Report text available as:

  • TXT
  • PDF   (PDF provides a complete and accurate display of this text.) Tip ?
105th Congress                                                   Report
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 2d Session                                                     105-546
_______________________________________________________________________


 
              CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION DETERMINATIONS

_______________________________________________________________________


  May 21, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the 
              State of the Union and ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Coble, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                        [To accompany H.R. 1690]

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

    The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the 
bill (H.R. 1690) to amend title 28 of the United States Code 
regarding enforcement of child custody orders, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments 
and recommends that the bill as amended do pass.

                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

                                                                  

                                                                 Page
The Amendment..............................................           1
Purpose and Summary........................................           3
Background and Need for the Legislation....................           3
Hearings...................................................           4
Committee Consideration....................................           4
Committee Oversight Findings...............................           4
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings......           4
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures..................           4
Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate..................           4
Constitutional Authority Statement.........................           5
Section-by-Section Analysis and Discussion.................           5
Agency Views...............................................           8
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported......           9

    The amendments are as follows:
    Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following:

SECTION 1. CHILD CUSTODY AND VISITATION DETERMINATIONS.

    Section 1738A of title 28, United States Code is amended as 
follows:
            (1) Subsection (a) is amended by striking ``subsection (f) 
        of this section, any child custody determination'' and 
        inserting ``subsections (f) and (g) of this section, any 
        custody determination or visitation determination''.
            (2) Subsection (b)(2) is amended by striking ``a parent'' 
        and inserting ``, but not limited to, a parent or grandparent 
        or, in cases involving a contested adoption, a person acting as 
        a parent''.
            (3) Subsection (b)(3) is amended--
                    (A) by striking ``or visitation'';
                    (B) by striking ``and'' before ``initial orders''; 
                and
                    (C) by inserting before the semicolon at the end 
                the following: ``, and includes decrees, judgments, 
                orders of adoption, and orders dismissing or denying 
                petitions for adoption''.
            (4) Subsection (b)(4) is amended to read as follows:
            ``(4)(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), `home 
        State' means--
                    ``(i) the State in which, immediately preceding the 
                time involved, the child lived with his or her parents, 
                a parent, or a person acting as a parent, with whom the 
                child has been living for at least six consecutive 
                months, a prospective adoptive parent, or an agency 
                with legal custody during a proceeding for adoption, 
                and
                    ``(ii) in the case of a child less than six months 
                old, the State in which the child lived from birth, or 
                from soon after birth,
        and periods of temporary absence of any such persons are 
        counted as part of such 6-month or other period; and
            ``(B) in cases involving a proceeding for adoption, `home 
        State' means the State in which--
                    ``(i) immediately preceding commencement of the 
                proceeding, not including periods of temporary absence, 
                the child is in the custody of the prospective adoptive 
                parent or parents;
                    ``(ii) the child and the prospective adoptive 
                parent or parents are physically present and the 
                prospective adoptive parent or parents have lived for 
                at least six months; and
                    ``(iii) there is substantial evidence available 
                concerning the child's present or future care;''.
            (5) Subsection (b)(5) is amended by inserting ``or 
        visitation determination'' after ``custody determination'' each 
        place it appears.
            (6) Subsection (b) is amended by striking ``and'' at the 
        end of paragraph (7), by striking the period at the end of 
        paragraph (8) and inserting ``; and'', and by adding after 
        paragraph (8) the following:
            ``(9) `visitation determination' means a judgment, decree, 
        or other order of a court providing for the visitation of a 
        child and includes permanent and temporary orders and initial 
        orders and modifications.''.
            (7) Subsection (c) is amended by striking ``child custody 
        determination'' in the matter preceding paragraph (1) and 
        inserting ``custody determination or visitation 
        determination''.
            (8) Subsection (c)(2)(D) is amended by adding ``or 
        visitation'' after ``determine the custody''.
            (9) Subsection (d) is amended by striking ``child custody 
        determination'' and inserting ``custody determination or 
        visitation determination''.
            (10) Subsection (e) is amended--
                    (A) by striking ``child custody determination'' and 
                inserting ``custody determination or visitation 
                determination''; and
                    (B) by striking ``a child'' and inserting ``the 
                child concerned''.
            (11) Subsection (f) is amended--
                    (A) by striking ``determination of the custody of 
                the same child'' and inserting ``custody 
                determination'';
                    (B) in paragraph (1) by striking ``child'' and by 
                striking ``and'' after the semicolon;
                    (C) in paragraph (2) by striking the period and 
                inserting ``; and''; and
                    (D) by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) in cases of contested adoption in which the child has 
        resided with the prospective adoptive parent or parents for at 
        least six consecutive months, the court finds by clear and 
        convincing evidence that the court of the other State failed to 
        consider--
                    ``(A) the extent of the detriment to the child in 
                being moved from the child's custodial environment;
                    ``(B) the nature of the relationship between the 
                biological parent or parents and the child;
                    ``(C) the nature of the relationship between the 
                prospective adoptive parent or parents and the child; 
                and
                    ``(D) the recommendation of the child's legal 
                representative or guardian ad litem.
This subsection shall apply only if the party seeking a new hearing has 
acted in good faith and has not abused or attempted to abuse the legal 
process.''.
            (12) Subsection (g) is amended by inserting ``or visitation 
        determination'' after ``custody determination'' each place it 
        appears.
            (13) Section 1738A is amended by adding at the end the 
        following:
    ``(h) A court of a State may not modify a visitation determination 
made by a court of another State unless the court of the other State 
has declined to exercise jurisdiction to modify such determination.
    ``(i) In cases of conflicts between 2 or more States, the district 
courts shall have jurisdiction to determine which of conflicting 
custody determinations or visitation determinations is consistent with 
the provisions of this section or which State court is exercising 
jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of this section for 
purposes of subsection (g).''.
            (14) Section 1738A(c)(2) is amended--
                    (A) by inserting ``or her'' after ``his'' each 
                place it appears; and
                    (B) in subsection by inserting ``or she'' after 
                ``he''.

