Peter Thomas Senese & The I CARE Foundation: International Travel Child Consent Form Now Available In Greek

Το Διεθνές Έντυπο Συναίνεσης σε Ταξίδι Παιδιού του Ιδρύματος I CARE Διατίθεται στα Ελληνικά

Το Διεθνές Έντυπο Συναίνεσης σε Ταξίδι Παιδιού του Ιδρύματος I CARE που δημιουργήθηκε για να αποτρέψει την απαγωγή παιδιού διεθνώς από γονέα η οποία σχετίζεται με την παράνομη κατακράτηση παιδιού από έναν γονέα σε χώρα της αλλοδαπής διατίθεται τώρα και στα Ελληνικά. Το έντυπο ταξιδίου έχει να κάνει με τα κύρια νομικά θέματα που περιστρέφονται γύρω από τη Συνθήκη Απαγωγής Παιδιού της Χάγης του 1980 και παρέχει σε δικαστήρια σε όλο τον κόσμο, επιφορτισμένα με την επίβλεψη υποθέσεων πιθανών απαγωγών παιδιών από γονείς διεθνώς που σχετίζονται με χώρες όπου μιλούν Ελληνικά με ένα μοναδικό, διεθνώς καθιερωμένο εργαλείο πρόληψης απαγωγής παιδιού από γονέα, εφαρμοσμένο στο δικαστήριο το οποίο υποστηρίζεται από τις διεθνείς νομικές, διπλωματικές και δικαιοδοτικές κοινότητες που είναι οικείες με την απαγωγή παιδιού από γονέα διεθνώς.

Μία εκτεταμένη έρευνα που διεξήχθη από το Ίδρυμα I CARE το καλοκαίρι του 2014 ερωτήθηκαν εκατοντάδες δικηγόροι και δικαστές σε όλο τον κόσμο οι οποίοι είναι βαθιοί γνώστες της απαγωγής παιδιού από γονέα διεθνώς. Τα ευρήματα της έρευνας έδειξαν ότι πάνω από 70% όλων των γονικών απαγωγών διεθνώς μεταξύ των ενενηντατεσσάρων εθνών που υπέγραψαν τη Συνθήκη Απαγωγής Παιδιού της Χάγης του 1980 συμβαίνουν όταν ένας γονέας παράνομα κατακρατεί ένα παιδί στο εξωτερικό χωρίς τη συναίνεση του άλλου γονέα ή δικαστική εντολή, παραβιάζοντας το δικαίωμα επιμέλειας του γονέα που έχει μείνει πίσω καθώς και το δικαίωμα του παιδιού στον στοχευμένο γονέα. Επίσης η έρευνα συμπέρανε ότι στη συντριπτική πλειοψηφία των υποθέσεων της Συνθήκης Απαγωγής Παιδιού της Χάγης του 1980 που σχετίζονται με παράνομη κατακράτηση, ο γονέας απαγωγέας συχνά χρησιμοποιεί υπερασπίσεις απαγωγής που τους είναι διαθέσιμες υπό τα Άρθρα 12 και 13 της Συνθήκης της Χάγης με την ελπίδα το δικαστήριο στη χώρα όπου το παιδί έχει παρανόμως κατακρατηθεί να επικυρώσει την πράξη τους της μη επιστροφής του παιδιού στη χώρα αρχικής δικαιοδοσίας.

Όπως καταδεικνύεται από τον μεγάλο αριθμό υποθέσεων διεθνούς ταξιδιού παιδιών που έγιναν με επιτυχία χρησιμοποιώντας το έντυπο ταξιδιού του Ιδρύματος I CARE, συνεχίζουμε να είμαστε μάρτυρες του σημαντικού ρόλου που έχει ένα έντυπο συναίνεσης ταξιδίου με προσανατολισμό Χάγης στο οικουμενικό θέατρο της πρόληψης απαγωγής παιδιών διεθνώς. Παραμένουμε ιδιαιτέρως αισιόδοξοι ότι το οικουμενικό ποσοστό απαγωγής παιδιού από γονέα διεθνώς θα μειωθεί σημαντικά λόγω της χρήσης των εντύπων συναίνεσης ταξιδίου με προσανατολισμό Χάγης. Η ουσιώδης έρευνά μας υποδεικνύει ότι πάνω από το 70% όλων των απαγωγών παιδιών διεθνώς συμβαίνουν όταν ένα παιδί κατακρατείται παράνομα στο εξωτερικό – ακριβώς το σενάριο γονικής απαγωγής από το οποίο προστατεύει το δικό μας έντυπο.

Η δημιουργία και χρήση του δικού μας εντύπου συναίνεσης ταξιδιού είναι ιδιαίτερα απλή: τα παιδιά έχουν το δικαίωμα να γνωρίσουν τη μαγεία και ζήσουν σε έναν κόσμο απαλλαγμένο από την ανησυχία της απαγωγής παιδιού από γονέα. Και οι στοχευμένοι για απαγωγή γονείς έχουν το δικαίωμα να προστατεύσει η κοινωνία τα παιδιά τους από το να απαχθούν. Πιστεύουμε σε αυτά τα δικαιώματα. Το έργο και η αφοσίωσή μας συνεχίζονται.

The I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form Available In Greek

The I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form created to prevent international parental child abduction associated with a child being wrongfully retained by one parent in a foreign country is now available in Greek. The travel form addresses key legal issues revolving around the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and provides courts worldwide charged with overseeing potential international parental child abduction cases associated with countries that speak Greek with a unique, globally well-established court implemented abduction prevention tool that is widely supported by the international legal, diplomatic, and judicial communities familiar with international parental child abduction.

An extensive I CARE Foundation study conducted during the summer of 2014 surveyed hundreds of attorneys and judges located around the world deeply familiar with international parental child abduction. The study’s findings showed that over 70% of all international parental kidnappings amongst the ninety-four 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention member signatory nations occur when one parent wrongfully detains a child abroad without the child’s other parent’s consent or a court order, violating the left-behind parent’s right of custody and the child’s right to the targeted parent. The survey also concluded the overwhelming majority of 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention cases associated with wrongful retention, the abducting parent often uses abduction defenses available to them under Article 12 and Article 13 of the Hague Convention in hope to have the court located in the country the child has been wrongfully detained in sanction their act of not returning the child to their country of original jurisdiction.

