MARIAN P. OPALA, Supreme Court, Room 238, State Capitol, Oklahoma City, OK 73105, Chair

DEBORAH E. BEHR, Office of Attorney General, Department of Law, P.O. Box 110300, Juneau,

AK 99811

FRANK W. DAYKIN, 4745 Giles Way, Carson City, NV 89704, Committee on Style Liaison

WANDA WILLIAMS FINNIE, Office of the Public Defender, 121 Plumstead Drive, Freehold,

NJ 07728

SHAUN P. HAAS, Legislative Council, Suite 401, 1 E. Main Street, Madison, WI 53701-2536

ROGER P. MORGAN, P.O. Box 588, Mystic, CT 06355

PETER K. MUNSON, P.O. Box 1949, 123 S. Travis Street, Sherman, TX 75091-1949

ANN BOWEN POULIN, Villanova University School of Law, 299 North Spring Mill Road, Garey Hall,

Villanova, PA 19085

BATTLE R. ROBINSON, 104 W. Market Street, Georgetown, DE 19947

ROBERT B. WEBSTER, 255 S. Old Woodward Avenue, 3rd Floor, Birmingham, MI 48009

ANDREW C. SPIROPOULOS, Oklahoma City University, School of Law, 2501 N. Blackwelder,

Oklahoma City, OK 73106, Reporter

JOHN L. McCLAUGHERTY, P.O. Box 553, Charleston, WV 25322, President

ROBERT C. ROBINSON, P.O. Box 568, 12 Portland Pier, Portland, ME 04112, Division Chair

JAMES R. RIEHL, 614 Division Street, MS-25, Port Orchard, WA 98366-4684

FRED H. MILLER, University of Oklahoma, College of Law, 300 Timberdell Road, Norman,

OK 73019, Executive Director

WILLIAM J. PIERCE, 1505 Roxbury Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48104, Executive Director Emeritus

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS 3

SECTION 2. JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER 5

SECTION 3. NONJUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER 10

[SECTION 4. REGISTRATION OF ORDER] 12

SECTION 5. IMMUNITY 14

SECTION 6. TRANSITIONAL PROVISION 15

SECTION 7. OTHER REMEDIES 16

SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE 16

The Uniform Interstate Enforcement of Domestic Violence Orders Act ("the Act") provides a uniform mechanism for the interstate enforcement of domestic-violence protection orders. The need for such a mechanism is founded on the widespread understanding that States have not consistently or effectively enforced domestic-violence protection orders issued by other States. The Act, thus, has two main purposes. First, it defines the meaning of interstate enforcement in the context of the enforcement of domestic-violence protection orders. Second, it establishes uniform procedures for the effective interstate enforcement of domestic-violence protection orders.

The Congress of the United States, recognizing the severity of the problems with the interstate enforcement of protection orders, enacted the Violence Against Women Act ("VAWA"), 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2265, which requires States to enforce the domestic-violence protection orders of other States. VAWA, however, while mandating enforcement, is either silent or ambiguous regarding several important questions that must be answered in order to establish an effective system for the interstate enforcement of these orders.

First, VAWA does not sufficiently explain the meaning of core requirements of the federal law. For example, VAWA requires that States enforce the orders of other States as if they were the protection orders of the enforcing State. This mandate, however, does not answer the question of whether States are required to enforce provisions of foreign protection orders that would not be authorized by the law of the enforcing State. This question, and others, must be answered if there is to be effective uniform enforcement of protection orders. Second, VAWA does not specify the enforcement procedures States must establish to comply with the federal mandate. For example, VAWA is silent on whether individuals seeking the enforcement of a protection order must register or file the order with the enforcing State before action can be taken on their behalf. This Act resolves the issues left unanswered in VAWA.

The Act first defines what it means to accord interstate enforcement to domestic-violence protection orders. These orders must be enforced if the issuing tribunals had jurisdiction over both the parties and the matter under the law of the issuing State and if the individual against whom the order is enforced was given reasonable notice and afforded an opportunity to be heard consistent with the right to due process. If the order was obtained ex parte, this notice and opportunity to be heard must be provided within a reasonable time.

