U.S. Code » Title 28 » Part PART V— PROCEDURE › Chapter CHAPTER 115— EVIDENCE; DOCUMENTARY

28 U.S.C. § 1738A

Full faith and credit given to child custody determinations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) The appropriate authorities of every State shall enforce according to its terms, and shall not modify except as provided in subsections (f), (g), and (h) of this section, any custody determination or visitation determination made consistently with the provisions of this section by a court of another State.(b) As used in this section, the term—(1) “child” means a person under the age of eighteen;(2) “contestant” means a person, including a parent or grandparent, who claims a right to custody or visitation of a child;(3) “custody determination” means a judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for the custody of a child, and includes permanent and temporary orders, and initial orders and modifications;(4) “home State” means the State in which, immediately preceding the time involved, the child lived with his parents, a parent, or a person acting as parent, for at least six consecutive months, and in the case of a child less than six months old, the State in which the child lived from birth with any of such persons. Periods of temporary absence of any of such persons are counted as part of the six-month or other period;(5) “modification” and “modify” refer to a custody or visitation determination which modifies, replaces, supersedes, or otherwise is made subsequent to, a prior custody or visitation determination concerning the same child, whether made by the same court or not;(6) “person acting as a parent” means a person, other than a parent, who has physical custody of a child and who has either been awarded custody by a court or claims a right to custody;(7) “physical custody” means actual possession and control of a child;(8) “State” means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or a territory or possession of the United States; and(9) “visitation determination” means a judgment, decree, or other order of a court providing for the visitation of a child and includes permanent and temporary orders and initial orders and modifications.(c) A child custody or visitation determination made by a court of a State is consistent with the provisions of this section only if—(1) such court has jurisdiction under the law of such State; and(2) one of the following conditions is met:(A) such State (i) is the home State of the child on the date of the commencement of the proceeding, or (ii) had been the child’s home State within six months before the date of the commencement of the proceeding and the child is absent from such State because of his removal or retention by a contestant or for other reasons, and a contestant continues to live in such State;(B)(i) it appears that no other State would have jurisdiction under subparagraph (A), and (ii) it is in the best interest of the child that a court of such State assume jurisdiction because (I) the child and his parents, or the child and at least one contestant, have a significant connection with such State other than mere physical presence in such State, and (II) there is available in such State substantial evidence concerning the child’s present or future care, protection, training, and personal relationships;(C) the child is physically present in such State and (i) the child has been abandoned, or (ii) it is necessary in an emergency to protect the child because the child, a sibling, or parent of the child has been subjected to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse;(D)(i) it appears that no other State would have jurisdiction under subparagraph (A), (B), (C), or (E), or another State has declined to exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the State whose jurisdiction is in issue is the more appropriate forum to determine the custody or visitation of the child, and (ii) it is in the best interest of the child that such court assume jurisdiction; or(E) the court has continuing jurisdiction pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.(d) The jurisdiction of a court of a State which has made a child custody or visitation 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.(e) Before a child custody or visitation determination is made, reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard shall be given to the contestants, any parent whose parental rights have not been previously terminated and any person who has physical custody of a child.(f) A court of a State may modify a determination of the custody of the same child made by a court of another State, if—(1) it has jurisdiction to make such a child custody determination; and(2) the court of the other State no longer has jurisdiction, or it has declined to exercise such jurisdiction to modify such determination.(g) A court of a State shall not exercise jurisdiction in any proceeding for a custody or visitation determination commenced during the pendency of a proceeding in a court of another State where such court of that other State is exercising jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of this section to make a custody or visitation determination.(h) A court of a State may not modify a visitation determination made by a court of another State unless the court of the other State no longer has jurisdiction to modify such determination or has declined to exercise jurisdiction to modify such determination.(Added Pub. L. 96–611, § 8(a), Dec. 28, 1980, 94 Stat. 3569; amended Pub. L. 105–374, § 1, Nov. 12, 1998, 112 Stat. 3383; Pub. L. 106–386, div. B, title III, § 1303(d), Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1512.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2000—Subsec. (c)(2)(C)(ii). Pub. L. 106–386 substituted “the child, a sibling, or parent of the child” for “he”.

1998—Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 105–374, § 1(a), substituted “subsections (f), (g), and (h) of this section, any custody determination or visitation determination” for “subsection (f) of this section, any child custody determination”.

Subsec. (b)(2). Pub. L. 105–374, § 1(b), inserted “or grandparent” after “parent”.

Subsec. (b)(3). Pub. L. 105–374, § 1(c), struck out “or visitation” after “for the custody”.

