as H.B. No. 2120, H.D. 1, S.D. 1, and be placed on the calendar for Third Reading.
Respectfully submitted on behalf of the members of the Committee on Judiciary,
|
____________________________ BRIAN KANNO, Chair |
||