Extensive high remarks for the I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form as a groundbreaking, comprehensive, and significant global international parental child abduction prevention tool have been voiced by the leadership within legal communities familiar with international parental child abduction during  legal forums around the world including compelling commentary from senior officers of the Hague Permanent Bureau during but not limited to international legal symposiums on child abduction held during the LEPCA Conference in the Hague, the IAML Conference in New York, and the Sapporo Bar Association’s Hague Symposium in Sapporo. In addition a large and growing number of attorney Bar Associations in the United States and abroad have published positive and meaningful feedback concerning the I CARE Foundation’s travel consent form with clear intent to educate their legal constituents about the landmark child abduction prevention tool. Perhaps most meaningful is the reality that many judges around the world have praised the I CARE Foundation’s travel consent form, have utilized the document in their courtrooms, and continue to implement the form in courtrooms around the world during child custody and child travel legal proceedings.

Demonstrated by the large number of international child travel cases that have successfully occurred utilizing the I CARE Foundation’s travel form, we continue to witness the important role a Hague-oriented travel consent form has in the global theater of international child abduction prevention. We remain highly optimistic that the global international parental child abduction rate will substantially decline due to use of Hague-oriented travel consent forms. Our substantial research indicates that over 70% of all international child kidnappings occur when a child is wrongfully detained abroad – the exact parental kidnapping scenario our travel form has successfully protected against.

The creation and use of our travel consent form is rather simple: children have a right to know magic and to live in a world free of concern from parental child abduction. And targeted parents of abduction have a right to have society protect their children from kidnapping. We believe in these rights. Our work and dedication continues.

U.S. Senate Committee On Foreign Relations Hears I CARE Foundation Testimony On International Child Abduction

The I CARE Foundation firmly believes that increased efforts in diplomacy, along with meaningful judicial education and training programs, are the solution to the global abduction crisis. Working within those beliefs, it was a privilege, on behalf of the I CARE Foundation, to be able to provide testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on the issue of child abduction.  

The solutions that were offered to Congress are what we feel are the most viable, effective and global-reaching ideas which offer both immediate and long-term answers for families of abduction.

We would like to share a portion of this testimony - which deals specifically with the I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form - which has been an incredibly effective tool in the area of international child abduction prevention since it was developed.

Key Child Abduction Prevention Suggested Mandates:

Mandate Execution Of An International Travel Child Consent Form Steep In Hague Law

Section I – The International Child Travel Consent Form

Perhaps the singular most effective tool to prevent the international parental child abduction of American children and ensure their safe and immediate return to their home country is for Congress to mandate the use of a Hague-centric international travel child consent form and direct various government agencies connected to the welfare of our American child citizens and travel related matters to widely disseminate this form.

Clearly, the majority of international parental child abductions under the rules of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention occur when a child is wrongfully detained in another country. Typically this occurs under the guise of a family vacation.

The I CARE Foundation has created a travel consent form that is steep in Hague-oriented case law with focus on Articles 1, 12, 13 and 20. The I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form was created to remove a parent's legal defenses under Articles 12, 13, and 20 of the Hague Convention who may be scheming to abduct a child prior to an alleged 'family vacation' abroad while also establishing strong support for a child’s immediate return under Article 1 of the Hague Convention.

We respectfully point out that there is a current trend for courts around the world to reconsider ‘The Best Interest of the Child’ and include ‘The Best Interest of the Family’ under Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. Clearly, when courts engage in this analysis they create a direct contradiction to the expeditious intent of the convention, which inherently allow for ‘Well-settled claims’ to be lodged by the taking parent.

The I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form and the adjoining legal analysis was created as a mechanism to remove a would-be abductor’s legal defense of abduction prior to the act and cause either law enforcement or courts located in the in-bound country to quickly return the abducted child to their home country of original jurisdiction.

Section II - Conclusion and Recommendation Concerning Travel Consent Form

The I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form has been an effective child abduction prevention tool. Use of the form protects against schemes of abduction to Hague countries and may be useful when abduction occurs to non-Hague countries.

We respectfully suggest that the United States Congress direct the appropriate U.S. governmental agencies to discuss the mandated use of a formal international travel child consent form based upon the design of the I CARE Foundation model. In addition, we respectfully suggest that the Department of State engage with the Hague Conference and suggest that a global Hague Travel Consent Form be developed under the auspices of the Hague Conference and that its use be made mandatory. We are convinced that the mandatory use of a globally recognized Travel Consent Form signed by the left-behind parent (and possibly a notary) will dramatically reduce the number of (American) children who are abducted and equally will assist in the expeditious return of children wrongfully detained abroad if they were abducted.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

 

For more information or to download a copy of the I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form please CLICK HERE. 

Kindest Regards, 

Peter Thomas Senese 

International Executive Director 

The I CARE Foundation

The I CARE Foundation's Efforts To Stop International Child Abduction: 2013 Year In Review

The year 2013 was a very successful year in the fight to protect children from international parental child abduction.  In saying that, I invite you to read the I CARE Foundation's 2013 Year In Review. This overview is not only a look back at what was accomplished during the past year, but is also a plan on how we can, and will, end international parental child abduction and trafficking.

Though we still have a long way to go, we are heading in the right direction.

Our work continues...

The I CARE Foundation’s 2013 Year In Review Protecting Children From International Abduction and Trafficking

 

2013: Substantial Global Gains Made Working To Protect Children From International Parental Kidnapping With The Promise Of Substantial Continued Success In 2014.

We expect that 2013 will be viewed by stakeholders dedicated to preventing the inhumane crime of international parental child kidnapping and who work to reunite abducted children with their targeted families as a year when the daunting global fight to protect children from abduction and trafficking made real, measurable, and promising strides that are expected to have a far-reaching long-term positive impact for a substantial number of existing and future children and their families located around the world.  Nevertheless, real problems and challenges still remain. It is our strong hope that 2014 will build upon the important progress made in 2013 and become known as a year when new global initiatives hopefully under the leadership of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (i.e., the Intergovernmental Organization under the auspices of which the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was adopted) and its Permanent Bureau (Secretariat), have a far-reaching positive impact protecting children everywhere.

International parental child abduction in itself is a highly abusive and at times deadly act that targets hundreds of thousands of children around the world each year.  In many countries, parental abduction is a crime, while in other less progressive countries parental abduction tragically remains a part of an unjust social and cultural climate where justice and equality, particularly for women, are fleeting concepts.

