SpLiT n TwO

Add a Comment

46 Comments

Comment by BKStrelioff on December 15, 2008 at 10:36pm

They are supposed to publish a report of what took place at the hearing, but I am not sure when it will be available.

Comment by Maureen Lasher on December 15, 2008 at 10:35pm

Brian, how can we find out the results of the Elkins evaluation?

Comment by Katrina C. Daniels Lee on December 15, 2008 at 6:17pm

HEY GIRLY......WUV YA! HAVE A GREAT HOLIDAY!

Comment by BKStrelioff on November 19, 2008 at 2:41pm

Maureen, as to your earlier post there are two sets of laws that are relevant (three if you want to include the Hague Convention for international family abductions). One, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) is the federal law, and as such "supercedes" any state law. At the state level, there is the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) that provides a template for child custody matters and is followed in most states (since each states numbers their statute differently, the numbers may different but overall the law is similar).

I do not really think Elkins will have much impact beyond California. The main catalyst for the CA Supreme Court order that resulted in the Elkins task force was that many of the issues in CA Family Law were to be decided on the basis of sworn affidavits, rather than the usual steps followed in civil cases. I am not sure if other states have the similar flawed process.

Comment by BKStrelioff on November 19, 2008 at 2:35pm

Just in on Elkins:
Good Morning:
We are writing to inform you that the Elkins Family Law Task Force meeting will be open to the public this afternoon during these times:
1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m.
4:15 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
You are welcome to attend these sessions.
Thank you again for your interest,
Staff for CFCC
Center for Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC)
Judicial Council of California - Administrative Office of the Courts
455 Golden Gate Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94102-3688
www.courtinfo.ca.gov/programs/cfcc/
“Serving the courts for the benefit of all Californians”

Comment by Maureen Lasher on November 19, 2008 at 12:50pm

Ok, got on the site. It is my understanding that while this is for California only, it will set a precedent for the nation. Will this impact federal law, do you know? I understand there is effort made to de regulate the family law from state to state and create a unified federal law response that will superscede state law? Thanks :)

Comment by BKStrelioff on November 19, 2008 at 12:33pm

I have had some email discussions, but with the meeting being held today I am not sure there is time for your comments. There will be additional meetings in the future. I never spoke with anyone, or corresponded in anyway other than email.

The main WWW site is at http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/elkins.htm

Good luck

Comment by Maureen Lasher on November 19, 2008 at 12:29pm

Brian, I sent my info and story and suggestions to the Elkins task force last spring, I even submitted the letter and my response to my judge in Indiana. I have heard no response from them. Are you getting any response or do you have direct contact info so I can add to the discussion? Thanks!

Comment by BKStrelioff on November 19, 2008 at 8:35am

The Elkins Task Force ( http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/jc/tflists/elkins-contact.htm is meeting today in San Francisco. Here are some of the comments I have submitted, and which I am told will be considered:


