Legislatures Consider Replacing UCCJA With UCCJEA

UCCJEA Section 110 -- COMMUNICATION BETWEEN COURTS

Article by Richard Crouch, Attorney at Law, Crouch & Crouch, Arlington, Virginia; (703) 528-6700;
Copyright Richard Crouch 1999. Originally Published in Family Law News, a Virginia
State Bar Publication

Table of Contents of UCCJEA Article | Introduction

Proposed §146.9 (UCCJEA SECTION 110). COMMUNICATION BETWEEN COURTS. This provision greatly formalizes the old informal provision whereby any judge who got an interstate custody case and learned that it was pending somewhere else, or that there was a previous custody order in some other state, was required to communicate immediately. He or she just picked up the phone at any time, without checking with anybody, to reach that other judge. Many lawyers raised the question whether this was a hearing, at which all due process rules apply and counsel should step in and start providing representation and advocacy. Now, however, there has been a perhaps inadvertent change, in the course of accommodating these concerns, that makes the mandatory provision discretionary.

Comment: Going from a "must" to a "may" communicate could be a very unwise idea. The more mandatory wording of the present Uniform Act has worked well in the past and should not be abandoned. It is interesting that subsection (b) still leaves it up to the judge to decide whether the parties will be allowed to participate in the judge-to-judge communication. Stopping short of giving the parties a right to do so is probably wise, and this compromise measure, giving the parties substantial rights when they have been excluded from the communication, is probably the best solution. Subsection (D) is definitely a good idea.

Text of this Section of Uniform Act:

SECTION 110. COMMUNICATION BETWEEN COURTS.

(a) A court of this State may communicate with a court in another State
concerning a proceeding arising under this [Act].

(b) The court may allow the parties to participate in the communication.
If the parties are not able to participate in the communication, they
must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments
before a decision on jurisdiction is made.

(c) Communication between courts on schedules, calendars, court records,
and similar matters may occur without informing the parties. A record
need not be made of the communication.

(d) Except as otherwise provided in subsection (c), a record must be
made of a communication under this section. The parties must be informed
promptly of the communication and granted access to the record.

(e) For the purposes of this section, "record" means information that is
inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or
other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.


Virginia Version:

§20-146.9. Communication between courts.

A. A court of this Commonwealth may communicate with a court in another state concerning a proceeding arising under this Act.

B. The court may allow the parties to participate in the communication. If the parties are not able to participate in the communication, they must be given the opportunity to present facts and legal arguments before a decision on jurisdiction is made.

C. Communication between courts on schedules, calendars, court records, and similar matters may occur without informing the parties. A record need not be made of the communication.

D. Except as otherwise provided in subsection C, a record must be made of a communication under this section. The parties must be informed promptly of the communication and granted access to the record.

E. For the purposes of this section, "record" means information that is inscribed on a tangible medium or that is stored in an electronic or other medium and is retrievable in perceivable form.


Return to: Table of Contents of Article | Introduction to UCCJEA | Crouch & Crouch home page | Family Law Information | Family Law Articles Index
Disclaimer: Items are not to be considered legal advice or to create any lawyer-client relationship. Most articles include some obsolete information. In addition, taking any legal information out of context, i.e., using it in a different court or a subtly different kind of case, or without the training to understand all of what it means or doing research to verify it, usually has disastrous consequences.