In nearly all circumstances of parental abduction, children are used as pawns by their abducting parents to extract a premeditated plan, including but not limited to causing severe suffering to the child’s other parent. Of grave concern and perhaps one of the greatest challenges that children and their targeted parents face is the lack of accountability courts hold abductors or would-be abductors to either when an abduction scheme is prevented or after a child is successfully returned to their country of original jurisdiction. Without holding a parental child abductor accountable not only will many targeted parents remain in the cross-hairs of a vengeance-seeking abducting parent who has already caused both them and the victimized child considerable harm, but it also sends a dangerous global message that would-be parental child abductors have limited risks of legal accountability before courts and law enforcement.

As society becomes more aware and intolerant of these unforgiveable kidnappings against a child, there cannot be a contradictory message of responsibility in lieu of the abusive acts committed.  Most importantly, we point out that children who have previously been the target or victim of a parental abduction are at great risk of a second abduction. Failure to protect these children from new threats is to minimalize their lives and a right to happiness. In this spirit it is critical that courts act to safeguard the rights of children at risk of abduction: anything less would essentially legalize the spirit of parental abduction and that would be unthinkable.

There have been many sobering moments during 2013, including a U.S. government issued report published in June 2013 reiterating that children victims of parental abduction face extreme severe physical and emotional abuse at the hands of their abducting parents.

The fact that children of parental child abduction are at grave risk of filicide – murder by their taking parent – tells the real story as to why all members of society should be outraged at the very notion of international parental child abduction. Truth is, the majority of professionals who are dedicated to stopping abduction are not simply trying to prevent an abusive kidnapping, but a possible child murder.

Now if you’re like most individuals you may ask yourself, ‘How can a parent murder their child?’ Sadly, this is not the notion of extreme activist trying to play on your sentiment. The reality is thousands of children each year are murdered by their parents.

Combining the reality of filicide is the apparent ties to post-abduction suicide amongst adults who experienced the extreme violations of parental abduction in their childhood.

Of course, all targeted children of abduction have to deal with the fall-out of parental alienation and isolation. The reality is that a would-be abductor attempts to steal the identity of the child by denying their other parent’s existence. Make no mistake about this: children caught in the scheme of abduction face extreme emotional hardship that has serious short and long-term consequences.

The reality is that international parental child abduction continues to significantly grow outside of the United States (we take exceptional note that the majority of Hague-states signatory of the Hague Child Abduction Convention have not publicly or privately reported their inbound or outbound abduction cases in years: something that must change in 2014 and beyond as failure of transparency in reporting has only allowed the abduction epidemic to manifest by in essence concealing the very real global epidemic). For example it is reported that international parental child abduction has doubled in the past decade in the United Kingdom. This is intolerable, particularly when we consider that the United Kingdom is progressive in their activity to stop abduction. Now imagine what the true reported and unreported abduction statistics for countries such as Japan, the Philippines, India, or Nigeria?

We reiterate our unmovable position that international parental child abduction is a severe act of child abuse with far reaching consequences on a targeted child that will impact all phases of their life. Consequently, we equally acknowledge the high-degree negative impact abduction has on victimized targeted parents who tragically have every aspect of their life heavily impacted and who often have limited recourse during and post-abduction to defend against a predator parent’s behavior in a post-reunification aftermath.

We affirm at the highest degree that targeted parents of international parental child abduction are also real victims of the inhumane act of abduction directed at their child. We call upon all stakeholders who work to protect children to also take stake in the interest of targeted parent-victims.

Building On 2013 – What To Look For In 2014

On a global level there are several significant initiatives that can have extraordinary benefits on the global fight against international child abduction and trafficking in 2014. We fully expect these issues to have careful consideration and review by key global stakeholders. They include but are not limited to the following:

1. The creation of an International Judiciary College is perhaps the singular most important step that can create the greatest impact of protecting the hundreds of thousands of children each year who are targeted for international abduction and trafficking. The reality is the vast majority of judges overseeing international parental child abduction cases are not trained in the complex legal, psychological, political, financial, and logistical matters that all impact abduction cases. Given its expertise on the operation of all relevant Hague Conventions, including of course the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, and experience in providing technical assistance to judges and other relevant actors involved in their operation, we suggest and hope that the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference can be prominently associated to this proposal and become an integral part of its realization.

We believe that the Hague Child Abduction Convention is the right mechanism that all nations must participate in and uphold; however, untrained judges and courts have in fact led to many previous failures including failure to properly and expeditiously oversee legal proceedings seeking the return of abducted children to their country of habitual residency.

In addition, failures to have a highly educated global judiciary deeply familiar with child abduction have caused diplomatic unease with the potential of severe long-term problems.  For example, in the United States, HR 3212 seeks the United States Congress to impose penalties and sanctions on countries that do not adhere to the Hague Child Abduction Convention. On the onset, HR 3212 may appear to have merit; however, any legislation that may remove the validity of the international treaty may in reality cause more children who are abducted to not be returned to their country of original jurisdiction particularly if countries take matters into their own hands and remove diplomacy.  In this sense, the United States Department of State's leadership within the Office of Children's Issues (the acting Central Authority for the Hague in the United States) has done an outstanding and exemplary job both preventing the number of children who are internationally abducted: the reported cases of international abduction amongst American children has declined by over 23% during fiscal years 2011 and 2012 and we fully expect the 2013 reported abduction cases to decline.  As the I CARE Foundation has assisted targeted parents around the country prevent abduction, we have seen first-hand the exemplary work and dedication of the Office of Children's Issues. Furthermore, the Office of Children's Issues has played an important and helpful role assisting targeted parents who have had their child abducted. The reality is there is a long way to go but the Hague Convention is triggering for the rightful return of children of more children each year. This is a considerable event when we take into consideration the limited power vested in the Office of Children's Issues by Congress. Truth is, intergovernmental diplomacy is working with meaningful strides being made each year. In contrast, the reality of creating a precedent for any one country to create self-imposed sanctions undermines the essence of the Hague Child Abduction Convention and the significant progress that has been made.  In addition, we must point out those failures to return children to their country of original jurisdiction are a global problem primarily perpetuated by indecisiveness and lack of understanding at a judicial level.  These failures at the court level amongst all signatory states are real, and no country is excluded.