Subsec. (b)(5). Pub. L. 105–374, § 1(d), substituted “custody or visitation determination” for “custody determination” in two places.

Subsec. (b)(9). Pub. L. 105–374, § 1(e), added par. (9).

Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 105–374, § 1(f), substituted “custody or visitation determination” for “custody determination” in introductory provisions.

Subsec. (c)(2)(D)(i). Pub. L. 105–374, § 1(g), inserted “or visitation” after “determine the custody”.

Subsecs. (d), (e). Pub. L. 105–374, § 1(h), (i), substituted “custody or visitation determination” for “custody determination”.

Subsec. (g). Pub. L. 105–374, § 1(j), which directed substitution of “custody or visitation determination” for “custody determination”, was executed by making the substitution in two places to reflect the probable intent of Congress.

Subsec. (h). Pub. L. 105–374, § 1(k), added subsec. (h).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesReport on Effects of Parental Kidnaping Laws in Domestic Violence Cases

Pub. L. 106–386, div. B, title III, § 1303(a)–(c), Oct. 28, 2000, 114 Stat. 1512, provided that:“(a)In General.—The Attorney General shall—“(1) conduct a study of Federal and State laws relating to child custody, including custody provisions in protection orders, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act adopted by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in July 1997, the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980 [see Short Title of 1980 Amendments note set out under section 1305 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare] and the amendments made by that Act, and the effect of those laws on child custody cases in which domestic violence is a factor; and“(2) submit to Congress a report describing the results of that study, including the effects of implementing or applying model State laws, and the recommendations of the Attorney General to reduce the incidence or pattern of violence against women or of sexual assault of the child.“(b)Sufficiency of Defenses.—In carrying out subsection (a) with respect to the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980 and the amendments made by that Act, the Attorney General shall examine the sufficiency of defenses to parental abduction charges available in cases involving domestic violence, and the burdens and risks encountered by victims of domestic violence arising from jurisdictional requirements of that Act and the amendments made by that Act.“(c)Authorization of Appropriations.—There is authorized to be appropriated to carry out this section $200,000 for fiscal year 2001.”

[For definitions of “domestic violence” and “sexual assault” as used in section 1303(a)–(c) of Pub. L. 106–386, set out above, see section 1002 of Pub. L. 106–386, set out as a note under section 10447 of Title 34, Crime Control and Law Enforcement.]

Congressional Findings and Declaration of Purpose

Pub. L. 96–611, § 7, Dec. 28, 1980, 94 Stat. 3568, provided that:“(a) The Congress finds that—“(1) there is a large and growing number of cases annually involving disputes between persons claiming rights of custody and visitation of children under the laws, and in the courts, of different States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the territories and possessions of the United States;“(2) the laws and practices by which the courts of those jurisdictions determine their jurisdiction to decide such disputes, and the effect to be given the decisions of such disputes by the courts of other jurisdictions, are often inconsistent and conflicting;“(3) those characteristics of the law and practice in such cases, along with the limits imposed by a Federal system on the authority of each such jurisdiction to conduct investigations and take other actions outside its own boundaries, contribute to a tendency of parties involved in such disputes to frequently resort to the seizure, restraint, concealment, and interstate transportation of children, the disregard of court orders, excessive relitigation of cases, obtaining of conflicting orders by the courts of various jurisdictions, and interstate travel and communication that is so expensive and time consuming as to disrupt their occupations and commercial activities; and“(4) among the results of those conditions and activities are the failure of the courts of such jurisdictions to give full faith and credit to the judicial proceedings of the other jurisdictions, the deprivation of rights of liberty and property without due process of law, burdens on commerce among such jurisdictions and with foreign nations, and harm to the welfare of children and their parents and other custodians.“(b) For those reasons it is necessary to establish a national system for locating parents and children who travel from one such jurisdiction to another and are concealed in connection with such disputes, and to establish national standards under which the courts of such jurisdictions will determine their jurisdiction to decide such disputes and the effect to be given by each such jurisdiction to such decisions by the courts of other such jurisdictions.“(c) The general purposes of sections 6 to 10 of this Act [enacting this section and section 663 of Title 42, The Public Health and Welfare, amending sections 654 and 655 Title 42, and enacting provisions set out as notes under this section, sections 663 and 1305 of Title 42, and section 1073 of Title 18, Crimes and Criminal Procedure] are to—“(1) promote cooperation between State courts to the end that a determination of custody and visitation is rendered in the State which can best decide the case in the interest of the child;“(2) promote and expand the exchange of information and other forms of mutual assistance between States which are concerned with the same child;“(3) facilitate the enforcement of custody and visitation decrees of sister States;“(4) discourage continuing interstate controversies over child custody in the interest of greater stability of home environment and of secure family relationships for the child;“(5) avoid jurisdictional competition and conflict between State courts in matters of child custody and visitation which have in the past resulted in the shifting of children from State to State with harmful effects on their well-being; and“(6) deter interstate abductions and other unilateral removals of children undertaken to obtain custody and visitation awards.”

