[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 93 (Tuesday, July 14, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H5437-H5439]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
ENFORCEMENT OF CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION ORDERS
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill
(H.R. 4164) to amend title 28, United States Code, with respect to the
enforcement of child custody and visitation orders.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4164
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION DETERMINATIONS.
Section 1738A of title 28, United States Code is amended as
follows:
(1) Subsection (a) is amended by striking ``subsection (f)
of this section, any child custody determination'' and
inserting ``subsections (f) and (g) of this section, any
custody determination or visitation determination''.
(2) Subsection (b)(2) is amended by striking ``a parent''
and inserting ``, but not limited to, a parent or grandparent
or, in cases involving a contested adoption, a person acting
as a parent''.
(3) Subsection (b)(3) is amended--
(A) by striking ``or visitation'';
(B) by striking ``and'' before ``initial orders''; and
(C) by inserting before the semicolon at the end the
following: ``, and includes decrees, judgments, orders of
adoption, and orders dismissing or denying petitions for
adoption''.
(4) Subsection (b)(4) is amended to read as follows:
``(4)(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), `home
State' means--
``(i) the State in which, immediately preceding the time
involved, the child lived with his or her parents, a parent,
or a person acting as a parent, with whom the child has been
living for at least six consecutive months, a
prospective adoptive parent, or an agency with legal
custody during a proceeding for adoption, and
``(ii) in the case of a child less than six months old, the
State in which the child lived from birth, or from soon after
birth,
and periods of temporary absence of any such persons are
counted as part of such 6-month or other period; and
``(B) in cases involving a proceeding for adoption, `home
State' means the State in which--
``(i) immediately preceding commencement of the proceeding,
not including periods of temporary absence, the child is in
the custody of the prospective adoptive parent or parents;
``(ii) the child and the prospective adoptive parent or
parents are physically present and the prospective adoptive
parent or parents have lived for at least six months; and
``(iii) there is substantial evidence available concerning
the child's present or future care;''.
(5) Subsection (b)(5) is amended by inserting ``or
visitation determination'' after ``custody determination''
each place it appears.
(6) Subsection (b) is amended by striking ``and'' at the
end of paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end of
paragraph (8) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding after
paragraph (8) the following:
``(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.''.
(7) Subsection (c) is amended by striking ``child custody
determination'' in the matter
[[Page H5438]]
preceding paragraph (1) and inserting ``custody determination
or visitation determination''.
(8) Subsection (c)(2)(D) is amended by adding ``or
visitation'' after ``determine the custody''.
(9) Subsection (d) is amended by striking ``child custody
determination'' and inserting ``custody determination or
visitation determination''.
(10) Subsection (e) is amended--
(A) by striking ``child custody determination'' and
inserting ``custody determination or visitation
determination''; and
(B) by striking ``a child'' and inserting ``the child
concerned''.
(11) Subsection (f) is amended--
(A) by striking ``determination of the custody of the same
child'' and inserting ``custody determination'';
(B) in paragraph (1) by striking ``child'' and by striking
``and'' after the semicolon;
(C) in paragraph (2) by striking the period and inserting
``; and''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) in cases of contested adoption in which the child has
resided with the prospective adoptive parent or parents for
at least six consecutive months, the court finds by clear and
convincing evidence that the court of the other State failed
to consider--
``(A) the extent of the detriment to the child in being
moved from the child's custodial environment;
``(B) the nature of the relationship between the biological
parent or parents and the child;
``(C) the nature of the relationship between the
prospective adoptive parent or parents and the child; and
``(D) the recommendation of the child's legal
representative or guardian ad litem.
This subsection shall apply only if the party seeking a new
hearing has acted in good faith and has not abused or
attempted to abuse the legal process.''.
(12) Subsection (g) is amended by inserting ``or visitation
determination'' after ``custody determination'' each place it
appears.
(13) Section 1738A is amended by adding at the end the
following:
``(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 has declined to exercise
jurisdiction to modify such determination.
``(i) In all contested custody proceedings, including
adoption proceedings, undertaken pursuant to this section,
all proceedings and appeals shall be expedited.
``(j) In cases of conflicts between 2 or more States, the
district courts shall have jurisdiction to determine which of
conflicting custody determinations or visitation
determinations is consistent with the provisions of this
section or which State court is exercising jurisdiction
consistently with the provisions of this section for purposes
of subsection (g).''.
