New Law on Jurisdiction
On December 1st a new law became effective regarding states' jurisdiction to decide and modify custody cases. Although New Hampshire had a 30 year old statute that addressed jurisdiction to determine custody when multiple states were involved, the new statute establishes priorities for determining jurisdiction, creates stronger enforcement mechanisms, applies the law internationally, and eliminates and the "best interest" standard in determining jurisdiction.
Previously, when a court was faced with a question of which state's jurisdiction applied to a child custody question when parent had moved, the law was very confusing. In addition to its confounding criteria about which state had the right to decide custody of a child, the statute also threw in a vague alternative to those criteria by stating that a court could also assume jurisdiction if it determined it was in the child's "best interest." Now, there is no "best interest" alternative, and the decision must be based on where the child and parent live and have lived, whether any other state has jurisdiction or declined jurisdiction.
There are also now specific requirements for information that must be included if a parent seeks to have a New Hampshire court to expedite enforcement of a child custody order of another state, including a certified copy of the other order, the jurisdictional basis for the other state's decision, the status of that decision, the current physical address of the child, whether there are any other proceedings, whether the parent seeks attorneys fees or assistance from law enforcement officials, and whether the other state's custody order has been registered in New Hampshire.
The new law also states that the court shall, not may, award fees costs and expenses against the parent who has failed to follow the other state's custody orders. The new law specifically authorizes the court to issue a warrant to direct law enforcement officers to enter private property and take physical custody of a child, and if the circumstances call for, to "make forcible entry at any hour."
Previously, when a court was faced with a question of which state's jurisdiction applied to a child custody question when parent had moved, the law was very confusing. In addition to its confounding criteria about which state had the right to decide custody of a child, the statute also threw in a vague alternative to those criteria by stating that a court could also assume jurisdiction if it determined it was in the child's "best interest." Now, there is no "best interest" alternative, and the decision must be based on where the child and parent live and have lived, whether any other state has jurisdiction or declined jurisdiction.
There are also now specific requirements for information that must be included if a parent seeks to have a New Hampshire court to expedite enforcement of a child custody order of another state, including a certified copy of the other order, the jurisdictional basis for the other state's decision, the status of that decision, the current physical address of the child, whether there are any other proceedings, whether the parent seeks attorneys fees or assistance from law enforcement officials, and whether the other state's custody order has been registered in New Hampshire.
The new law also states that the court shall, not may, award fees costs and expenses against the parent who has failed to follow the other state's custody orders. The new law specifically authorizes the court to issue a warrant to direct law enforcement officers to enter private property and take physical custody of a child, and if the circumstances call for, to "make forcible entry at any hour."
Comments
Post a Comment