Parents who kidnap their children and remove them to California not only commit child abuse, but create a severe financial hardship on the parent who continues to reside in the home state under UCCJEA. Failure of California courts to aggressively resolve and acknowledge sister-state continuing jurisdiction, and to enforce the return of the minor children provides aid and comfort to the abductor, at the harm & expense of the abducted children as well as the other parent. These harmful delays are compounded by the ability of the abductor to tie the matter up in various courts of review. Similarly, lack of interest in various California public agencies, such as DCFS and the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Child Abduction Unit (CAU), to effectuate the resolution of the matter and return of the minor children to the home state also further harms the minor children. California law enforcement organizations' policies of not searching for abducted children if their abductor claims the children ran away provides a clear mechanism for child abductors to murder their children, falsely claim the children ran away, without risk of the matter being looked into.
Failure of DCFS to immediately = place abducted children in protective custody exposes those children to further harm, including death at the hands of their abductor. The CAU has stated, in testimony as well as in filings with the Appellate Court, that they will not search for children if the parent with custody is not a resident of Los Angeles County. Combined, these organizations establish Los Angeles County as not only a safe-haven for parents who kidnap their children, but also for those willing to murder their own children.
The financial burden on the parent whose children were abducted and hidden in California, while far less important than the abduction and murder of those children, is a substantial hardship. The actions and inactions of California organizations in prolonging the time it takes to rule and effectuate the return of the children compounds the hardship, as well as directly assisting the possible murder of the abducted children.
To help address these issues in the best interests of the minor children:
1. Continuing jurisdiction under UCCJEA is one of the simplest legal points to resolve. There should be a law that upon a claim of out-of-state jurisdiction, the California court shall contact the appropriate court within 24-hours to resolve the matter. Similarly as soon as the out-of-state jurisdiction is raised, the minor children should be taken into protective custody to prevent subsequent abduction.
2. The parent who takes the children to California should be responsible for the travel and living expenses, including loss of income, imposed on the other parent to attend hearings or other matters related to the minor children in California. A bond sufficiently large should be required to be posted to cover these expenses, and imposed immediately upon presentment of credible proof that another state has continuing jurisdiction.
3. The parent who takes the children to California should be responsible for the legal costs incurred by the parent attempting to have the children returned to the state with continuing jurisdiction, again via immediate posting of a sufficiently large bond. This should include costs for courts of review.
4. As required, and from time to time, financial bonds should be increased as needed, and disbursed to those providing services in a timely manner upon proof of expenses incurred.
5. If a decision is made to temporarily leave the minor children with their abductor, GPS tracking devices should be used individually to track the minor children as well as the abductor. The abductor should be responsible for the cost of this monitoring, and also required to post a substantial bond to help fund search and rescue efforts.
6. Substantial financial penalties should be imposed upon the abductor for every day any of the minor children are prevented from being returned to the state with continuing jurisdiction, from the date of abduction up to the date the children are returned to their home state, or the date the youngest child reaches 18. The abductor should be required to post the maximum penalty amount (which assumes the children are not returned, and therefore is calculated through the date the youngest child reaches 18) in full immediately upon the court being made aware that another state has continuing jurisdiction under UCCJEA.
7. If the abducting parent is under an obligation to pay child support, they must post a full bond for the entire amount due and owing through the entire term of the previously ordered child support.
8. The children should not be exposed to, or involved in, any form of counseling or non-emergency treatment without the prior consent of the out-of-state parent. Costs for any such treatment or counseling shall be the sole responsibility of the abductor, including costs for involvement of the out-of-state parent.
9. The abductor shall be responsible for providing the California court with a complete copy of the out-of-state court proceedings, and must provide said information prior to filing any further pleadings in California once the jurisdiction claim has been raised.
10. The abductor shall post a bond sufficient to cover reasonable costs for a search for the minor children. Determination of what is reasonable can be calculated based on historic actual costs encountered by agencies that perform such searches.
11. All schools, churches, health-care providers, other organizations frequently attended by children, etc., in California shall be informed of the status of the children as abducted, with the abductor being responsible for the costs of notification.
12. All California agencies shall make location and rescue of abducted children a top priority, regardless of age of children, state with continuing jurisdiction, claims the children “ran away”, etc. This includes entering premises to search for the children as well as physical removal of the children and placement of them in protective custody.

• Presenter's name (Your name)
Brian Strelioff
• Title/position (i.e., Party, Attorney, Mediator, etc.)
Parent with sole custody of two minor children
• Contact information (i.e., address, telephone number, e-mail, etc.),
Email preferred, BKStrelioff@Hotmail.com
• County of residence;
Kane County, Illinois (ties to Los Angeles County, California)
• Organization or affiliation, if any (i.e., Are speaking for yourself and/or an organization?)
Speaking for myself, my children, and other similarly at risk children and parents
• Brief description of presentation (i.e., What are you suggesting?)
Proactive and substantial steps be taken to discourage parents from abducting children and seeking refuge in California
• If you have a pending family law case in any California court, please specify which court(s).
Juvenile Court in Los Angeles, California Appellate Court. The California Supreme Court, as well as Los Angeles County Family Courts, have been involved previously.

Comment by Bellas Mom06 on October 13, 2008 at 8:34pm

Just jumping in to say hello to everyone.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5