(14) Subsection (c)(2) is amended--
(A) by inserting ``or her'' after ``his'' each place it
appears; and
(B) by inserting ``or she'' after ``he''.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
Frank) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble).
General Leave
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 4164, the bill under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from North Carolina?
There was no objection.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4164 is intended to alleviate the legal, financial
and emotional hurdles that grandparents, who have visitation rights to
their grandchildren, must overcome in order to enforce those rights if
the children are subsequently moved to another State.
Mr. Speaker, I have met with several grandparents in my district, and
the accounts that they share with me regarding their inability, for
various reasons, to visit their grandchildren are generously laced with
pain and frustration. H.R. 4164, Mr. Speaker, ensures that a visitation
order granted to grandparents in one State will be recognized in any
State where the grandchildren may be moved and thereby prevent
grandchildren from losing contact with a valuable part of their family.
The bill also restores to Federal courts subject matter jurisdiction
to determine which of two conflicting State court custody
determinations or visitation determinations is valid based on which
State is exercising proper jurisdiction. This will overturn a 1988
Supreme Court decision which held that various Federal courts did not
have such jurisdiction, even though Federal courts had already been
hearing these type cases for years. The decision resulted in
conflicting State court custody decisions with no mechanisms to
determine which order was valid.
H.R. 4164 will reduce duplicate State court proceedings. Though the
number of such cases may not be overwhelming, the emotional and
financial burdens that will be alleviated by this bill for those
children and families faced with conflicting custody orders is
immeasurable.
This bill also gives State courts an option whether or not to enforce
the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act in a limited number of
interstate contested adoption cases. In an interstate contested
adoption that has already been ruled on in another State, a State may
exercise jurisdiction and modify the decision if the other State had
failed to conduct a, ``best interest of the child analysis''. Litigants
who have not acted in good faith or who have abused or attempted to
abuse the system would not be eligible to utilize this provision.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I often, in my district, hear from
grandparents about the many difficulties they face in trying to achieve
contact with their grandchildren, and this is a significant step
forward in protecting visitation rights for grandparents. This is a
good bill that will benefit children and families involved in these
cases, and I urge a ``yes'' vote on H.R. 4164.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
The chairman of the subcommittee has explained this well. I want to
stress in particular the importance of giving due recognition to the
role of grandparents, especially in today's world. Grandparents often
find themselves in a parental role. In fact, we are seeing a good deal
of grandparent involvement in the raising of grandchildren, and the law
has simply not caught up with that.
I think the point of giving recognition to the strong emotional ties
between grandparents and grandchildren, recognizing that grandparents,
these days, are as likely to have the best interests of the children at
heart as any other, those are all very important and I am delighted to
support the legislation which adopts them.
The other part of the bill, which deals with allowing the Federal
courts some substantive involvement, I say there is some constitutional
controversy, but what persuades me this is worth supporting is it sets
forth a substantive standard of the best interest of the child, and we
have had too many other competing kinds of interests advanced.
So for those two principles, to the extent that we can federally,
arguing that the best interest of the child should be the deciding
point in custody cases, and recognizing the love and the care that
grandparents parental and giving some protection to the grandparent-
grandchildren bond, for those two reasons, I very much support this
bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr.
Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts
for yielding me this time.
I wish to thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) of the
subcommittee, and the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) of the full
committee, as well as the ranking members, the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for
their help in bringing this legislation to the floor.
Most American grandparents would believe that after a hard fought,
very difficult, painful and expensive process of winning the right to
visit their grandchildren in State court that they have won that right
permanently, or at least until some negative circumstance occurs. Many
of them have been shocked and chagrined to find out that that is not
the case. Very often, when the child moves to another State, the rights
of the grandparents evaporate.
This legislation, which is based upon legislation I authored last
year, will solve that problem. It will say that if grandparents have
rights to visit their grandchild in New Jersey or North
[[Page H5439]]
Carolina or Massachusetts, then they have those rights irrespective of
where the child lives. If the child moves to Arizona or Pennsylvania or
to another State, the rights move with the child.
I want to commend all my colleagues for their involvement in this and
spend a minute in telling my colleagues how I got involved in it. A
constituent of mine from Cherry Hill, New Jersey, by the name of
Josephine D'Antonio, brought this problem to my attention about 3 or 4
years ago, and it was through learning of her story, as the gentleman
from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) has learned from many stories in his
district, that we were able to work together as Republicans and
Democrats to bring this bill to the floor today. So I want to thank
Mrs. D'Antonio, Mr. Speaker, for her role in making this happen.
