AN ACT to create and enact chapter 14-14.2 of the North Dakota Century Code, relating to the adoption of the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act.
SB 2126 creates a new chapter in the North Dakota Century Code adopting the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act. The bill authorizes courts to issue abduction-prevention measures in child-custody cases when there is a credible risk that a child may be wrongfully removed or retained. It defines key terms such as abduction, wrongful removal, wrongful retention, child-custody determination, and child-custody proceeding, and it applies to children age 17 and under.
The measure gives district courts authority to act on their own motion or on petition by a parent, other person with custody-related rights, or a prosecutor/public authority. It sets out the information a petition must contain, the risk factors a court must consider, and the types of preventive orders a court may issue. Those remedies include travel restrictions, surrender of passports, supervised visitation, bond or security requirements, registration of orders in other states, and requirements tied to foreign travel or foreign consulates. In urgent cases, the bill allows an ex parte warrant to take physical custody of a child if imminent wrongful removal is likely, with prompt post-seizure hearing rights for the respondent.
The bill’s impact on state law is to add a detailed statutory framework for preventing parental child abduction and for coordinating custody enforcement across jurisdictions. It also incorporates existing North Dakota custody-jurisdiction provisions and court-cooperation rules, and it expressly allows use of law enforcement and other remedies when necessary. The chapter is intended to work uniformly with similar laws in other states and includes a provision addressing the federal E-SIGN Act.
The overall sentiment appears strongly supportive and noncontroversial. The bill passed both chambers unanimously, with no recorded opposition in either the Senate or House, and there were no committee transcript snippets indicating debate or concern. The lack of recorded dissent suggests broad agreement that the bill provides a protective tool for courts and families in high-risk custody situations.
Notable points of potential contention, based on the bill text itself rather than recorded debate, include the breadth of judicial discretion in finding a “credible risk” of abduction, the use of ex parte warrants, and the range of restrictive measures available, such as passport surrender, supervised visitation, and travel limitations. The bill also addresses international travel and foreign-country risk factors, which could be sensitive in cases involving immigration status, cross-border custody disputes, or domestic violence allegations.
SB 2126 adds chapter 14-14.2 to the North Dakota Century Code, establishing a new legal process for child abduction prevention in custody matters. It expands district court authority to issue preventive orders, require disclosure of travel and custody information, impose passport and travel restrictions, coordinate with other states and foreign authorities, and issue ex parte warrants in imminent-risk cases. It also ties into existing North Dakota custody jurisdiction and court-cooperation statutes and is designed to be construed uniformly with the Uniform Child Abduction Prevention Act adopted elsewhere.
The bill appears to have received unanimous, favorable support. The Senate passed it 47-0 and the House passed it 92-0, with no recorded opposition and no committee discussion excerpts indicating controversy. The voting history suggests the measure was viewed as a practical child-protection and custody-enforcement bill.
No explicit opposition is reflected in the available votes or transcripts, but the statute itself raises issues that could be contentious in practice. These include the standard for finding a credible risk of abduction, the scope of emergency ex parte warrants, and the breadth of court-imposed restrictions such as supervised visitation, passport surrender, bond requirements, and limits on international travel. The international-risk factors and references to domestic violence, immigration status, and foreign legal systems could also be sensitive in contested custody cases.