Opinion ID: 1122550
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: parental kidnapping protection act (pkpa)

Text: Scott argues that the PKPA supersedes the MUCCJA and protects the rights of a custody state to exercise continuing jurisdiction over child custody issues. However, Karen asserts that the PKPA was enacted by Congress so that there will be uniformity in determining which states will have jurisdiction over child custody proceedings when there is a conflict between two states attempting to simultaneously assert jurisdiction. (Emphasis supplied.) Since the PKPA has not previously been interpreted by this Court, the entire statute is set forth at the end of this opinion. [1] Additionally, we will briefly discuss the history and purposes of the PKPA. The PKPA was enacted by Congress in 1980 to address the continuing problems of forum shopping and child snatching. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A; History; Ancillary Laws and Directives (a), page 228. Because custody decisions were not thought to be final judgments, State B would frequently fail to accord full faith and credit to a decision from State A. Foster, Child Custody Jurisdiction: UCCJA and PKPA, 27 NY L Sch L Rev 297, 297-298, (1981). This fact led to a growing number of parents seizing their child or children, moving to another jurisdiction, and bringing an action for custody in the new jurisdiction to obtain a more favorable judgment. 27 NY L Sch L Rev at 298. All too frequently, the end result was two conflicting decisions from the two different jurisdictions. The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA), which had been adopted by most states to address interstate child custody disputes, was found to be inadequate to address the problems of forum shopping and child snatching because the UCCJA operated at the state level. Pettenati, The Effect of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 on Child Snatching, 17:2 New Eng 499, 506-507, (1982). The individual states were unable to deal with problems that were essentially interstate in nature. 17:2 New Eng at 507. Additionally, the lack of perceived finality in child custody issues continued to plague the state courts. 17:2 New Eng at 506. The PKPA established national standards under which jurisdictions could determine whether they had jurisdiction and what effect to give the decisions by courts of other jurisdictions. The PKPA requires full faith and credit be accorded to decisions of a jurisdiction if the court appropriately exercised jurisdiction under the PKPA standards. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(a). The statute's general purposes are to promote cooperation and the exchange of information between state courts, facilitate the enforcement of custody decisions of sister states and to discourage continuing interstate controversies over child custody. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A History; Ancillary Laws and Directives, page 228. These purposes are achieved primarily through 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(d) which provides as follows: The jurisdiction of a court of a State which has made a child custody determination consistently with the provisions of this section continues as long as the requirement of subsection (c)(1) of this section continues to be met and such State remains the residence of the child or of any contestant. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(d) vests continuing jurisdiction in the original state as long as the child or one of the contestants continues to reside there. However, subsection (f) of 28 U.S.C. § 1738A permits a court of a state to modify a determination of custody of the same child or children made by another court if it has jurisdiction to make such a custody decision and the court of the other state no longer has jurisdiction or declines to exercise its jurisdiction. As to the issue of whether the PKPA confers subject matter jurisdiction in the instant case, we conclude that it does not because Montana is the only state involved in the custody issue at this time. The purpose of the PKPA is to prevent the issuance of competing decrees in sister states. Nielsen v. Nielsen (La. 1985), 472 So.2d 133, 136. (Emphasis supplied.) See also; Peterson v. Peterson (Me. 1983), 464 A.2d 202, 204. (Both the UCCJA and PKPA were enacted to prevent jurisdictional conflict and competition over child custody... .) (Emphasis added.) In the instant case, there is no other state competing with Montana for jurisdiction. Neither Karen nor Scott have sought to invoke the jurisdictional powers of the Washington courts. Since the State of Washington is not attempting to compete with the State of Montana for jurisdiction in the matter of child custody, the PKPA is not invoked. We conclude that the trial court correctly determined that the PKPA does not apply in this case.