    Amend the title so as to read:

      A bill to amend title 28, United States Code, with 
respect to the enforcement of child custody and visitation 
orders.

                          Purpose and Summary

    H.R. 1690 amends the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 
1980, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738A, to clarify that the Act was 
intended to include grandparents as persons who may claim 
rights to custody or visitation of a child and that orders 
granting such rights should be enforced in any subsequent state 
where the children may be moved. It restores to federal courts 
subject matter jurisdiction to determine which of two 
conflicting state court custody determinations or visitation 
determinations is valid based on which state is exercising 
proper jurisdiction in the case. It also provides that in cases 
of contested adoptions, a state need not uphold the earlier 
decision of another state's court if that state court failed to 
consider the child's best interest.

                  Background and Need For Legislation

    Representative Andrews introduced H.R. 1690 on May 21, 
1997.
    Grandparents with visitation rights are often left helpless 
when the parent(s) of their grandchildren move and refuse to 
let them visit the kids. One or both of the parents may move 
the children to another state and then challenge the visitation 
order, forcing grandparents to relitigate the issue because the 
court of the new state does not recognize the existing order 
from the previous state. Many times, the grandparents do not 
have the physical or financial ability to fight for visitation 
or enforce visitation rights already granted. H.R. 1690 would 
alleviate those obstacles by clarifying that state courts 
confronting a challenge to a visitation order granted to a 
grandparent or any other eligible person in another state must, 
under the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act, enforce that 
order.

                                Hearings

    The Committee's Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual 
Property held a hearing on H.R. 1690 on April 23, 1998. 
Testimony was received from three witnesses; Representative 
Robert Andrews, Anne Haralambie on behalf of the American Bar 
Association, and Josephine D'Antonio on behalf of Grandparents 
Count.

                        Committee Consideration

    On April 30, 1998, the Subcommittee on Courts and 
Intellectual Property met in open session and ordered reported 
the bill H.R. 1690, as amended, by voice vote, a quorum being 
present. On May 6, 1998, the Committee met in open session and 
ordered reported favorably the bill H.R. 1690, without 
amendment, by voice vote, a quorum being present.

                      Committee Oversight Findings

    In compliance with clause 2(1)(3)(A) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee reports 
that the findings and recommendations of the Committee based on 
oversight activities under clause 2(b)(1) of rule X of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, are incorporated in the 
descriptive portions of this report.

         Committee on Government Reform and Oversight Findings

    No findings or recommendations of the Committee on 
Government Reform and Oversight were received as referred to in 
clause 2(1)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of 
Representatives.