The Act makes it clear that all the terms of the orders of the issuing States must be enforced, even if the law of the enforcing State would not authorize particular terms of the orders. The Act also provides that all protection orders, including criminal orders issued by a State which allows the equivalent of civil protection orders to be issued by a criminal court (provided that a protected individual has standing to seek enforcement of the provisions of such a criminal order), satisfying the criteria of validity, must be enforced. In addition, provisions of protection orders governing custody and visitation matters are enforceable under this Act. Terms that concern support are not. In addition, the terms of mutual protection orders issued in favor of a respondent are also not enforceable if they were not issued in response to a written pleading filed by the respondent and if the issuing tribunal did not make specific findings in favor of the respondent.

The Act also provides uniform procedures for the interstate enforcement of domestic-violence protection orders. The Act envisions that the enforcement of foreign protection orders will require law enforcement officers of enforcing States to rely on probable cause judgments that a valid order exists and has been violated. The Act, however, provides that if a protected individual can provide direct proof of the existence of a facially valid order, by, for example, presenting a paper copy or through an electronic registry, probable cause is conclusively established. If no such proof is forthcoming, the Act provides that if officers, relying on the totality of the circumstances, determine that there is probable cause to believe that a valid protection order exists and has been violated, the order will be enforced. The individual against whom the order is enforced will have sufficient opportunity to demonstrate that the order is invalid when the case is brought before the enforcing tribunal. Law enforcement officers, as well as other government agents, will be encouraged to rely on probable cause judgments by the Act's inclusion of an immunity provision, protecting agents of the government acting in good faith.

The Act, once again filling a gap left by VAWA, does not require individuals seeking the enforcement of a protection order to register or file the order with the enforcing State. The Act does, however, include an optional registration process. This process permits individuals to register a protection order by presenting a copy of the order to a responsible state agency or any state officer or agency. The copy presented must be certified by the issuing State. The purpose of these procedures is to make it as easy as possible for the protected individual to register the protection order and facilitate its enforcement.

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. In this [Act]:

(1) "Foreign protection order" means a protection order issued by a tribunal of another State.

(2 ) "Issuing State" means the State whose tribunal issues a protection order.

(3) "Mutual foreign protection order" means a foreign protection order that includes provisions issued in favor of both the protected individual seeking enforcement of the order and the respondent.

(4) "Protected individual" means an individual protected by a protection order.

(5) "Protection order" means an injunction or other order, issued by a tribunal under the domestic-violence or family-violence laws of the issuing State, to prevent an individual from engaging in violent or threatening acts against, harassment of, contact or communication with, or physical proximity to another individual.

(6) "Respondent" means the individual against whom enforcement of a protection order is sought.

(7) "State" means a State of the United States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the United States Virgin Islands, or any territory or insular possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. The term includes an Indian tribe or band, or Alaskan native village, that has jurisdiction to issue protection orders.

(8) "Tribunal" means a court, agency, or other entity authorized by law to issue or modify a protection order.

The term "protection order" includes only those orders issued under the domestic-violence or family-violence laws of the issuing State. Protection orders issued outside of the domestic or family violence context are not enforceable under the provisions of this Act. The scope of enforceable protection orders is further limited by the provisions of Section 2(a) and (b). In addition, the term "protection order" includes an order modifying a previous order. Thus, a modified order, is enforceable, under the Act, in the same manner as a newly issued order.

The terms "protected individual" and "respondent" refer to the relief sought by the parties in the action brought in the enforcing State. The Act recognizes that neither the protected individual nor the respondent may have been a named party in the action brought in the issuing State; the Act applies to individuals meeting the definition of protected individual or respondent whether they were named in the caption or the body of the protection order. The Act also recognizes that the parties may have been called by different terms, e.g. plaintiff, defendant, petitioner, in the issuing State.

The term "mutual protection orders" refers to protection orders in which an issuing State includes provisions protecting both parties. Enforcement of these foreign protection orders is governed by Section 2(g).

The Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2265, requires that States accord full faith and credit to tribal protection orders. Like state orders, tribal orders must satisfy the criteria for validity, as defined in Section 2(d), in order to qualify for interstate enforcement across state or tribal lines.

The Act uses the term "tribunal," rather than "court," in order to accommodate States that rely upon administrative or other entities to issue or modify protection orders.

SECTION 2. JUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER.