Should other states signatories of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention implement similar law or policy as that set forth in the HR 3212 bill, one of two things may happen. The first is (and we hope this is the case) that more states will comply with the spirit and intent of the abduction convention. The second possibility is that new laws and policies established to sanction non-compliance could lead to the demise and viability of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

Creating an International Judiciary College, ideally under the auspices of the Permanent Bureau and capable of training on an ongoing basis a significant number of judges and other relevant actors involved in the operation of the 38 Conventions adopted under the auspices of the Hague Conference on Private International Law including the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention would have a dramatic impact on reducing the global abduction rate while also increasing diplomatic relationships amongst countries as it is highly conceivable that the existing issues of lack of judicial compliance and adherence to the abduction convention would be mooted as more judges become trained on Hague matters.

Unquestionably, we acknowledge the existence of significant failures amongst the judiciary around the world to understand the scope and nature of parental abduction and the tendency of untrained judiciary to allow abduction defense litigation to derail the very nature and scope of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention that’s very purpose is to determine which court has a right of jurisdiction on a child’s welfare and then to return that child to such jurisdiction.

In addition, a judicial college could provide a window of understanding amongst non-member states as to the benefits of participation in the Hague Conferences and become a signatory of its various conventions.  Understanding and knowledge opens the possibility for non-member states to participate in various conventions that they may have been hesitant to do previously.

The benefits of world-wide participation would in fact create an underpinning of global accountability on both social and economic matters covered by any of the relevant Hague Conventions.

These benefits would have far-reaching social benefits and economic advantages. For example, it would be reasonable to expect that convention compliance will increase due to increased understanding amongst the world’s judiciary. Economic benefits would be staggering: for example, costs associated with international child abduction would be dramatically reduced as cases are expedited at the ‘In-bound’ country level – saving both time and money for all parties involved.

We strongly point out that if the international community fails to create an International Judicial College, preferably under the auspices of the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law that would become a central education, research, and training center for the world’s judiciary, the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention is at risk of becoming an obsolete tool if countries begin to subjectively sanction one-another for failures to return an abducted child. The ramifications of countries issuing subjective sanctions against one another can become a very real problem and threat to the needs for increased diplomatic relations in our ever-increasing globally connected world.

2. It is believed that the Hague Conference on Private International Law, the origin of which goes back to 1893 and under the auspices of which 38 conventions have been adopted including the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention , has a total operating budget of less than 3,800,000 Euro per year.  This operating budget is paid for by the Hague Conference member states. The reality is that the small budget at the disposal of the Permanent Bureau is severely limiting its effectiveness and reach, including expanding activity in research, education, program development, outreach, and monitoring.

In order to increase the effectiveness of the Permanent Bureau, there must be an increase in public funding amongst member states combined with a collaborative funding effort amongst private-sector organizations.  Unquestionably, private-sector funding holds the key to the viability of the Permanent Bureau’s reach as society moves closer toward the ideals of global citizenship and where global economic accountability requires private-sector organizations to participate in upholding international treaties (the Hague Conference on Private International Law has not only adopted important and widely ratified Conventions in the field of child protection and family law, but also in the fields of cross-border civil procedure and legal cooperation, commercial law and finance law).

We believe there unquestionably exist significant financial resources available to expand the Permanent Bureaus’ activity through a variety of private financial sourcing pools and philanthropic organizations who understand the short-term and long-term benefits of increasing the capability of the Permanent Bureau. In a world where business, activism, and social understanding of one another now operates at a global level, there is a large and growing number of private-sector stakeholders interested in supporting the work of the Hague Conference on Private International Law and more specifically the numerous important tasks of its Permanent Bureau (which in fact is its Secretariat and which has a staff of less than 30 people).

Furthermore, we believe that every member state must increase their financial participation and support of the Permanent Bureau. The fact that a leading international organization that exists today to create and uphold international conventions that benefit our global social and economic realities operates on less than a shoe-string budget diminishes the true capability of the very institution that was created to establish critical multi-national treaties and protocols in the names of global cooperation, collaboration, and world peace. 

Without an increased operating budget, the true benefit of the Permanent Bureau will be dramatically reduced particularly if countries fail to comply with the various conventions, including the abduction convention.

3. It is critical Permanent Bureau create a global outreach and monitoring advisory program for Hague member states. A well trained central advisory division within the Permanent Bureau capable of traveling to various countries and working at a grass-roots level to educate key stakeholders on various convention issues would go a long way toward global compliance, economic prosperity, and increased diplomacy.  The benefits are staggering. Personnel for a central advisory division could originate from the proposed international judiciary college.

4. The vast majority of reported cases of global international parental child abduction occur when a parent wrongfully detains a child abroad without consent of the child’s other parent or a court order.  In June, 2013 the I CARE Foundation released a groundbreaking I CARE Foundation International Travel Child Consent Form that is Hague-centric in content and scope.  The I CARE Foundation’s travel form has been successfully utilized around the world to protect children from abduction as it guards against intent of travel and protects matters related to a child’s court of original jurisdiction.  With keen awareness of Articles 2, 12, 13, and 20 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention this landmark travel consent form or a travel consent form based upon the I CARE Foundation’s travel form, we hope to bring the need for standardized, global travel consent form back on the agenda of the Special Commission that discusses the practical operation of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (the last meeting of this Special Commission took place in 2012: if the usual rhythm of these meetings is maintained, the next one should take place in 2015). 

5. Expanded efforts amongst the Permanent Bureau and member states to urge non-member states to participate in the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention will continue and are expected to have positive results such as Japan’s participation in the abduction convention (Japan is expected to join the Convention in the early part of 2014).

Diplomacy must continue and must be nurtured carefully especially as the Hague Permanent Bureau’s outstanding leadership continually acts to bring non-signatory countries particularly those located in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa to join the table of nations at the Hague.

There have been noteworthy accomplishments during 2013 that have and are expected to continue to bring about further positive change that will protect children.

In fact, noteworthy efforts originating from the Hague Conference on Private International Law combined with initiatives by many Hague-signatory nation-states and their respective oversight agencies dedicated to protecting children have created an atmosphere of abduction intolerance. Joining these efforts by many governments sitting at the table of nations has been substantial efforts by private sector organizations that have also had also had a significant impact protecting children and their targeted families from abduction.
We are pleased to share that the reported cases of international child abduction in The United States declined by over 23% collectively during fiscal years 2011 and 2012 in contradiction of expected combined growth of over 30% during the same time period.

