Ark. Code Ann. » Title 9 Chapter 19
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-305 (2020)

Registration of child-custody determination

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. A child-custody determination issued by a court of another state may be registered in this state, with or without a simultaneous request for enforcement, by sending to the appropriate circuit court in this state:
    1. a letter or other document requesting registration;
    2. two (2) copies, including one (1) certified copy, of the determination sought to be registered, and a statement under penalty of perjury that to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person seeking registration the order has not been modified; and
    3. except as otherwise provided in § 9-19-209, the name and address of the person seeking registration and any parent or person acting as a parent who has been awarded custody or visitation in the child-custody determination sought to be registered.
  2. On receipt of the documents required by subsection (a) of this section, the registering court shall:
    1. cause the determination to be filed as a foreign judgment, together with one (1) copy of any accompanying documents and information, regardless of their form; and
    2. serve notice upon the persons named pursuant to subdivision (a)(3) of this section and provide them with an opportunity to contest the registration in accordance with this section.
  3. The notice required by subdivision (b)(2) of this section must state that:
    1. a registered determination is enforceable as of the date of the registration in the same manner as a determination issued by a court of this state;
    2. a hearing to contest the validity of the registered determination must be requested within twenty (20) days after service of notice; and
    3. failure to contest the registration will result in confirmation of the child-custody determination and preclude further contest of that determination with respect to any matter that could have been asserted.
  4. A person seeking to contest the validity of a registered order must request a hearing within twenty (20) days after service of the notice. At that hearing, the court shall confirm the registered order unless the person contesting registration establishes that:
    1. the issuing court did not have jurisdiction under subchapter 2 of this chapter;
    2. the child-custody determination sought to be registered has been vacated, stayed, or modified by a court having jurisdiction to do so under subchapter 2 of this chapter; or
    3. the person contesting registration was entitled to notice, but notice was not given in accordance with the standards of § 9-19-108, in the proceedings before the court that issued the order for which registration is sought.
  5. If a timely request for a hearing to contest the validity of the registration is not made, the registration is confirmed as a matter of law and the person requesting registration and all persons served must be notified of the confirmation.
  6. Confirmation of a registered order, whether by operation of law or after notice and hearing, precludes further contest of the order with respect to any matter that could have been asserted at the time of registration.

History. Acts 1999, No. 668, § 305.

Case Notes

Construction With Other Law.

Defendant was properly convicted of interference with custody under § 5-26-502 for not returning his children to his ex-wife pursuant to a Pennsylvania custody order; the fact that the order had not yet been registered in Arkansas for 10 days under this section did not bar a criminal prosecution, as that requirement only applied in a civil enforcement action. Sections 9-19-303(b) and 9-19-315 further supported this result. Longeway v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 356, 553 S.W.3d 180 (2018).

Deficiencies in Notice.

Trial court did not err in finding that a father substantially complied with the notice provisions of this section as the mother received notice of the hearing on registration of the foreign child custody judgment, filed a motion to dismiss, and appeared before the trial court to argue her motion. Thus, any technical errors involving the number of copies attached to the petition, the lack of a statement that the order had not been modified, the lack of the father's name and address, and the failure of the notice of the hearing to include statements regarding the mother's right to contest the registration of the order at a hearing did not prejudice the mother's ability to present her case. Piccioni v. Piccioni, 2011 Ark. App. 256 (2011).

Registration.

Because a wife's petition did not seek to change custody, but rather merely to register and enforce an existing out-of-state divorce decree, subchapter 3 was the only portion of the Arkansas Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, § 9-19-101 et seq., that was invoked by her petition and thus, the trial court should have registered the out-of-state decree in Arkansas. Harter v. Szykowny, 2014 Ark. App. 701, 451 S.W.3d 215 (2014).

Cited: Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 349 Ark. 205, 82 S.W.3d 806 (2002).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2001–2018 · leading case: Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002). · cites it 28× “We note that we have already determined that the Florida ex parte "Order to Take-Into-Custody" is not a child-custody determination under the UCCJEA; however, even if it were, DHS was not entitled to act on it because they had not complied with the UCCJEA.”
Harter v. Szykowny, 2014 Ark. App. 701, 451 S.W.3d 215. · cites it 4× “) Section 9-19-305 (Repl.2009) provides in part: (a) A child-custody determination issued by a court of another state may be registered in this state, with or without a simultaneous request for enforcement, by sending to the appropriate circuit court in this state: (1) a letter…”
Davis v. Arkansas Dep't of Health & Human Servs., 254 S.W.3d 762 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “2002), and no certified copy of any such Louisiana custody order was ever registered with the Arkansas court in accordance with Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-19-305. At most, appellant’s testimony recounted that more than five years ago she was involved in a case in…”
Seamans v. Seamans, 37 S.W.3d 693 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-305 (Supp. 1999). It also guides the determination by a court of whether or not it should assume jurisdiction over a petition to modify an existing child-custody determination made by a foreign jurisdiction.”
Clowers v. Stickel, 414 S.W.3d 396 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012). · cites it 2× “Linda’s counsel cites Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-19-305(c) (Repl. 2009) in an attempt to uphold these expenses; however, this statutory section concerns registration of child-custody determinations and has no application to the issue in this case.”
Longeway v. State, 553 S.W.3d 180 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “At the conclusion of the trial, the circuit court judge convicted Nathan on both counts and sentenced him to sixty days in jail.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-305(a): 1 case
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002). “We note that we have already determined that the Florida ex parte "Order to Take-Into-Custody" is not a child-custody determination under the UCCJEA; however, even if it were, DHS was not entitled to act on it because they had not complied with the UCCJEA.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-305(a)(3): 1 case
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002). “We note that we have already determined that the Florida ex parte "Order to Take-Into-Custody" is not a child-custody determination under the UCCJEA; however, even if it were, DHS was not entitled to act on it because they had not complied with the UCCJEA.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-305(b)(1): 1 case
Longeway v. State, 553 S.W.3d 180 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018). “At the conclusion of the trial, the circuit court judge convicted Nathan on both counts and sentenced him to sixty days in jail.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-305(b)(2): 1 case
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002). “We note that we have already determined that the Florida ex parte "Order to Take-Into-Custody" is not a child-custody determination under the UCCJEA; however, even if it were, DHS was not entitled to act on it because they had not complied with the UCCJEA.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-305(c): 1 case
Clowers v. Stickel, 414 S.W.3d 396 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012). “Linda’s counsel cites Arkansas Code Annotated section 9-19-305(c) (Repl. 2009) in an attempt to uphold these expenses; however, this statutory section concerns registration of child-custody determinations and has no application to the issue in this case.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 9-19-305(d): 2 cases
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002). “We note that we have already determined that the Florida ex parte "Order to Take-Into-Custody" is not a child-custody determination under the UCCJEA; however, even if it were, DHS was not entitled to act on it because they had not complied with the UCCJEA.”
Harter v. Szykowny, 2014 Ark. App. 701, 451 S.W.3d 215. “) Section 9-19-305 (Repl.2009) provides in part: (a) A child-custody determination issued by a court of another state may be registered in this state, with or without a simultaneous request for enforcement, by sending to the appropriate circuit court in this state: (1) a letter…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.