               New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures

    Clause 2(1)(3)(B) of House Rule XI is inapplicable because 
this legislation does not provide new budgetary authority or 
increased tax expenditures.

               Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate

    In compliance with clause 2(1)(3)(C) of rule XI of the 
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee sets 
forth, with respect to the bill, H.R. 1690, the following 
estimate and comparison prepared by the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office under section 403 of the 
Congressional Budget Act of 1974:

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                      Washington, DC, May 13, 1998.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 1690, a bill to 
amend Title 28, United States Code, with respect to the 
enforcement of child custody and visitation orders.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts for this 
estimate are Mark Grabowicz (for federal costs), who can be 
reached at 226-2860, and Leo Lex (for the state and local 
impact), who can be reached at 225-3220.
            Sincerely,

                                           June E. O'Neill, Director.  
    Enclosure.

    cc: Hon. John Conyers, Jr.,
         Ranking Minority Member.
H.R. 1690--A bill to amend Title 28, United States Code, with respect 
        to the enforcement of child custody and visitation orders
    CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would have no 
significant impact on the federal budget. The bill would not 
affect direct spending or receipts, so pay-as-you-go procedures 
would not apply.
    H.R. 1690 would make several changes and clarifications to 
the current laws relating to child custody and visitation 
cases. It attempts to enhance the rights of grandparents in 
these disputes. The bill also would permit the transfer of 
jurisdiction from state courts to the federal courts in certain 
cases, which could result in additional costs to federal 
courts. Because we do not expect many such actions, we estimate 
that implementing H.R. 1690 would have no significant effect on 
the caseload of the federal court system.
    H.R. 1690 would require state courts to enforce visitation 
rulings made in the courts of other states. This requirement 
would be an intergovernmental mandate as defined by the 
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) in those cases 
where a state does not currently recognize visitation orders 
issued by a court in another state. However, the mandate would 
have a minimal impact on the budgets of state, local, and 
tribal governments because the number of cases involving 
disputes about the proper application of state visitation 
orders is small. This bill contains no new private-sector 
mandates as defined in UMRA.
    The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Mark Grabowicz 
(for federal costs), who can be reached at 226-2860, and Leo 
Lex (for the state and local impact), who can be reached at 
225-3220. This estimate was approved by Robert A. Sunshine, 
Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.

                   Constitutional Authority Statement

    Pursuant to Rule XI, clause 2(1)(4) of the Rules of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee finds the authority for 
this legislation in Article I, clause 18, section 8 of the 
Constitution.