I also want to thank Maureen Doherty from my office, who has worked
tirelessly on this legislation throughout her tenure here. She is
leaving us to go to law school in a couple of weeks. There are not many
people who help to write a law before they become a lawyer or a law
student, and I commend her for that.
I also want to say that I have learned of the importance of the bond
between grandparents and grandchildren in my own heart and in my own
life. I also want to say the important lessons many of us parental
learned have been in that way, and on behalf of my children I wanted to
thank their surviving grandparents, Mrs. Phyllis Wolf, Mr. Ernest
Spinello and Mrs. Florence Spinello for the lessons they have taught us
about that very important bond.
Mr. Speaker, I am glad today we are coming together so that
grandparents all across this country will be able to walk into any
courthouse in any State, if they have received a court order, and know
that their right to participate in the nurturing and love of their
grandchildren will continue across State lines.
I urge support of the bill and thank its movers to the floor.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New
Jersey for his leadership on this really very, very important issue,
because it focuses on allowing for the loving and caring grandparents
to have a role in the lives of our children.
I thank the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) and the
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde) for their leadership, along with the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank) for recognizing the value of grandparents.
Let me speak for myself. Personally, I would like not to have to come
to the floor of the House on legislation like this. I would like to
think that families are bonded and are together for life.
{time} 1600
We would like to think there is no such thing as divorce. We would
like to think of the normal or at least, let me correct myself, the
family of old, the extended family, where grandparents and parents and
children live together. But we do have a different life and a different
life-style, and I believe it is extremely important to reinforce that
when a grandparent receives visitation in one State that every other
State must respect and enforce that court order.
Nationwide, the percent of families with children headed by a single
parent increased from 22 percent in 1985 to 26 percent in 1995. More
than 75 percent of older Americans are grandparents. This legislation
gives peace of mind and comfort, but it also gives the opportunity for
our children to be connected with their history.
I, too, would like to pay tribute to my children's grandparents, Mr.
and Mrs. Lee, Mr. Lee now deceased; and Mr. and Mrs. Jackson, Mr.
Jackson now deceased. This is an excellent piece of legislation that
helps bond our families and applauds and respects those grandparents
and senior citizens who spend so much of their life contributing to the
growth and nurturing of our children.
Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me time to speak on this
important bill. As Chair of the Congressional Children's Caucus and as
a parent, I care deeply about this bill.
H.R. 4164 is a law which is to the benefit of all family members. By
enacting this legislation, we are requiring that when a grandparent is
awarded visitation in one State, then every other State must respect
and enforce that court order.
This law allows loving and caring grandparents access to their
grandchildren, and it allows grandchildren the important experience of
sharing time with additional family members who love and care about
them, their grandparents.
In my home State of Texas the percentage of children living in single
parent homes has increased by 33%.
Children growing up in single-parent households often do not have the
same economic or human resources available as those growing up in 2
parent families. This law will make it possible for additional adults
to make a difference in their lives, to offer support and love and
guidance. Although some parents may have difficulties in their
relationships with their adult children, a parent should not be able to
sever the relationship between grandparent and grandchild--especially
when the grandchildren and the grandparent have a meaningful,
established relationship and the grandparents have been granted
visitation.
For grandchildren, grandparents are the link to memories and family
history. For grandparents, grandchildren are a link to the present and
the future. This bill will allow a child to grow up with a sense of
family history and with additional love and guidance.
Our children are our future and their well-being must be our focus.
This bill recognizes the importance of family connection and I support
it on behalf of our Nation's families and our children.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of
my time.
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, oftentimes we hear about the partisan rancor that
surrounds our dealings here, and sometimes that is appropriate because
of the nature of the beast. But this is a good example of how
bipartisan cooperation played into bringing this bill to the floor.
My friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), and my
friend, the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Andrews), did good work on
this; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the ranking member;
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hyde), chairman of the full committee.
We all had our oars in the water. And with all that has been said, I
guess nothing further needs to be said.
But let me say this. I would be remiss if I did not mention Debbie
Laman, counsel to the committee, who worked very diligently in this
matter as well. But as has been said, Mr. Speaker, the grandparent-
grandchild relationship is a cherished one that should be encouraged
and nurtured.
This bill before us today is designed to promote this special
relationship and, hopefully, will result in the resolution of problems
that presently plague not only grandparents but children and families
across our land.
I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hayworth). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Coble) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4164.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________