End Massachusetts’ outlier status in child custody disputes

“These are real situations,” Senate Majority Leader Cynthia Stone Creem told the Globe editorial board. “This really happens – more often than we would like to admit. We worked on it [in the Senate] for a very long time. Now we have to hope that the House of Representatives agrees to this.”

The federal law, which dates back to 1997 and has been updated since then, aims to establish clear rules for multistate custody cases by defining and prioritizing the child’s home state and providing emergency custody rules.

“The law determines which court has the authority to decide a custody case, rather than how the court should decide the case, which is governed by the jurisdiction’s general custody laws,” a guide to the national framework says.

When determining responsibility, consideration must be given to whether hardship, including financial hardship, or domestic violence plays a role. In fact, “domestic violence is expressly considered as the first factor that courts must consider” when deciding which state will consider a case.

The version just passed by the Senate also brings custody proceedings, once initiated in court, into the 21st century communications world, allowing parties to a case to “participate via telephone, audiovisual and other electronic means.”

Not surprisingly, the legislation has long been supported by the Boston Bar Association, the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Massachusetts Chapter of the American Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers.

And the law, passed in the state Senate this week, requires state courts to treat a foreign country as if it were just another state of the United States — unless “a foreign country’s custody law violates fundamental Principles of human rights.”

A recent letter from Massachusetts’ three bar associations to Senate leaders said: “Current Massachusetts law is often unfair to the ‘left-behind’ noncustodial parent, who is then forced to travel to another state and litigate there.” “to resolve custody issues.” arise after departure from Massachusetts.”

The goal of the proposed law, according to the advocacy groups, is to “prevent forum shopping by a parent seeking a more favorable outcome in another state and to prevent the problem of dueling lawsuits in different jurisdictions.”

The letter also points out the obvious: that parents in this country are becoming increasingly mobile and are likely to remain so. They travel to find work, care for aging relatives, or seek a better climate, often for the benefit of a child. That won’t change.

Now it is true that Massachusetts is a member of another system, the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children, which regulates the placement of children across state lines, such as in foster care. This law came into play during the custody hearing for then five-year-old Harmony Montgomery in Massachusetts, which resulted in Harmony being placed with her father, a New Hampshire resident. She later disappeared; Her body was never found and her father was convicted of second-degree murder in New Hampshire.

As the Massachusetts Office of the Child Advocate put it in its review of the case, “At the same time that the judge determined that Mr. Montgomery was fit to raise Harmony, the judge also determined that the ICPC did not apply.”

Harmony’s mother filed for custody of her at the same time, and it is impossible to know whether the interstate dispute would have ended differently had the Uniform Custody Act been in effect.

What is certainly true, however, is that future custody cases will be easier to decide if Massachusetts joins the unified system.

The Senate’s action, coming during informal sessions and so late in the legislative session, was a surprise, albeit a pleasant one, and added to a too-short list of legislative achievements. And that’s something the House should eagerly embrace — regardless of its penchant for cross-industry rivalries.

If Massachusetts is the only state not to comply with a law already passed by 49 other states, it stands to reason that this should be implemented quickly. Surely the House must see the wisdom in this.

Editorials reflect the views of the Boston Globe Editorial Board. Follow us @GlobeOpinion.