In addition, it is our expectation that the upcoming United States Department of State’s report to Congress on Compliance To The Hague Conventionconcerning international abduction of American children will demonstrate there was another significant decline in outbound child abductions during 2013. The Department of State report is expected out this spring.  Based upon the I CARE Foundation’s substantial efforts working with families we assisted combined with efforts made by other notable non-government organizations around the world, there is optimism that we will see a landmark three-year decline in the reported abduction rate.

Several primary reasons why the United States is experiencing a reduction in their international parental child abduction rate includes the incredible efforts by the men and women who work for the United States Department of States Office of Children’s Issue.  In the eyes of many stakeholders, ours included, the team at OCI are true heroes who work day-in and day-out trying to protect children. Despite operational and policy handicaps and restrictions, the reality is that there has been a decline of 23% in the reported cases of U.S. outbound abduction while the rest of the world’s abduction rate appears to be soaring.

We can’t stress this enough: diplomacy is working. The Department of State’s efforts at the table of nations to continue to foster other countries not only to participate and uphold the spirit of the Hague Child Abduction Convention combined with noteworthy operational steps to prevent abduction are worthy of emulating.

Are things perfect? No. Far from it.

Nevertheless, 2013 will be viewed as a year where seeds of change previously planted took root with the expectation that a paradigm shift will occur in 2014, particularly as efforts to create an International Judiciary College will hopefully move from the conceptual planning stage to a permanent fixture, and implementation of the I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form continues to be utilized, upheld, and honored amongst member states.

Before sharing an overview of the I CARE Foundation’s 2013 activity and accomplishments, we would like to acknowledge that the gains made to protect children are due in great part due to indefatigable efforts of organizations in the private sector such as the I CARE Foundation, Reunite, BAC HOME, and theBring Sean Home Foundation coupled with collaborative efforts to assist children by individuals working within numerous government organizations dedicated to protecting children.

Clearly, there is a long way to go . . . but we’re on the road.

The I CARE Foundation’s 2013 Accomplishments

In 2013 the I CARE Foundation continued our efforts to protect children from abduction.  Our activity included but was not limited to the following accomplishments:

1. In June, 2013 the I CARE Foundation released the year-long development of the groundbreaking I CARE Foundation International Travel Child Consent Form and legal brief that has been hailed as a landmark Hague-centric international parental child abduction prevention tool focusing on critical issues revolving around a child’s travel abroad.  Concentrated development of the only Hague-centric global child abduction prevention tool that can be utilized amongst all Hague Convention and non-Hague Convention member states’ citizens initially occurred during 2012 and is the product of an I CARE Conference held at the United Nations.  

The positive impact of the I CARE Foundation International Travel Child Consent Form is best viewed by the large number of children around the world who have safely traveled to another country and successfully returned home without incident using the form. In fact, to the best of our knowledge, not only have all children who traveled using the travel form returned home, but equally, when a parent seeking to travel abroad with a child refused to sign the consent form, their action led to a court restricting travel while also directing additional abduction prevention measures.

In 2012 the I CARE Foundation developed the concept of our travel consent form. In 2012-2013 the I CARE Foundation diligently created the travel document and supporting legal brief. In the summer of 2013 the I CARE Foundation launched the travel consent form worldwide to great approval by global stakeholders. During the same time period we worked diligently to educate attorneys around the globe as well as raise awareness amongst all Hague Convention Central Authorities of the existence of and implementation of this landmark abduction prevention tool. In 2014 we will continue to monitor the global implementation of the travel form under a Special Committee consisting of noteworthy international child advocates deeply familiar with abduction and report our findings to the Hague Permanente Bureau in anticipation and hope that a travel consent form will become a mechanized tool for the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. 

2. In 2013 the I CARE Foundation’s efforts to raise global awareness of international parental child abduction continued as we increased our efforts in all areas of global outreach to both potential targeted parents of child abduction as well as to stakeholders in the legal community around the world in order to share our research and special reports on abduction.

Perhaps of greatest value once again was the incredible importance of our initiatives working with parent blog writers. This core reader audience is similar to the demographic core audience of targeted parent victims of abduction. Praise given to parent blog writers for raising awareness of international parental child abduction and the impact of these efforts cannot be high enough.

In addition and of equal note is the I CARE Foundation’s continued efforts to share our research findings and initiatives with attorneys around the world dedicated to preventing abduction. Our outreach continues to educate a global legal community who in turn are able to better protect at-risk children.

3. The I CARE Foundation has continued to conduct extensive research and publish our findings in the area of international parental child abduction.  Using these findings we have worked to educate lawmakers and policy administrators on key information and issues as they may arise in order to help create new policy or modify existing policy to better serve children.

4. The I CARE Foundation’s global efforts have played critical roles in preventing a large number of international parental child abductions while also being key stakeholders in the legal reunification of many abducted children.  Our work protecting children from abduction has come in many forms including incredible efforts by lawyers in our attorney network litigate abduction prevention cases, to providing expert testimony before a host of various courts in multiple jurisdictions, to educating members of the judiciary and members of the courts (lawyers) about the many facets of abduction and prevention.  In addition, we have continued our outreach programs focused on educating possible targeted parents of child abduction of both warning signs and how to act in the event of abduction.  In addition, we have successfully worked extensively with numerous parents, attorneys, and other key stakeholders from around the world safely and legally reunite with abducted children primarily but not limited to utilization of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

We take exceptional note that programs like the United States’ Prevent Departure Program became more widely utilized to help prevent abduction, while familiarity with abduction loopholes such as those created by the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative policy allowed targeted parents and their legal advisors to guard against abduction possibilities.

We voice our strongest opinion that the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention does work. We take exception to individuals who attempt to re-abduct their children by not seeking assistance through courts of jurisdiction.

5. We continued our work advocating for new child abduction prevention and reunification policies around the world.

6. We continued to work with leading organizations dedicated to stopping child abduction in our effort to create solutions to the abduction crisis.

7. We continued to develop new tools that we expect will prevent abduction.

After near-steady 20% international parental child abduction growth per year over the past decade, the U.S. reported outbound abduction rate declined by over 15% in fiscal year 2011 and 16% in 2012. We look forward to the U.S. Department of State’s 2013 international child report to Congress due out the spring of 2014, as we anticipate another decline in the reported cases of international parental child abduction.