(a) A tribunal of this State shall enforce a valid foreign protection order, including terms that provide relief that a tribunal of this State may not provide. A tribunal of this State shall enforce a valid foreign protection order issued by a civil or criminal tribunal, whether the order was obtained by independent action or in another proceeding, if it is a civil order issued in response to a complaint, petition, or motion filed by or on behalf of an individual seeking protection. A tribunal of this State may not enforce an order issued by a criminal tribunal that does not recognize the standing of a protected individual to seek enforcement of the order.

(b) A tribunal of this State shall enforce the provisions of a valid foreign protection order which governs custody and visitation. The custody and visitation provisions of the order must have been issued in accordance with the jurisdictional requirements governing the issuance of custody and visitation orders in the issuing State.

(c) A tribunal of this State may not enforce under this [Act] an order or provision of an order governing support.

(d) A protection order is valid if it:

(1) names the protected individual and the respondent;

(2) has not been modified or vacated, and has not expired;

(3) was issued by a tribunal that had jurisdiction over the parties and matter under the law of the issuing State; and

(4) was issued after the respondent was provided with reasonable notice and had an opportunity to be heard before the tribunal issued the order or, in the case of an order ex parte, the respondent was given notice and afforded an opportunity to be heard within a reasonable time after the issuing of the order, consistent with the rights of the respondent to due process.

(e) A protected individual seeking enforcement of a foreign protection order establishes a prima facie case for its validity by presenting an order valid on its face.

(f) Absence of any of the criteria for validity of a foreign protection order is an affirmative defense in an action seeking enforcement of the order.

(g) A tribunal of this State may enforce the provisions of a mutual foreign protection order which favor a respondent only if:

(1) the respondent filed a written pleading seeking a protection order from the tribunal of the issuing State; and

(2) the tribunal of the issuing State made specific findings in favor of the respondent.

The scope of enforceable protection orders defined in Sections 2 (a), (b), and (c) is adapted from the Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2266. Protection orders issued by criminal courts in the context of a criminal case are entitled to interstate enforcement. It is not, however, the purpose of this section, or that of the federal mandate, either to surpass the constitutional restraints against States enforcing the criminal laws of other States or to disturb the normal process of interstate criminal law enforcement. Rather, these provisions are intended to facilitate the enforcement of orders issued by States which allow the equivalent of civil protection orders to be issued by a criminal court. The Act, therefore, only provides for the interstate enforcement of protection orders issued by criminal courts if the law of the issuing State recognizes the standing of a protected individual to seek enforcement of the order. If the protection order may only be enforced by criminal sanctions upon the request of the State, then it does not qualify for enforcement under this Act. For example, orders issued by criminal courts that provide for the revocation of bail, probation, or parole upon motion by the State will not qualify for enforcement under this Act. An enforcing State may, however, choose to enact and enforce a separate criminal law providing for the prosecution of individuals who violate a foreign protection order. In addition, the respondent may have violated other criminal laws of the enforcing State; the enforcing State may, of course, prosecute the respondent for these violations.

The provisions of protection orders that govern custody and visitation rights must also be enforced. These provisions may only be enforced, however, if they were issued in accordance with the jurisdictional requirements for the issuance of all custody and visitation orders, contained, depending on the State, either in the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act or the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, and the federal Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act. This Act, however, does not provide for the enforcement of orders governing custody and visitation rights that are not included in a protection order. In addition, orders or provisions of protection orders governing support are not enforceable under this Act; provisions of these orders should be enforced using the process provided in the specific laws governing the issuance, modification, and enforcement of these orders, including, but not limited to, the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act.

Subsection (a) implements the core purpose of the mandate of the Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2265(a). This section requires tribunals of enforcing States to enforce the specific terms of protection orders of other States. This provision means that the tribunals of enforcing States should enforce the specific terms of a foreign protection order even if their state law would not allow the relief in question. For example, if the law of the issuing State allows protection orders to remain effective for a longer period than is allowed by the enforcing State, the tribunal of the enforcing State should enforce the order for the time allowed by the issuing State.

Subsection (e) should not be interpreted to foreclose actions brought by state agencies and officers, such as prosecutors, acting on behalf of the protected individual. The Act, however, in recognizing the importance of these agencies and officers, should not be interpreted to mean that States, and their agencies and officers, are required to bring these actions when possible.