State Court Proceedings for Custody Determinations; Priority Treatment; Fees, Costs, and Other Expenses

Pub. L. 96–611, § 8(c), Dec. 28, 1980, 94 Stat. 3571, provided that: “In furtherance of the purposes of section 1738A of title 28, United States Code, as added by subsection (a) of this section, State courts are encouraged to—“(1) afford priority to proceedings for custody determinations; and“(2) award to the person entitled to custody or visitation pursuant to a custody determination which is consistent with the provisions of such section 1738A, necessary travel expenses, attorneys’ fees, costs of private investigations, witness fees or expenses, and other expenses incurred in connection with such custody determination in any case in which—“(A) a contestant has, without the consent of the person entitled to custody or visitation pursuant to a custody determination which is consistent with the provisions of such section 1738A, (i) wrongfully removed the child from the physical custody of such person, or (ii) wrongfully retained the child after a visit or other temporary relinquishment of physical custody; or“(B) the court determines it is appropriate.”

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 979 cases (42 in the last 5 years), 1981–2026 · leading case: Barndt v. Barndt, 580 A.2d 320 (Pa. 1990).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Barndt v. Barndt, 580 A.2d 320 (Pa. 1990). · cites it 36× “28 U.S.C. § 1738A. (Emphasis added). First, the statute provides for recognition and enforcement of all decrees made consistent with the provisions of 28 U.”
J.M.W. v. T.I.Z., 266 P.3d 702 (Utah 2011). · cites it 12× “" 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. Because the statute's stated purpose is not consistent with the application of the PKPA to adoption proceedings, I am persuaded that the custody determinations whose status Congress sought to change are those that result in the modifiable custody orders most…”
California v. Superior Court of Cal., San Bernardino Cty., 482 U.S. 400 (1987). · cites it 18× “It found that the California custody decrees were properly considered *405 by the Superior Court, and that its conclusion that the Smolins were not substantially charged was correct.”
Ramirez v. Barnet, 384 P.3d 828 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 40× “Hildebrant (“Intervenors”), that the family court properly dismissed Ramirez’s paternity proceeding because, under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (“PKPA”), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (West 2000), it was required to give full faith and credit to an order entered by a New York…”
Matthews v. Riley, 649 A.2d 231 (Vt. 1994). · cites it 37× “Jurisdiction over interstate enforcement and modification of child custody decrees is governed by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. See Shute v. Shute, 158 Vt.”
L.N.S. v. S.W.S., 854 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 16× “We next find the Iowa district court had subject matter jurisdiction under Iowa Code chapter 598B (2009), the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (2012). Affirmed. I. Background Facts &…”
Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). · cites it 8× “3566 , 3568-73 (1980) (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (West 1994 & Supp.2005), 42 U.”
Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174 (1988). · cites it 8× “We granted certiorari in this case to determine whether the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1980, 28 U. S. C. § 1738A, furnishes an implied cause of action in federal court to determine which of two conflicting state custody decisions is valid.”
In the Interest of S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1992). · cites it 14× “The court determined, however, that the Texas court's modification of the Minnesota order as it related to custody and actual visitation arrangements was improper under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA), 28 U.”
Salisbury v. Salisbury, 657 S.W.2d 761 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). · cites it 20× “from which they are taken.” 28 U.S.C. § 1738 .”
State v. Carver, 789 P.2d 306 (Wash. 1990). · cites it 11× “27, and the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. Mr. Carver maintains that statutes such as the UCCJA and PKPA are too complex for the person of average intelligence to interpret.”
State Ex Rel. Valles v. Brown, 639 P.2d 1181 (N.M. 1981). · cites it 18× “Two alternative writ prohibition cases are before us, requesting our interpretation of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (Spec.Pamp.1981). The issues raised in these cases are not only similar but also are of great national and state…”
Show all 979 citing cases →
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(0)(2) — 1 case
