The PKPA was enacted in 1980 to resolve jurisdictional conflicts in child custody cases. It was designed to discourage interstate conflicts, deter interstate abductions, and promote cooperation between states about interstate custody matters. In addition, as part of the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, the PKPA's definition of “emergency jurisdiction” was broadened to cover domestic violence cases consistent with new state jurisdictional laws.
The PKPA is a full faith and credit law. It tells courts when to honor and enforce custody determinations issued by courts in other states or tribes. As federal law, it trumps state law when there is a conflict between the two.
The PKPA does not tell courts when they should exercise jurisdiction over a new custody matter. That is determined by state or tribal jurisdictional laws (e.g., the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act or the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act). Courts must, however, follow the PKPA's dictates whenever:
they are deciding whether to enforce a custody determination made by a court in another state or tribe;
they are deciding whether to exercise jurisdiction even though there is a custody proceeding already pending in another jurisdiction; and
they are asked to modify and existing custody or visitation order from another jurisdiction.
The PKPA sets forth four ways in which courts can exercise jurisdiction: home state, significant connection, emergency, and more appropriate forum. The PKPA gives the child's home state preferred jurisdiction and prohibits a court from exercising jurisdiction if a valid custody proceeding already is pending in another state.
The home state is the state where the child lived with a parent or a person acting as a parent for at least 6 months immediately before the custody action was filed. Home state jurisdiction exists in the child's current home state or in a state that was the child's home state within 6 months before the case began.
A state may exercise significant connection jurisdiction only if there is no home state. The child and at least one parent must have a significant connection with the state, and there must be substantial evidence in the state concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships.
A court may exercise emergency jurisdiction if the child is physically present in the state and the child has been abandoned or 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.
This means that when a victim of domestic violence flees across state lines with the children, the refuge state may exercise emergency jurisdiction even if the children were not abused physically or threatened with abuse, so long as a sibling or a parent was abused or threatened.
The PKPA gives continuing jurisdiction to the state that issued the initial custody determination consistent with the PKPA. This state retains jurisdiction as long as it has jurisdiction under state law and at least one parent or the child continues to live there.
A court may modify a custody or visitation order from another state only if 1) it has jurisdiction to do so, and 2) the court of the initial state no longer has jurisdiction or has declined to exercise it.
Full faith and credit is required only if all relevant parties have received notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Ex parte orders are not entitled to full faith and credit under the PKPA. See the Violence Against Women Act summary for a potential argument to use when seeking enforcement of an ex parte custody order in another jurisdiction.