The second half of 2013 was a time when we realized the benefits of many of our initiatives.  However, perhaps the most important events of 2013 took place in the fourth quarter of 2013, when a series of high-level meetings that took place in Washington, D.C. laid the path for our global initiatives of 2014.

In the coming months, we look forward to sharing the size and scope of these initiatives and look forward to supporting in any way possible the leadership charged with oversight and implementation of these possibilities. It is for this reason that 2013 may be viewed as a paradigm in the fight to stop international child abduction and trafficking.

International parental child abduction is a complex matter that often ends with a child not being returned to their home country.  This is unacceptable. In this regard, we would like to acknowledge the grave challenges many chasing parents who were previously targeted for abduction face, knowing that a complex, uneducated judicial system combined with local politics often leads to heartbreaking futility. We remind each of you who chase the cyclone of international parental child abduction to know and never let go of your hope for it is the most powerful tool you have in your quest to reunite with your abducted child.

On behalf of the I CARE Foundation, we continue our commitment to protect children from international abduction and trafficking in 2014.

Our work continues.

We invite you to read a sampling of sworn testimonials from parents the I CARE Foundation has assisted.

Respectfully yours,

Peter Thomas Senese 

International Executive Director
The I CARE Foundation

The Crazy World Of Abduction: Standing Strong Against Child Kidnappers

International Parental Child Abduction is a dark world filled with a great deal of pain and suffering. It is unquestionably a world that, for many targeted parents of abduction, not only makes little sense, but it is a world where trust is replaced with mistrust, where belief is replaced with skepticism, and where love is replaced with deep hurt.

But make no mistake: the love of a parent who is willing to chase the cyclone of abduction is stronger than the strongest tsunami. And not only have I felt this love myself during the time I was Chasing The Cyclone, but I have witnessed first-hand other parents do everything they can in the best interest of their child.

Now for those of you who do not know how parental child abductors typically attempt to have an international court sanction their illicit act of kidnapping, the way this is done under the rules of the Hague Convention is to slander, defame, and outright attempt to vilify their target before the courts. Claims of child abuse, molestation, incredible drug and alchohol use, etc., are commonplace, occurring in near every abduction defense. Of note, these claims are made by both men and women abductors equally against their targets.

There is no question that abduction litigation is complicated. In part this is due to various laws and cultural norms in countries associated to the litigation.

During the years I have worked to assist other parents, I have met few parents who have withstood the incredible challenges in attempting to reunite with their child than my friend Steven.  I am proud to stand with him as he works diligently to reunite with his daughter while hopefully reforming laws and policies that have failed him and his child.

One day, Steven will be reunited with his child. And until that day happens, he will have my unwavering support. Why?  Because my friend Steven is a very good, caring, honest, and loving man.


I would like to share this letter from Steven as it serves as a reminder of the many thousands of targeted parents around the world - near equally men and women - who are forced to defend against a child kidnappers claims under Article 12 or Article 13 of the Hague Convention.

Letters like Steven's are very important for they educate each of us of the importance of stopping abduction.

As for the targeted parent who was able to protect their child, I must say that he unquestionably is one of the kindest, gentlest, and loving parents I know.


To read a large number of select testimonial letters from parents who I and the I CARE Foundation have assisted, Please Click Here. 

Critically, parents need to know the Warning Signs Of International Parental Child Abduction.

Of great interest is the fact that the I CARE Foundation's groundbreaking International Travel Child Consent Form is being hailed as one of the most important child abduction prevention tools ever created.

On a personal note, it is my honor to be able to have helped as many parents and children as I and my colleagues at the I CARE Foundation have.

The shared select testimonials were provided in order to educate others of the severity parents around the world face when dealing with the abduction of their child.

One last thing: Steven - you know where I stand.

Kind regards to all,

Peter Thomas Senese 







http://www.petersenese.com/uploads/Testimonial_Letter_20.pdf

Peter Thomas Senese: Protecting Children From Abduction To Japan

Over the years I have been actively engaged in voluntarily protecting and helping children in crisis.  Of course a great deal of my work is focused on stopping child abduction.

During this period, I have been involved in a rather large number of abduction cases: either trying to prevent abduction or bring a kidnapped child home under the rules of the Hague Convention.

I would like to share a recent letter from a parent who had their child targeted for abduction to Japan. If the child was able to have been removed from the United Stated, the parent would have never been able to see their child again.

There are no words that can express the depth of the tragedy that would have occurred for both child and targeted parent if abduction occurred.

Fortunately the I CARE Foundation stepped in and we protected both child and parent. This Is How:
Read the Sworn Testimonial Letter From The Targeted Parent.

Now over the years, the I CARE Foundation has had to deal with many issues concerning abduction to Japan.  The reality is that Japan does not return internationally abducted children. They remain a non-signatory member of the Hague Convention. And critically, they place the lives of children of abduction at risk.

As for the targeted parent who was able to protect their child, I must say that he unquestionably is one of the kindest, gentlest, and loving parents I know.

To read a large number of select testimonial letters from parents who I and the I CARE Foundation have assisted, Please Click Here. 

Critically, parents need to know the Warning Signs Of International Parental Child Abduction.

Of great interest is the fact that the I CARE Foundation's groundbreaking International Travel Child Consent Form is being hailed as one of the most important child abduction prevention tools ever created.

On a personal note, it is my honor to be able to have helped as many parents and children as I and my colleagues at the I CARE Foundation have.

The shared select testimonials were provided in order to educate others of the severity parents around the world face when dealing with the abduction of their child.

Kind regards to all,

Peter Thomas Senese 

International Child Abduction and The Prevent Departure Program

Earlier this summer I had shared an article that I had written on Summer Vacations and International Child Abduction Warning Signs.  The article explained in detail some of the possible scenarios and techniques that a potential abductor may use in order to wrongfully remove a child from their home country of jurisdiction.  Even though that article was focused on the time of summer vacations, a time where approximately 85% to 95% of all parental abductions occur in the United States or abroad, even though summer is almost over international parental child abduction still poses a very serious threat for many families.

As always, the I CARE Foundation works toward the goal of preventing international child abductions.  One of the major keys to protecting innocent children from abduction is raising awareness of the realities of international abduction with the hope that our messages about the risks and warning signs that a kidnapping is being planned may allow a parent or other stakeholders the opportunity to prevent abduction.  Historically, the U.S. rate of reported cases of outbound abduction has declined by approximately 15% during the fiscal years 2011 and 2012, and that is after nearly 30 years of reported growth.  This tells us that abduction prevention efforts are working.