The respondent's constitutional right to due process is protected by the opportunity to raise defenses in the enforcement proceeding, as provided in subsection (f). If, for example, the respondent was not provided with reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard by the tribunal of the State issuing the protection order, the enforcing tribunal may not enforce the order. Thus, the interstate enforcement of a valid foreign protection order, even without a prior hearing, does not deprive the respondent of any rights to due process because the respondent was provided with reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard when the order was issued.

The enforcement mechanisms established by the Act do not require the presentation by the protected individual of an authenticated copy of the foreign protection order. While States, as required by the Constitution and federal statutes that articulate authentication requirements, including 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738, must accord properly authenticated foreign judgments full faith and credit enforcement, they may choose to enforce foreign orders they would not be required to enforce under the provisions of the Constitution or other federal law. By adopting this Act, States have chosen to give that extra measure of full faith and credit to foreign protection orders.

In addition, in recent years, particularly with regard to the enforcement of domestic relations orders, the federal government has employed the power granted to it by Article IV, Sec. 1 of the Constitution of the United States to prescribe the manner in which States give full faith and credit to the acts, records, and proceedings in other States to require States to enforce the orders of other States in circumstances in which States have traditionally been reluctant to render such enforcement. For example, the federal Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738A, requires greater interstate enforcement of child custody orders and the federal Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, 110 Stat. 2105 (1996), requires that States, in order to facilitate the enforcement of support orders, adopt the provisions of the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. The Violence Against Women Act extends the principle of these laws to the subject of the interstate enforcement of domestic-violence protection orders.

Subsection (g), adapted from the federal Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2265(c), addresses the enforcement of mutual foreign protection orders, which contain provisions protecting both the protected individual and the respondent. Provisions of a mutual foreign protection order issued in favor of the respondent will not be enforced without proof that the responded filed a written pleading seeking a protection order. If a respondent can prove that he or she made a specific request for relief and that the issuing tribunal made specific findings that the respondent was entitled to the requested relief, the protection orders will be enforced against the protected individual.

In order to facilitate the interstate enforcement of foreign protection orders, States should strongly consider requiring tribunals that issue protection orders to state clearly that these orders are entitled to interstate enforcement under both federal and state law. Such enforcement would also be greatly facilitated if issuing States provided each protected individual with a certified copy of the protection order. In addition, States should consider adopting a standard certification or confirmation form stating the protection order issued by their tribunals satisfies the criteria of validity articulated in subsection (d), thus qualifying the protection order for interstate enforcement. Use of the following certification form is recommended.

_______________(Name), : IN THE _______________COURT OF

Plaintiff : ________________(County/Judicial District)

: ________________(State/Territory)

vs. : CIVIL ACTION - LAW

: PROTECTION/RESTRAINING ORDER

_______________(Name), :

Defendant : Docket No. _______________, 200____

It is hereby certified that the attached is a true and correct copy of the order entered in the above-captioned action on _______________(date) and that the original of the attached order was duly executed by the judicial authority whose signature appears thereon. The order expires on _______________ (date).

The order is: [ ] a civil protection/restraining order

OR [ ] a criminal protection/restraining order, that recognizes the standing of the plaintiff to seek enforcement of the order

It is further certified that:

(a) the issuing court determined that it had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter under the laws of _____________________________ (State or Indian tribe).

(b) the defendant was given reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard sufficient to protect the defendant's right to due process before this order was issued; or if the order was issued ex parte, the defendant was granted reasonable notice and opportunity to be heard within the time after the order was issued, consistent with the rights of the defendant to due process.

(c) the order was otherwise issued in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Interstate Enforcement of Protection Orders Act, and the Violence Against Women Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2265.

For custody and visitation orders:

the order was issued in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act or the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act of this State/territory and is consistent with the provisions of the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act. 28 U.S.C. § 1738A.

The attached order shall be presumed to be valid and enforceable in this and other jurisdictions.

Signature of Clerk of Court or other authorized official: ______________________

Judicial District: _____________________ Address: _______________________

Phone:  _______________ Fax: _________________ Date: _________________

Seal:

SECTION 3. NONJUDICIAL ENFORCEMENT OF ORDER.

(a) A law enforcement officer of this State, upon determining that there is probable cause to believe that a valid foreign protection order exists and that the order has been violated, shall enforce the order as if it were the order of a tribunal of this State. Presentation by the protected individual of a protection order that names both the protected individual and the respondent and, on its face, has not been modified or vacated and has not expired constitutes probable cause to believe that a foreign protection order exists. For the purposes of this section, the protection order may be inscribed on a tangible medium or may have been stored in an electronic or other medium if it is retrievable in perceivable form. Presentation of a certified copy of a protection order is not required for enforcement.