                      Section-By-Section Analysis

Section 1. Child Custody and Visitation Determinations
            Paragraph (1)
    This section makes a technical amendment, clarifying that 
in subsection (a) of the Act, the authorities of every State 
shall not modify any child custody determinations or visitation 
determinations made by the court of another state except as 
provided in both subsections (f) and (g).
            Paragraph (2)
    This section clarifies that in subsection (b)(2) of the 
Act, grandparents are to be included in the definition of a 
contestant. It also clarifies that including ``grandparent'' in 
the definition is not intended to exclude other persons or 
family members. In contested adoption cases, a contestant may 
also be a person acting as a parent.
            Paragraph (3)
    This section amends subsection (b)(3) to include decrees, 
judgments, orders of adoption, and orders dismissing or denying 
petitions for adoption in the definition of a ``custody 
determination.'' The provisions of the Act would apply to these 
court orders as well. It also strikes the words, ``or 
visitation'' due to a new definition being inserted by 
Subsection (6) of the bill.
            Paragraph (4)
    This section divides subsection (b)(4) into (b)(4)(A) and 
(b)(4)(B). Subsection (b)(4)(A) contains an amended definition 
of ``home State.'' The definition of ``home State'' may also be 
the state in which the child lived with his or her prospective 
adoptive parent or an agency with legal custody during a 
proceeding for adoption. To give this effect in interstate 
adoptions, the home state of a child less than six months old 
is amended to be where the child has lived from birth or from 
soon after birth.
    Subsection (b)(4)(B) is a new paragraph that defines ``home 
state'' in a case involving an adoption proceeding. In these 
cases, the ``home state'' means the state where immediately 
preceding the adoption proceeding, the child is in the custody 
of the prospective adoptive parent or parents, both the child 
and prospective adoptive parent or parents are physically 
present and the prospective parent or parents have lived in 
that state for at least six months and there is substantial 
evidence available concerning the child's present or future 
care. The last criteria in the definition is intended to ensure 
that in the event an adoption is contested in another state, 
the ``home state'' must have looked into the quality of the 
care to be provided by the adoptive parent or parents in order 
for the Act to apply.
            Paragraph (5)
    This section clarifies the prohibitions against modifying 
another state's custody determinations also applies to 
visitation determinations.
            Paragraph (6)
    This section adds a new paragraph (b)(9) which defines a 
`visitation determination.'
            Paragraph (7)
    This section clarifies in subsection (c)(1) that a custody 
determination and a visitation determination are two different 
orders to which the Act applies.
            Paragraph (8)
    This section clarifies in subsection (c)(2)(D) that the 
determination of visitation of a child and the determination of 
custody are two different procedures to which the Act applies.
            Paragraph (9)
    This section clarifies in subsection (d) that a custody 
determination and a visitation determination are two different 
orders to which the Act applies.
            Paragraph (10)
    This section clarifies in subsection (e) that a custody 
determination and a visitation determination are two different 
procedures to which the Act applies. It also amends the last 
phrase by striking the words ``a child'' and inserting ``the 
child concerned.''
            Paragraph (11)
    This section clarifies the language in subsection (f) by 
stating that a court of another State may modify a custody 
determination in limited situations.
    This section also adds a new situation in which a court may 
choose not to apply the Act in Subsection (f)(3). A state court 
would have the option, in an interstate contested adoption case 
that has already been ruled on in another State, to exercise 
jurisdiction and modify the decision if the other State had 
failed to conduct a ``best interest of the child analysis.''
    This section also states that litigants who have not acted 
in good faith or have abused or attempted to abuse the system 
would not be eligible to utilize this provision. This is to 
prevent biological parents, adoptive parents, attorneys, 
guardians or other parties from attempting to use this 
provision to unlawfully gain custody of a child.
            Paragraph (12)
    This section clarifies in subsection (g) that a custody 
determination and a visitation determination are two different 
procedures to which the Act applies.
            Paragraph (13)
    This section adds new subsections (h), (i), and (j) to the 
Act. Subsection (h) further clarifies that a State may not 
modify a visitation determination made by a court of another 
State unless the court of the other State has declined to 
exercise jurisdiction to modify that visitation determination.
    Subsection (i) states that in all contested proceedings 
based on the Act, all proceedings and appeals should be 
expedited.
    Subsection (j) restores to federal courts subject matter 
jurisdiction to determine which state has jurisdiction over 
custody or visitation cases where two states have entered 
conflicting orders. This would overturn the decision in 
Thompson v. Thompson, 184 U.S. 174, 108 S.Ct. 513, 98 L.Ed.2d 
512 (1988), which held that the Parental Kidnaping Prevention 
Act did not give the federal courts jurisdiction to determine 
which of two conflicting decrees is valid although prior to 
1988 federal courts did hear these cases. The decision has had 
the effect of producing conflicting state decisions with no 
mechanism to determine which is valid. This amendment clarifies 
Congress' intent that under the PKPA, only one state should 
have jurisdiction over child custody and visitation cases at a 
time and will reduce duplicative state court proceedings. In 
determining which State order is valid, the federal court 
should look at the facts relating to jurisdiction and not the 
substantive issues of how or why a custody determination or 
visitation determination was made.
            Paragraph (14)
    This section corrects references to `his' and `he' to 
include `her' and `she' in Subsection (c)(2).
    This section also amends the title of the bill.

