Some more thoughts that may be helpful, and a couple links.
Thanks for the information. That makes perfect sense. I posted the original information that Hawaii does not extradite for misdemeanors and I now understand that means the don't bring people here for misdemeanors. My error.
Most of us believe, based primarily on circumstances, that these people have committed many felonies. But so far they have been charged with none.
I question your comments about the felony of custodial interference or anything related to that if Idaho or someone else gets custody. I hope we live in a country where a judge does not have the power to declare someone a felon by issuing an order (aside from a conviction after a trial conducted Constituionally) and that's it. I would hope that there is a requirement to provide legal notice to Lori that her custody has been taken away and to give her a reasonable period to turn over custody. That can't be the cops knocking on the door in Kauai and saying "where are the kids?" then slamming them against the wall and cuffing them 5 seconds later. Surely they must be served with the custodial order then given time to respond before any felonies are triggered. I'm not a lawyer and I sense that you might be, but I do know that given the consequences of a felony conviction, there must be more due process than you described.
Regarding CPS & Custody & Jurisdiction:
According to the
Idaho Child Protection Manual (check out chapter 3), CPS jurisdiction does not require the child to be in the state for a specific length of time. In fact, it appears to show they can just be visiting, even, so long as they are present in the state. (I suspect, but don’t know, this may be fairly uniform across the US.) As the last place the kids are KNOWN to be, Idaho would be the only state to reasonably have jurisdiction.
What if the child is a Utah (or Arizona) resident and is driven through Idaho on the way to Montana where he disappears, or the custodial parent is accused of some action that Idaho cares about but the state of residency and Montana do not. Clearly Idaho can't have valid CPS authority based on such incidental presence, or maybe they do. What if the child flew over the state? Or crossed on a hovercraft? Obviously I'm nitpicking. But short of an allegation of abuse, which would require evidence and a hearing, I think it is at least arguable whether Idaho has jurisdiction. We are not dealing with a significantly different situation here.
What if Idaho required schooling through age 17 while Arizona requires it through age 16. Does every parent of a 16 year old dropout who goes skiing in Idaho on vacation need to be worried about being labeled a felon and having their kids taken away simply because that is the last state the child was known to be in?
I could go on...Just because they have a manual does not mean it is enforceable or lawful.
I moved to Hawaii a few years ago and am a Hawaii resident. My residency was establish after less than 30 days. I got a RealID conforming to federal standards and various other "residency" things very quickly. For reasons I won't go into I did a fair bit of legal research into residency, state jurisdiction, and so forth within the last few years. To say that entire issue is a legal quagmire is an understatement. The only consistent conclusion I can find is that one can only be a legal resident of one state at a time and an American is always a legal resident on one state. In my case both ARizona and Hawaii considered me a resident under their laws.
Now, residency is not necessarily a big issue. Aside from taxes, most laws in most states do not depend on residency. But things like custody battles do often depend on residency. If C&L established Hawaii residency they could probably challenge any custody order in Hawaii courts I would think, or at least challenge the jurisdictional aspects. So if their lawyer flew here today he may very well have been coming to hire local council to quash any Idaho warrants pending trial in Hawaii family court based on the custodial parent's residence. (BTW, this could explain why they did a long term rental!)
Gotta admit, I’m curious what he’s up to today. Not headed to Hawaii, though, he could do them no good there. They’d need a local attorney.
He can practice in court here on a single case as long as he has a local attorney associated with him. He can also meet with the prosecutor to make threats or provide exculpatory information privately. My guess, if he came here, it is to hire local counsel.
but I had posted a few things and it was taken down. I'm just really not sure. But I know it's for a good cause so i dont want to be fearful. It's all about those children and Tammy and the families involved for me if just one thing I shared helped at all it's worth it.