In re the Parental Responsibilities of L.S., 257 P.3d 201 (Colo. 2011).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(1980) — 2 cases
State Ex Rel. in Interest of Rp v. Rosen, 966 S.W.2d 292 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
State ex rel. R.P. v. Rosen, 966 S.W.2d 292 (Mo. Ct. App. 1998).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(C)(2)(A)(ii) — 1 case
Cathy L. Cook v. Robert C. Cook, 792 F.2d 57 (5th Cir. 1986).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(PKPA) — 1 case
Brown v. Brown, 69 Pa. D. & C.4th 399 (2004).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(a) — 163 cases
Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “3566 , 3568-73 (1980) (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (West 1994 & Supp.2005), 42 U.”
Matthews v. Riley, 649 A.2d 231 (Vt. 1994). “Jurisdiction over interstate enforcement and modification of child custody decrees is governed by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. See Shute v. Shute, 158 Vt.”
In re R.W. & N.W., 2011 VT 124 (Vt. 2011).
In re: J.H., 780 S.E.2d 228 (N.C. Ct. App. 2015).
Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 2006 VT 78 (Vt. 2006).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(a)(2004) — 2 cases
People Ex Rel. Ajc, 88 P.3d 599 (Colo. 2004).
In re People, 88 P.3d 599 (Colo. 2004).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(a)(4) — 1 case
Wambold v. Wambold, 651 A.2d 330 (Me. 1994).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(aMd) — 1 case
Voninski v. Voninski, 661 S.W.2d 872 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1982).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(b) — 12 cases
Gary McDougald Cross-Appellant v. Vivian L. Jenson, Cross-Appellee, Clarence Ehli, Cross-Appellee, 786 F.2d 1465 (11th Cir. 1986).
Matter of Van Kooten, 487 S.E.2d 160 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997).
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Avinger, 720 P.2d 290 (N.M. 1986).
Doe v. Baby Girl, 657 S.E.2d 455 (S.C. 2008).
In Re Marriage of Dedie & Springston, 255 P.3d 1142 (Colo. 2011).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(b)(1) — 1 case
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Avinger, 720 P.2d 290 (N.M. 1986).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(b)(2) — 16 cases
Patrick v. Williams, 952 So. 2d 1131 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006).
Marriage of Rosen v. Rosen, 664 S.E.2d 743 (W. Va. 2008).
L.N.S. v. S.W.S., 854 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013). “We next find the Iowa district court had subject matter jurisdiction under Iowa Code chapter 598B (2009), the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (2012). Affirmed. I. Background Facts &…”
Hensley v. Kanizai, 143 So. 3d 186 (Ala. Civ. App. 2013).
Matthews v. Riley, 649 A.2d 231 (Vt. 1994). “Jurisdiction over interstate enforcement and modification of child custody decrees is governed by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. See Shute v. Shute, 158 Vt.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(b)(3) — 54 cases
J.M.W. v. T.I.Z., 266 P.3d 702 (Utah 2011). “" 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. Because the statute's stated purpose is not consistent with the application of the PKPA to adoption proceedings, I am persuaded that the custody determinations whose status Congress sought to change are those that result in the modifiable custody orders most…”
In Re H.L.A.D., 646 S.E.2d 425 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).
Ronny M. v. Nanette H., 303 P.3d 392 (Alaska 2013).
State Ex Rel. D.S.K. v. Kasper, 792 P.2d 118 (Utah Ct. App. 1990).
Edward Linn Heartfield v. Sharon Mary Heartfield, 749 F.2d 1138 (5th Cir. 1985).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(b)(4) — 98 cases
Cabrera v. Mercado, 146 A.3d 567 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016).
L.N.S. v. S.W.S., 854 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013). “We next find the Iowa district court had subject matter jurisdiction under Iowa Code chapter 598B (2009), the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (2012). Affirmed. I. Background Facts &…”
Atkins v. Vigil, 59 P.3d 255 (Alaska 2002).
McCulley v. Bone, 979 P.2d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
Elder v. Park, 717 P.2d 1132 (N.M. Ct. App. 1986).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(b)(5) — 8 cases
J.M.W. v. T.I.Z., 266 P.3d 702 (Utah 2011). “" 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. Because the statute's stated purpose is not consistent with the application of the PKPA to adoption proceedings, I am persuaded that the custody determinations whose status Congress sought to change are those that result in the modifiable custody orders most…”