                              Agency Views

         Administrative office of the United States Courts,
                                       Washington, DC, May 5, 1998.
Hon. Henry J. Hyde,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: We have learned that H.R. 1690 was 
amended in subcommittee to allow for federal jurisdiction to 
resolve conflicting child custody orders between two or more 
states. The Judicial Conference of the United States opposes 
the creation of federal jurisdiction to resolve conflicts 
between states on the issue of child custody disputes arising 
under the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (28 U.S.C. 
Sec. 17381).
    When this position was adopted in March 1996, the 
Conference expressed confidence in the ability of state courts 
to resolve such disputes and support for the efforts of the 
Conference of Chief Justices to address successfully any 
existing problems with conflicting state child custody orders. 
The Conference of Chief Justice also adopted a Resolution in 
March 1996 opposing the creation of federal jurisdiction in 
this area.
    It is unclear how often one state issues a child custody 
order that conflicts with a previous custody order in another 
state and how often states are unable to resolve the conflicts. 
We know, however, that state court judges often resolve these 
disputes in a cooperative and effective manner.
    In addition, if federal jurisdiction over child custody 
orders were created, federal courts would be called on to 
decide substantive issues beyond a simple review of two state 
court orders (e.g., determining the best interests of the child 
or whether the child was abandoned or abused). Forcing federal 
courts into local domestic court jurisdiction will 
inevitability lead to federal courts enjoining state court 
orders and proceedings. Furthermore, through the exercise of 
supplemental jurisdiction, claims transactionally related to 
the federal court action could be raised, thereby potentially 
allowing other custody or family matter issues to be joined.
    For these reasons, the Judicial Conferences opposes H.R. 
1690 to the extent that the bill brings into federal courts 
matters which can and should be disposed of by state courts.
            Sincerely,

                                        Michael W. Bloomer,
                    Assistant Director, Officer of Legislative Affairs.
    cc: Members of the Committee on the Judiciary.

         Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of 
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by 
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law 
proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new 
matter is printed in italics, existing law in which no change 
is proposed is shown in roman):

