[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.

                          ____________________