David A. Thompson v. Susan A. Thompson, AKA Susan A. Clay, 798 F.2d 1547 (9th Cir. 1986).
In Re the Appeal in Pima Cnty. Juv. Action No. J-78632, 711 P.2d 1200 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1985).
In Re Higera N., 2010 ME 77 (Me. 2010).
State Ex Rel. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Avinger, 720 P.2d 290 (N.M. 1986).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(b)(6) — 8 cases
J.M.W. v. T.I.Z., 266 P.3d 702 (Utah 2011). “" 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. Because the statute's stated purpose is not consistent with the application of the PKPA to adoption proceedings, I am persuaded that the custody determinations whose status Congress sought to change are those that result in the modifiable custody orders most…”
Rogers v. Platt, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).
Matter of Marriage of Ieronimakis, 831 P.2d 172 (Wash. Ct. App. 1992).
Mark B. v. Krystal F., 932 N.E.2d 428 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008).
Brookshire v. Blackwell, 682 S.E.2d 295 (S.C. Ct. App. 2009).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(b)(7) — 8 cases
Doe v. Baby Girl, 657 S.E.2d 455 (S.C. 2008).
Mark B. v. Krystal F., 932 N.E.2d 428 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008).
Ex Parte D.B., 975 So. 2d 940 (Ala. 2007).
In Re Baby Girl F., 932 N.E.2d 428 (Ill. App. Ct. 2008).
D.B. v. M.A., 975 So. 2d 927 (Ala. Civ. App. 2006).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(b)(8) — 17 cases
In Re Marriage of Skillen, 1998 MT 43 (Mont. 1998).
John v. Baker, 982 P.2d 738 (Alaska 1999).
Marita Rogers v. Alan Platt & Kathy Platt, 814 F.2d 683 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
In Re Christopher Dwayne Larch Frederick Rocky Larch. E. Band of Cherokee Indians Frederick Wilfred Larch v. Ina Quinn Larch, 872 F.2d 66 (4th Cir. 1989).
Rogers v. Platt, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(b)(9) — 1 case
Quets v. Needham, 682 S.E.2d 214 (N.C. Ct. App. 2009).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(b)(l) — 1 case
In Re Marriage of Michalik v. Michalik, 476 N.W.2d 586 (Wis. Ct. App. 1991).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c) — 86 cases
Catlin v. Catlin, 494 N.W.2d 581 (N.D. 1992).
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002).
Cabrera v. Mercado, 146 A.3d 567 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016).
Sherrill v. Sherrill, 373 P.3d 486 (Alaska 2016).
In Re Jorgensen, 627 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2001).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(1) — 30 cases
State Ex Rel. Valles v. Brown, 639 P.2d 1181 (N.M. 1981). “Two alternative writ prohibition cases are before us, requesting our interpretation of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (Spec.Pamp.1981). The issues raised in these cases are not only similar but also are of great national and state…”
Barndt v. Barndt, 580 A.2d 320 (Pa. 1990). “28 U.S.C. § 1738A. (Emphasis added). First, the statute provides for recognition and enforcement of all decrees made consistent with the provisions of 28 U.”
Matthews v. Riley, 649 A.2d 231 (Vt. 1994). “Jurisdiction over interstate enforcement and modification of child custody decrees is governed by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. See Shute v. Shute, 158 Vt.”
Sherrill v. Sherrill, 373 P.3d 486 (Alaska 2016).
In Re the Marriage of Murphy, 952 P.2d 624 (Wash. Ct. App. 1998).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(2) — 33 cases
Mississippi Band of Choctaw Indians v. Holyfield, 490 U.S. 30 (1989).
Matthews v. Riley, 649 A.2d 231 (Vt. 1994). “Jurisdiction over interstate enforcement and modification of child custody decrees is governed by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. See Shute v. Shute, 158 Vt.”
In Re Jorgensen, 627 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2001).
Barndt v. Barndt, 580 A.2d 320 (Pa. 1990). “28 U.S.C. § 1738A. (Emphasis added). First, the statute provides for recognition and enforcement of all decrees made consistent with the provisions of 28 U.”
Welch-Doden v. Roberts, 42 P.3d 1166 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2002).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(2)(A) — 58 cases
State Ex Rel. Valles v. Brown, 639 P.2d 1181 (N.M. 1981). “Two alternative writ prohibition cases are before us, requesting our interpretation of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (Spec.Pamp.1981). The issues raised in these cases are not only similar but also are of great national and state…”
Barndt v. Barndt, 580 A.2d 320 (Pa. 1990). “28 U.S.C. § 1738A. (Emphasis added). First, the statute provides for recognition and enforcement of all decrees made consistent with the provisions of 28 U.”
Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “3566 , 3568-73 (1980) (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (West 1994 & Supp.2005), 42 U.”
Matthews v. Riley, 649 A.2d 231 (Vt. 1994). “Jurisdiction over interstate enforcement and modification of child custody decrees is governed by the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. See Shute v. Shute, 158 Vt.”
Salisbury v. Salisbury, 657 S.W.2d 761 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). “from which they are taken.” 28 U.S.C. § 1738 .”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(2)(A)(i) — 6 cases
Adoption of Yvette, 881 N.E.2d 1159 (Mass. App. Ct. 2008).
In Re Marriage of Zierenberg, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1436 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992).
Cann v. Howard, 850 S.W.2d 57 (Ky. Ct. App. 1993).
Wambold v. Wambold, 651 A.2d 330 (Me. 1994).
Templeton v. Witham, 595 F. Supp. 770 (S.D. Cal. 1984).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(2)(A)(ii) — 10 cases
Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 2006 VT 78 (Vt. 2006).
Williams v. Walker, 648 S.E.2d 536 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).
Columb v. Columb, 633 A.2d 689 (Vt. 1993).
Rogers v. Platt, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).
In Re Marriage of Zierenberg, 11 Cal. App. 4th 1436 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(2)(B) — 34 cases
Marita Rogers v. Alan Platt & Kathy Platt, 814 F.2d 683 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Catlin v. Catlin, 494 N.W.2d 581 (N.D. 1992).
Ramirez v. Barnet, 384 P.3d 828 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “Hildebrant (“Intervenors”), that the family court properly dismissed Ramirez’s paternity proceeding because, under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (“PKPA”), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (West 2000), it was required to give full faith and credit to an order entered by a New York…”
Doe v. Baby Girl, 657 S.E.2d 455 (S.C. 2008).
Rogers v. Platt, 199 Cal. App. 3d 1204 (Cal. Ct. App. 1988).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(2)(B)(i) — 11 cases
In Re Jorgensen, 627 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2001).
McCulley v. Bone, 979 P.2d 779 (Or. Ct. App. 1999).
Adoption of Zachariah K., 6 Cal. App. 4th 1025 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992).
Columb v. Columb, 633 A.2d 689 (Vt. 1993).
In Re Marriage of Torres, 98 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 2655 (Cal. Ct. App. 1998).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(2)(B)(ii) — 2 cases
In re Marriage of Payne, 899 P.2d 1318 (Wash. Ct. App. 1995).
In re B.C.B., 411 P.3d 926 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(2)(C) — 29 cases
Mitchell v. Preston, 439 P.3d 718 (Wyo. 2019).
Sheila L. Ex Rel. Ronald M.M. v. Ronald P.M., 465 S.E.2d 210 (W. Va. 1995).
Boyd v. Boyd, 653 S.W.2d 732 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983).
State Ex Rel. Valles v. Brown, 639 P.2d 1181 (N.M. 1981). “Two alternative writ prohibition cases are before us, requesting our interpretation of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (Spec.Pamp.1981). The issues raised in these cases are not only similar but also are of great national and state…”
People v. Superior Court (Smolin), 716 P.2d 991 (Cal. 1986).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(2)(C)(i) — 1 case
Marita Rogers v. Alan Platt & Kathy Platt, 814 F.2d 683 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(2)(C)(ii) — 6 cases
Cox v. Cantrell, 866 N.E.2d 798 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
In Re Higera N., 2010 ME 77 (Me. 2010).
Curtis v. Curtis, 574 So. 2d 24 (Miss. 1990).
Paslov v. Cox, 2004 MT 325 (Mont. 2004).
Marriage of Nazar v. Nazar, 474 N.W.2d 206 (Minn. Ct. App. 1991).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(2)(D) — 15 cases
Lutes v. Alexander, 421 S.E.2d 857 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
Catlin v. Catlin, 494 N.W.2d 581 (N.D. 1992).
Matter of Van Kooten, 487 S.E.2d 160 (N.C. Ct. App. 1997).
State Ex Rel. Valles v. Brown, 639 P.2d 1181 (N.M. 1981). “Two alternative writ prohibition cases are before us, requesting our interpretation of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (Spec.Pamp.1981). The issues raised in these cases are not only similar but also are of great national and state…”
Marita Rogers v. Alan Platt & Kathy Platt, 814 F.2d 683 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(2)(D)(i) — 2 cases
Lutes v. Alexander, 421 S.E.2d 857 (Va. Ct. App. 1992).
Dennis v. Dennis, 366 N.W.2d 474 (N.D. 1985).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(2)(E) — 11 cases
Barndt v. Barndt, 580 A.2d 320 (Pa. 1990). “28 U.S.C. § 1738A. (Emphasis added). First, the statute provides for recognition and enforcement of all decrees made consistent with the provisions of 28 U.”
Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “3566 , 3568-73 (1980) (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (West 1994 & Supp.2005), 42 U.”
Marriage of Biscoe v. Biscoe, 443 N.W.2d 221 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989).
State Ex Rel. Valles v. Brown, 639 P.2d 1181 (N.M. 1981). “Two alternative writ prohibition cases are before us, requesting our interpretation of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (Spec.Pamp.1981). The issues raised in these cases are not only similar but also are of great national and state…”
Salisbury v. Salisbury, 657 S.W.2d 761 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). “from which they are taken.” 28 U.S.C. § 1738 .”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(2)(d) — 1 case
Goff v. Goff, 172 S.W.3d 352 (Ky. 2005).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(l) — 36 cases
Barndt v. Barndt, 580 A.2d 320 (Pa. 1990). “28 U.S.C. § 1738A. (Emphasis added). First, the statute provides for recognition and enforcement of all decrees made consistent with the provisions of 28 U.”
Shute v. Shute, 607 A.2d 890 (Vt. 1992).
Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 2006 VT 78 (Vt. 2006).
State v. Carver, 789 P.2d 306 (Wash. 1990). “27, and the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. Mr. Carver maintains that statutes such as the UCCJA and PKPA are too complex for the person of average intelligence to interpret.”
Sheila L. Ex Rel. Ronald M.M. v. Ronald P.M., 465 S.E.2d 210 (W. Va. 1995).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(l)(D) — 1 case
Golding v. Golding, 667 So. 2d 404 (Fla. 5th DCA 1995).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(c)(l)(E) — 1 case
Crites v. Alston, 837 P.2d 1061 (Wyo. 1992).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(d) — 160 cases
L.N.S. v. S.W.S., 854 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013). “We next find the Iowa district court had subject matter jurisdiction under Iowa Code chapter 598B (2009), the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (2012). Affirmed. I. Background Facts &…”
Barndt v. Barndt, 580 A.2d 320 (Pa. 1990). “28 U.S.C. § 1738A. (Emphasis added). First, the statute provides for recognition and enforcement of all decrees made consistent with the provisions of 28 U.”
Fuerstenberg v. Fuerstenberg, 1999 SD 35 (S.D. 1999).
L.G. v. People, 890 P.2d 647 (Colo. 1995).
State v. Carver, 789 P.2d 306 (Wash. 1990). “27, and the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. Mr. Carver maintains that statutes such as the UCCJA and PKPA are too complex for the person of average intelligence to interpret.”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(d)(2003) — 1 case
Loud v. De La Espriella Medina, 899 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 2005).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(e) — 43 cases
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Cox, 82 S.W.3d 806 (Ark. 2002).
State v. Carver, 789 P.2d 306 (Wash. 1990). “27, and the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. Mr. Carver maintains that statutes such as the UCCJA and PKPA are too complex for the person of average intelligence to interpret.”
In Re the Marriage of Schmidt, 436 N.W.2d 99 (Minn. 1989).
Egervary v. Young, 159 F. Supp. 2d 132 (E.D. Pa. 2001).
Draper v. Roberts, 839 P.2d 165 (Okla. 1992).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(e)(2)(A) — 2 cases
Marita Rogers v. Alan Platt & Kathy Platt, 814 F.2d 683 (D.C. Cir. 1987).
Wyman v. Larner, 624 F. Supp. 240 (S.D. Ind. 1985).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(e)(2)(A)(ii) — 1 case
Nmc v. Jlw Ex Rel. Naw, 2004 WY 56 (Wyo. 2004).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(e)(2)(B) — 3 cases
Marriage of Snow v. Snow, 369 N.W.2d 581 (Minn. Ct. App. 1985).
Ramirez v. Barnet, 384 P.3d 828 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “Hildebrant (“Intervenors”), that the family court properly dismissed Ramirez’s paternity proceeding because, under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (“PKPA”), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (West 2000), it was required to give full faith and credit to an order entered by a New York…”
Upon the Petition of Jorgensen, 627 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2001).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(e)(2)(C) — 1 case
S.C. v. J.R.W., 667 So. 2d 72 (Ala. Civ. App. 1993).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(e)(2)(D) — 2 cases
In Re the Relationship of Henry, 951 P.2d 135 (Or. 1997).
Wambold v. Wambold, 651 A.2d 330 (Me. 1994).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(e)(l) — 3 cases
Miller-Jenkins v. Miller-Jenkins, 637 S.E.2d 330 (Va. Ct. App. 2006).
In re B.C., 726 A.2d 45 (Vt. 1999).