Now one of the most concerning risk factors that will lead to international child abduction is the use of a would-be taking parent to use a secondary passport not issued by the United States government in order to depart the country as shared in detail in the article published on behalf of the I CARE Foundation titled Summer Vacation. Child Abduction. Dual Citizenship. Two Passports. How To Prevent Abduction. 


I urge any parent who believes they are at risk of abduction to read both articles that I have listed.

One of the most effective tools available for at-risk parents trying to prevent abduction is the Prevent Departure Program, which is a secure screening program that lists any individual considered by the courts or law enforcement to be a high-risk child abductor.  In order to be placed on the Prevent Departure Program, there are certain requirements, one of which presently includes that the person cannot be a citizen of the United States of America.  Thus, only aliens residents (or non-residents) physically located in the United States may be put on the Prevent Departure Program at the request of the Department of State to the Department of Homeland Security.

Unfortunately, the caveat is that in order for a person to be considered a candidate for the Prevent Departure Program they are not American citizens, which presents a problem since individuals who possess dual citizenship, including American citizenship, cannot be placed on the Prevent Departure Program list.  Hopefully, there will be a modification in policy so that American citizens who are considered to be high-risk child abductors can be placed on a secure screening list.  The following press release provides details of the need to have the Prevent Departure Program policy modified:  Peter Thomas Senese & The CARE Foundation Supports GAO Recommendation to Create Departure Screening List for High-Risk U.S. Citizens Considered High-Risk Child Abductors.

So what is the Prevent Departure Program and how can it be applied?

Case Study 

Lets begin by suggesting Parent A is a citizen of another country but lives in the United States with Parent B. Parent B is a United States citizen. Parent A need not be married to Parent B.

During the course of A and B’s relationship, a child is born in the United States. When this occurs, the child is automatically a United States Citizen by birth.

In all likelihood, the child also will retain automatic citizenship to the nation that Parent A is a national of.

Let us assume both parents enjoy a right of custody to the child either through marriage, or, in cases where there is no marriage, either by state statue or by court orders.

During the course of time, Parent A decides to end the relationship and desires to return to their nation of origin with the child.

Now, Parent B, having great concern that Parent A intends to take the child and flee the United States and go to another country, obtains court orders forbidding Parent A from taking the child out of the country. The court orders for Parent A to turn over to the court the child’s US passport if one has been issued, and further directs the child’s name to be registered with the Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program, thus essentially removing the potential abducting parent from being able to remove the child from the United States using an American passport issued in the child’s name.

In addition, Parent B successfully requests that the court notify the embassy of the country Parent A is a citizen of, whereas, the court informs the embassy that a child custody dispute is alive and well in the jurisdiction of the child’s country of habitual residency, and the court requests for that foreign embassy not to issue a passport in the child’s name, thus securing the inability of the child from departing until the court proceedings are finalized.

Problem solved? No

In many circumstances, a pending departure is already well planned before the targeted parent becomes aware of it. Parent A may already have in their possession a passport issued by their nation of origin for the child. If this is the case, it is very difficult for the US court to seize the foreign passport of the child, particularly if it is not known whether a passport has been issued in the child’s name.

If a passport has not been issued in the child’s name, then in all likelihood, Parent A will attempt to obtain one regardless if the child’s passport application requires Parent B’s signature or not. In fact, certain countries do not require the signature of the mother of a child, only the father.

In addition, each nation obtains a sovereign right to oversee their own citizens, and since the child may be considered a citizen of the country of Parent A too, the embassy is not required or obligated to follow the U.S. court’s orders. They have every right and may issue a passport in the child’s name despite requests not to do so. And make no mistake about this, in more cases than not, particularly if Parent A is very persuasive when communicating with someone from their own embassy, they will successfully obtain the passport.

If Parent A has possession of a non-US passport for their child, they very well may be able to physically leave the country with the child and illegally abduct the child. What is perhaps even more troubling is the fact that Parent B has no way or right to know if a passport was issued from the native country of Parent A in the name of the child.

A disaster waiting to happen? You bet it is.

But there is hope for those parents who find themselves in a scenario where Parent A is not an American citizen living in the United States with their child and, Parent A possess a foreign passport for the child of the relationship.

Since 2003, United States citizens have had available a very effective international child abduction prevention tool called ‘The Prevent Departure Program’. Unfortunately, many parents at risk of having their child internationally abducted are not aware that this incredibly useful tool is available to them.

In the aftermath of 911, the Department of Homeland Security’s ‘Prevent Departure Program’ was created to stop non-U.S. citizens from departing the country. The program applies to non-US citizens physically located in America considered individuals at risk of child abduction. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) oversees this program and it is monitored 24 hours a day.

What the ‘Prevent Departure Program’ does is provide immediate information to the transportation industry, including all air, land, and sea channels a single point of contact at Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and provides a comprehensive database of individuals the United States believes may immediately depart to a foreign country.

The program only applies to aliens, and is not available to stop U.S. citizens or dual U.S./foreign citizens from leaving the country.

Under Section 215 of the ‘Immigration and Nationality Act’ (8 U.S.C. 1185) and it’s implementing regulations (8 CFR Part 215 and 22 CFR Part 46), it authorizes departure-control officers to prevent an alien’s departure from the United States if the alien’s departure would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States. These regulations include would-be abductions of U.S. citizens in accordance to court orders originating from the child’s court of habitual residency.

If the abductor and child are identified, they will be denied boarding. In order to detain them after boarding is denied, there must be a court order prohibiting the child’s removal or providing for the child’s pick-up, or a warrant for the abductor.

In order for an at risk parent to participate in the program, all of the following must be demonstrated:

1. Subject may NOT be a US citizen; and,
2. The nomination must include a law enforcement agency contact with 24/7 coverage; and,
3. There must be a court order showing which parent has been awarded custody or shows that the Subject is restrained from removing his/her minor child from certain counties, the state or the U.S.; and,
4. The Subject must be in the US; and,
5. There must be some likelihood that the Subject will attempt to depart in the immediate future.

With respect to the established guidelines listed above, note that in order to request the listing of the other parent, that person must be an alien of the United States. The program does not apply to US citizens at risk of leaving the country.