(b) If a protected individual does not present the protection order, in determining whether there a law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe that a valid foreign protection order exists, the officer may rely upon any relevant source of information.

(c) If a law enforcement officer of this State determines that an otherwise valid foreign protection order cannot be enforced because the respondent has not been notified or served with the order, the officer shall inform the respondent of the order and make a reasonable effort to serve the order upon the respondent. After informing the respondent and serving the order, the officer shall allow the respondent a reasonable opportunity to comply with the order before enforcing the order.

(d) Registration or filing of an order in this State is not required for the enforcement of a valid foreign protection order pursuant to this [Act].

The enforcement procedures in subsection (a) and (b) rely on the sound exercise of the judgment of law enforcement officers to determine whether there exists probable cause to believe that a valid foreign protection order exists and has been violated. These procedures anticipate that there will be many instances in which the protected individual does not have, or cannot, under the circumstances, produce a paper copy of the foreign protection order. Subsection (a) establishes a per se rule for determining probable cause of the existence of an order. If the protected individual presents, whether by providing a paper copy (which need not be certified) of a protection order or through an electronic medium, such as access to a state registry of orders, proof of a facially valid order, the order should be enforced.

Subsection (b) concerns the circumstance in which the protected individual cannot present direct proof of the protection order. In this situation, law enforcement officers are expected to obtain information from all available sources, including interviewing the parties and contacting other law enforcement agencies, to determine whether there is a valid protection order in effect. If the officer finds, after considering the totality of the circumstances, that there is probable cause to believe that a valid foreign protection order exists and has been violated, he or she should enforce the order. If it is later determined that no such order was in place or the order was otherwise unenforceable, law enforcement agencies, officers, or other state officials will be protected by the immunity provision of Section 5 for actions taken in good faith.

Subsection (c) provides that if a law enforcement officer discovers in the course of a probable cause investigation that the respondent has not been notified of the issuance of or served with an otherwise valid foreign protection, the officer should then inform the respondent of the terms and conditions of the protection order and make a reasonable effort to serve the order upon the respondent. Once served, the respondent should be allowed a reasonable opportunity to comply with order. If the respondent refuses to comply, the order should be enforced.

Subsection (d) makes clear that, if a State either adopts its own process for the registration or filing of foreign protection orders or adopts the process provided in Section 4, the State shall not require the registration or filing of a foreign protection order for enforcement.

[SECTION 4. REGISTRATION OF ORDER.

(a) Any individual may register a foreign protection order in this State. To register a foreign protection order, an individual shall:

(1) present a certified copy of the order to [the state agency responsible for the registration of such orders]; or

(2) present a certified copy of the order to [an agency designated by the State] and request that the order be registered with [the agency responsible for the registration of such orders].

(b) Upon receipt of a protection order, [the agency responsible for the registration of such orders] shall register the order in accordance with this section. After the order is registered, [the responsible agency] shall furnish to the individual registering the order a certified copy of the registered order.

(c) [The agency of this State responsible for the registration of foreign protection orders] shall register an order upon presentation of a copy of a protection order which has been certified by the issuing State. For purposes of this section, this requirement of a certified copy may only be satisfied by a writing on paper, and may not be satisfied by a record in any other medium, even if the record ultimately may be displayed on paper.

(d) An individual registering a foreign protection order shall file an affidavit by the protected individual that, to the best of the individual's knowledge, the order is in effect.

(e) A foreign protection order registered under this [Act] may be entered in any existing state or federal registries of protection orders, in accordance with state or federal law.

(f) Any individual who believes that the individual has been named the respondent in a foreign protection order that has been registered in this State may prove that the order is not in effect or that the individual is not the respondent named in the order. Upon proof that a registered foreign protection order is not in effect or is inaccurate, [the agency of this State responsible for the registration of foreign protection orders] shall remove the order from the registry or shall correct the registration. The agency shall then inform any state or federal registry that the agency is aware has registered the order that the order is no longer in effect or the registration has been corrected.

[(g) A fee may not be charged for the registration of a foreign protection order.]]