People ex rel. K.G., 876 P.2d 1 (Colo. Ct. App. 1993).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(f) — 91 cases
In the Interest of S.A.V., 837 S.W.2d 80 (Tex. 1992). “The court determined, however, that the Texas court's modification of the Minnesota order as it related to custody and actual visitation arrangements was improper under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA), 28 U.”
In Re Jorgensen, 627 N.W.2d 550 (Iowa 2001).
State v. Carver, 789 P.2d 306 (Wash. 1990). “27, and the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. Mr. Carver maintains that statutes such as the UCCJA and PKPA are too complex for the person of average intelligence to interpret.”
California v. Superior Court of Cal., San Bernardino Cty., 482 U.S. 400 (1987). “It found that the California custody decrees were properly considered *405 by the Superior Court, and that its conclusion that the Smolins were not substantially charged was correct.”
In Re the Marriage of Shupe, 916 P.2d 744 (Mont. 1996).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(f)(1) — 5 cases
State Ex Rel. Valles v. Brown, 639 P.2d 1181 (N.M. 1981). “Two alternative writ prohibition cases are before us, requesting our interpretation of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (Spec.Pamp.1981). The issues raised in these cases are not only similar but also are of great national and state…”
In Re the Marriage of Shupe, 916 P.2d 744 (Mont. 1996).
In Re the Marriage of Fontenot, 2006 MT 324 (Mont. 2006).
Paslov v. Cox, 2004 MT 325 (Mont. 2004).
Bb v. Dd, 18 P.3d 1210 (Alaska 2001).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(f)(1997) — 1 case
Bello v. Kruzel, 732 So. 2d 1113 (Fla. 4th DCA 1999).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(f)(2) — 36 cases
State Ex Rel. Valles v. Brown, 639 P.2d 1181 (N.M. 1981). “Two alternative writ prohibition cases are before us, requesting our interpretation of the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (PKPA), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (Spec.Pamp.1981). The issues raised in these cases are not only similar but also are of great national and state…”
In Re the Relationship of Henry, 951 P.2d 135 (Or. 1997).
Marquiss v. Marquiss, 837 P.2d 25 (Wyo. 1992).
L.N.S. v. S.W.S., 854 N.W.2d 699 (Iowa Ct. App. 2013). “We next find the Iowa district court had subject matter jurisdiction under Iowa Code chapter 598B (2009), the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA), 28 U.S.C. § 1738A (2012). Affirmed. I. Background Facts &…”
In Re Clausen, 502 N.W.2d 649 (Mich. 1993).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(f)(2000) — 1 case
Clay v. Burckle, 633 S.E.2d 173 (S.C. Ct. App. 2006).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(f)(l) — 8 cases
Adoption of Zachariah K., 6 Cal. App. 4th 1025 (Cal. Ct. App. 1992).
Perez v. Tanner, 965 S.W.2d 90 (Ark. 1998).
Jackson v. Hendricks, 2005 VT 113 (Vt. 2005).
O'Gwynn v. Hebert, 878 A.2d 119 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005).
Paslov v. Cox, 2004 MT 325 (Mont. 2004).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(g) — 84 cases
Ramirez v. Barnet, 384 P.3d 828 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2016). “Hildebrant (“Intervenors”), that the family court properly dismissed Ramirez’s paternity proceeding because, under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (“PKPA”), 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (West 2000), it was required to give full faith and credit to an order entered by a New York…”
J.M.W. v. T.I.Z., 266 P.3d 702 (Utah 2011). “" 28 U.S.C. § 1738A. Because the statute's stated purpose is not consistent with the application of the PKPA to adoption proceedings, I am persuaded that the custody determinations whose status Congress sought to change are those that result in the modifiable custody orders most…”
In re Adoption of Jaelyn B., 293 Neb. 917 (Neb. 2016).
Staats v. McKinnon, 206 S.W.3d 532 (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006). “3566 , 3568-73 (1980) (codified as amended at 28 U.S.C.A. § 1738A (West 1994 & Supp.2005), 42 U.”
Salisbury v. Salisbury, 657 S.W.2d 761 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1983). “from which they are taken.” 28 U.S.C. § 1738 .”
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(g)(2000) — 1 case
Escobar v. Reisinger, 64 P.3d 514 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003).
— 28 U.S.C. § 1738A(h) — 6 cases
Williams v. Walker, 648 S.E.2d 536 (N.C. Ct. App. 2007).
Shanoski v. Miller, 2001 ME 139 (Me. 2001).
In re Marriage of Wiseman, 737 N.E.2d 325 (Ill. App. Ct. 2000).
Piccioni v. Piccioni, 378 S.W.3d 838 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011).
Cahill v. Kendall, 202 F. Supp. 2d 1322 (S.D. Ala. 2002).
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.