             SECTION 1738A OF TITLE 28, UNITED STATES CODE

Sec. 1738A. Full faith and credit given to child custody determinations

    (a) The appropriate authorities of every State shall 
enforce according to its terms, and shall not modify except as 
provided in [subsection (f) of this section, any child custody 
determination] subsections (f) and (g) of this section, any 
custody determination or visitation determination made 
consistently with the provisions of this section by a court of 
another State.
    (b) As used in this section, the term--
            (1) ``child'' means a person under the age of 
        eighteen;
            (2) ``contestant'' means a person, including [a 
        parent], but not limited to, a parent or grandparent 
        or, in cases involving a contested adoption, a person 
        acting as a parent, who claims a right to custody or 
        visitation of a child;
            (3) ``custody determination'' means a judgment, 
        decree, or other order of a court providing for the 
        custody [or visitation] of a child, and includes 
        permanent and temporary orders, [and] initial orders 
        and modifications, and includes decrees, judgments, 
        orders of adoption, and orders dismissing or denying 
        petitions for adoption;
            [(4) ``home State'' means the State in which, 
        immediately preceding the time involved, the child 
        lived with his parents, a parent, or a person acting as 
        parent, for at least six consecutive months, and in the 
        case of a child less than six months old, the State in 
        which the child lived from birth with any of such 
        persons. Periods of temporary absence of any of such 
        persons are counted as part of the six-month or other 
        period;]
            (4)(A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), 
        ``home State'' means--
                    (i) the State in which, immediately 
                preceding the time involved, the child lived 
                with his or her parents, a parent, or a person 
                acting as a parent, with whom the child has 
                been living for at least six consecutive 
                months, a prospective adoptive parent, or an 
                agency with legal custody during a proceeding 
                for adoption, and
                    (ii) in the case of a child less than six 
                months old, the State in which the child lived 
                from birth, or from soon after birth,
        and periods of temporary absence of any such persons 
        are counted as part of such 6-month or other period; 
        and
            (B) in cases involving a proceeding for adoption, 
        ``home State'' means the State in which--
                    (i) immediately preceding commencement of 
                the proceeding, not including periods of 
                temporary absence, the child is in the custody 
                of the prospective adoptive parent or parents;
                    (ii) the child and the prospective adoptive 
                parent or parents are physically present and 
                the prospective adoptive parent or parents have 
                lived for at least six months; and
                    (iii) there is substantial evidence 
                available concerning the child's present or 
                future care;
            (5) ``modification'' and ``modify'' refer to a 
        custody determination or visitation determination which 
        modifies, replaces, supersedes, or otherwise is made 
        subsequent to, a prior custody determination or 
        visitation determination concerning the same child, 
        whether made by the same court or not;
            (6) ``person acting as a parent'' means a person, 
        other than a parent, who has physical custody of a 
        child and who has either been awarded custody by a 
        court or claims a right to custody;
            (7) ``physical custody'' means actual possession 
        and control of a child; [and]
            (8) ``State'' means a State of the United States, 
        the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
        Rico, or a territory or possession of the United 
        States[.]; and
            (9) ``visitation determination'' means a judgment, 
        decree, or other order of a court providing for the 
        visitation of a child and includes permanent and 
        temporary orders and initial orders and modifications.
    (c) A [child custody determination] custody determination 
or visitation determination made by a court of a State is 
consistent with the provisions of this section only if--
            (1) such court has jurisdiction under the law of 
        such State; and
            (2) one of the following conditions is met:
                    (A) such State (i) is the home State of the 
                child on the date of the commencement of the 
                proceeding, or (ii) had been the child's home 
                State within six months before the date of the 
                commencement of the proceeding and the child is 
                absent from such State because of his or her 
                removal or retention by a contestant or for 
                other reasons, and a contestant continues to 
                live in such State;
                    (B)(i) it appears that no other State would 
                have jurisdiction under subparagraph (A), and
                    (ii) it is in the best interest of the 
                child that a court of such State assume 
                jurisdiction because (I) the child and his or 
                her parents, or the child and at least one 
                contestant, have a significant connection with 
                such State other than mere physical presence in 
                such State, and (II) there is available in such 
                State substantial evidence concerning the 
                child's present or future care, protection, 
                training, and personal relationships;
                    (C) the child is physically present in such 
                State and (i) the child has been abandoned, or 
                (ii) it is necessary in an emergency to protect 
                the child because he or she has been subjected 
                to or threatened with mistreatment or abuse;
                    (D)(i) it appears that no other State would 
                have jurisdiction under subparagraph (A), (B), 
                (C), or (E), or another State has declined to 
                exercise jurisdiction on the ground that the 
                State whose jurisdiction is in issue is the 
                more appropriate forum to determine the custody 
                or visitation of the child, and
                    (ii) it is in the best interest of the 
                child that such court assume jurisdiction; or
                    (E) the court has continuing jurisdiction 
                pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.
    (d) The jurisdiction of a court of a State which has made a 
[child custody determination] custody determination or 
visitation determination consistently with the provisions of 
this section continues as long as the requirement of subsection 
(c)(1) of this section continues to be met and such State 
remains the residence of the child or of any contestant.
    (e) Before a [child custody determination] custody 
determination or visitation determination is made, reasonable 
notice and opportunity to be heard shall be given to the 
contestants, any parent whose parental rights have not been 
previously terminated and any person who has physical custody 
of [a child] the child concerned.
    (f) A court of a State may modify a [determination of the 
custody of the same child] custody determination made by a 
court of another State, if--
            (1) it has jurisdiction to make such a [child] 
        custody determination; [and]
            (2) the court of the other State no longer has 
        jurisdiction, or it has declined to exercise such 
        jurisdiction to modify such determination[.]; and
            (3) in cases of contested adoption in which the 
        child has resided with the prospective adoptive parent 
        or parents for at least six consecutive months, the 
        court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the 
        court of the other State failed to consider--
                    (A) the extent of the detriment to the 
                child in being moved from the child's custodial 
                environment;
                    (B) the nature of the relationship between 
                the biological parent or parents and the child;
                    (C) the nature of the relationship between 
                the prospective adoptive parent or parents and 
                the child; and
                    (D) the recommendation of the child's legal 
                representative or guardian ad litem.
This subsection shall apply only if the party seeking a new 
hearing has acted in good faith and has not abused or attempted 
to abuse the legal process.
    (g) A court of a State shall not exercise jurisdiction in 
any proceeding for a custody determination or visitation 
determination commenced during the pendency of a proceeding in 
a court of another State where such court of that other State 
is exercising jurisdiction consistently with the provisions of 
this section to make a custody determination or visitation 
determination.
    (h) A court of a State may not modify a visitation 
determination made by a court of another State unless the court 
of the other State has declined to exercise jurisdiction to 
modify such determination.
    (i) In cases of conflicts between 2 or more States, the 
district courts shall have jurisdiction to determine which of 
conflicting custody determinations or visitation determinations 
is consistent with the provisions of this section or which 
State court is exercising jurisdiction consistently with the 
provisions of this section for purposes of subsection (g).