This section is bracketed because States may prefer to use their existing systems of registration to register foreign protection orders. While a protected individual is not required to register a valid foreign protection order in order for it be enforced, it is highly desirable that States provide an optional registration process. A registration system supplies law enforcement officers and agencies more accurate information, more quickly, about both the existence and status of foreign protection orders and their terms and conditions. An enforcing State may facilitate the collection and dissemination of this information either by establishing a central registry or by providing a process by which information regarding registered orders is distributed to law enforcement officers and agencies across the State. While the management of state registries is purely governed by state law, in implementing a registration system, however, enforcing States should strongly consider keeping these protection orders under seal. The purpose of more effectively protecting victims of domestic violence will be undermined if respondents can use the process of registration to locate the very people who are trying to escape from them.

Subsection (a) provides that any person, including a potential respondent, may register foreign protection orders. This reason behind this provision is to ensure that all parties have the opportunity to provide relevant information to the State. Orders, for example, may be modified with custody arrangements.

Subsection (c) requires that a person seeking to register a foreign protection order must present a certified copy of that order. The copy must be a writing on paper, thus exempting this requirement from the provisions of the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act.

Subsection (e) provides that if there the State has registered orders that are no longer in effect or are inaccurate, those subject to these orders may, upon sufficient proof, request that these orders be removed from the registry or, in the case of error, corrected. The precise method of how state and federal registries manage their registries , including the deletion of inaccurate information, is governed by each government's law regarding the management of records.

If an order is registered under this section, the individual who registered the order is expected to inform the enforcing State of any modifications to the registered protection order.

Subsection (g) is bracketed because some States may wish to charge a fee for registration.

SECTION 5. IMMUNITY. This State or a local governmental agency, or a law enforcement officer, prosecuting attorney, clerk of court, or any state or local governmental official acting in an official capacity, is immune from civil and criminal liability for an act or omission arising out of the registration or enforcement of a foreign protection order or the detention or arrest of an alleged violator of a foreign protection order if the act or omission is done in good faith in an effort to comply with this [Act].

States may, if they wish, substitute their own immunity provisions, so long as law enforcement officers, agencies, or other officials involved in the registration or enforcement of foreign protection orders, under the immunity scheme chosen, are not dissuaded from enforcing such orders because of the fear of potential liability. This immunity provision includes States, state and local governmental agencies, and all state and local government officials acting in their official capacity in order to prevent those seeking the imposition of criminal and civil liability for acts or omissions done in good faith in an effort to comply with the provisions of this Act from circumventing this immunity provision. The necessity for a generous immunity provision for the enforcement of foreign protection orders does not preclude state and local governments from using personnel and other internal sanctions in order to prevent and punish actions that, in the absence of this immunity provision, would have rendered the government agencies, officers, or officials civilly or criminally liable.

SECTION 6. TRANSITIONAL PROVISION. The [Act] applies to any protection order issued before [the effective date of his [Act]],

including any continuing action for enforcement of a foreign protection order commenced before [the effective date of this [Act]]. A request for enforcement of a foreign protection order brought on or after [the effective date of this [Act]] for violations of a foreign protective order occurring before [the effective date of this [Act]] is governed by the provisions of this [Act].

The provisions of this Act apply to all requests for enforcement of foreign protection orders, both continuing and newly filed, made on or after its effective date. In addition, the provisions of this Act apply to the enforcement of foreign protection orders issued before the effective date of this Act and to requests for enforcement of foreign protection orders in which the alleged violation took place before the effective date of the Act. Application of the Act in these circumstances does not constitute an unconstitutional ex post facto law because, under the principles of the Full Faith and Credit Clause of the Constitution of the United States, valid foreign protection orders should have always been entitled to interstate enforcement. The Act, therefore, does not effect a substantive change in the law regarding the enforcement of foreign protection orders; respondents should have always been aware that protection orders issued by States are subject to interstate enforcement. Both the federal Violence Against Women Act and this Act only ensure that States carry out their constitutional responsibility to enforce these orders.

SECTION 7. OTHER REMEDIES. Pursuit of remedies under this [Act] does not preclude a protected individual from pursuing other legal or equitable remedies against the respondent.

This section clarifies that the protection orders enforced under the Act are not the only means of protection available to victims of domestic violence. Other legal remedies, such as tort actions and criminal prosecution, are left undisturbed by this Act.

SECTION 8. EFFECTIVE DATE. This [Act] takes effect on ........................................ .