The second mandate states a request to place an individual’s name on the Prevent Departure Program must include support by a law enforcement agency or from the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues, which has the authority of requesting for the Department of Homeland Security to list a suspected child abductor on the ‘Prevent Departure Program’.

The third criteria: possessing a custodial order, is essential. Regardless if the other parent has joint custody or rights of visitation, critically, you must make sure that there are injunction orders in place prohibiting the child from being removed from the jurisdiction of habitual residency. Unfortunately, many international parental child abductions are well planned out in advance of the actual abduction, and the targeted parent has no idea that an abduction is in progress until it is too late. This is why it is essential for parents in partnership with non-nationals to be fully aware of the warning signs associated with a potential international child abduction.

The fourth criteria states the obvious: in order to prevent an alien-parent suspected of abducting a child on U.S. soil, that parent must be on U.S. soil.

The fifth criteria requests that the applying parent demonstrate that the alien-parent has demonstrated the likelihood of abducting the child across international borders in the immediate future. Remember – you need to document and record as much evidence as possible.

For many parents who face the risk of having their child abducted and removed across international borders, the nightmare that both targeted parent and victimized child face is unbearable. 

The Prevent Departure Program is not for everyone and should not be abused; however, in situations where an abduction threat is real and the targeting parent intent on abducting a child is a non-US citizen possessing the capacity to breach court orders and abduct a child of a relationship, the Prevent Departure Program may be a useful tool.

For more information on the ‘Prevent Departure Program’, please visit the U.S. Department of State’s website or contact the Office of Children’s Issues.

Finally, the Department of State's Office Of Children's Issues Abduction Prevention Division is in charge of requesting that an individual be considered a candidate to be listed on the Prevent Departure Program.  From our experience, it is critically important that a court order be issued stating that a specific person be listed on the Prevent Departure Program, and that person is restrained from traveling outside of the United States with the specified children of the partnership considered by the court to be at risk of possible abduction.  

For more information on international parental child abduction please visit the I CARE Foundation.  Some of you may be interested in also visiting the official website of my deeply inspired novel about abduction titled CHASING THE CYCLONE, which contains a great amount of information on abduction.

Kindest regards to all -

Peter Thomas Senese

FBI States Risks Of A Child Victim Of International Parental Child Abduction: Murder

“Unfortunately, the threat of violence—and death—in these cases is all too real,” said Ashli-Jade Douglas, an FBI analyst in our Violent Crimes Against Children Intelligence Unit who specializes in child abduction matters.  "Most non-custodial parental abductors want retaliation. They feel that if they can’t have the child full time—or any amount of time—then the other parent shouldn’t have the child, either.”

The I CARE Foundation has, for some time now, been sharing the fact that children of international parental child abduction are at risk of murder. The above statement, from the U.S. Department of Justice website, shows that children who are targeted and become victims of parental child abduction are subjected to brutal crimes - and that includes murder. No child should be subjected to such crimes of violence - ever - and society should be very concerned that this is happening.  At the hands of an abducting parent, children are put in grave risk.  A parental child abductor is willing to break the laws, ignore the orders of a court, and they have no concern with perjury or contempt.  Parental child abductors kidnap children in order to cause the targeted parent hurt and suffering.

Children of Parental Abduction are Prisoners

We must remember that children who are abducted by a parent are prisoners forced to comply with the will of their hostage-taker.

Dr. Wagner, a leading child psychologist, used the word "compliance" while discussing the reason of why hostages may not be able during their imprisonment speak-up and free themselves.

Compliance.

It hit me like a ton of bricks falling off a ten-story building.

You see, in the the world of international parental child abduction, and in this world's post-abduction reunification when both the targeted parent and the abductor may by court-order need to exist in the world of the victimized child, courts often do not realize that when they allow the kidnapper to remain bonded with the child-victim, not only does this create a sense of uncertainty for the child, but it wrongfully sends a message to the child that there was validity to their kidnapping.

Now it is imperative to remember that during the time of a child's international abduction, these children are in fact hostages. They are manipulated. They are brainwashed. They are taught to fear. And in the kidnapper's need to have that child sanction their kidnapping, kidnappers teach that failure to comply will be met with grave consequences.

Sadly, during many post-abduction reunification's, the abductor's intent to cause pain and suffering to the target parent continues via manipulation of a child.

Since the child cannot break free from the bindings of their kidnapper despite the efforts of the targeted parent, many of these children still live in fear, and are forced to live in spiritually and mentally bound ways.

They are still prisoners.

They must comply with the ever-present abductor's will.

And this must end.

Child Services Need To Heavily Consider Any Claims Made By A Parent Abductor

It is imperative that every social services program, every child welfare organization and every family protective service agency charged with investigating any claims of child abuse carefully analyze any allegations of abuse. Critically, these organizations must carefully scrutinize any claims made by a parent who was previously charged with child abduction, especially if a court determined that parent had committed a criminal act of child kidnapping, or in Hague cases during international parental child abduction that uses a civil procedure for the return of a child despite the federal act of kidnapping being committed, it is imperative that all social service personnel charged with investigating any claims of abuse or neglect made by a child abductor against their previous targeted parent be cautiously examined. 

Critically, all social service agencies acting on a complaint against a child made by a parent child abductor must commence their investigation with the hard reality that the child was a victim of kidnapping along with other forms of serious abuse, and carefully review the sociopath tendencies of abductors.As published on the United States Department of State's website, "When non-custodial parents resort to kidnapping, they believe they are acting in the best interests of their children. Although a minority of parental kidnappers may actually save their children by taking them out of the reach of the other parent, the motives of most parents who steal their children are not at all altruistic.

Parents find a myriad of reasons or self-justification for stealing a child from another parent Some abductors will find fault with the other parent for nonsensical transgressions; others will steal a child for revenge."

Profile of a Parental Child Abductor: Narcistic Sociopaths

The State Department's report includes, "[A] profile [of] the parent who shows signs of flagrant paranoid beliefs or psychotic delusions. In this situation, the intervention must focus on the child and his or her safety and well-being . . . Unfortunately, the other parent and the child must be informed about a safety plan at all times."  Continuing, the Department of State's report specifically states, "[The] profile [of an international parental child abductor] is the sociopathic personality."

Again, nobody wants to think about a parent killing their child.

However, we must take into heavy consideration the statement by the United States Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)  concerning the sociopathic behavior of abductors. Grave concern was expressed, "As with paranoid and delusional parents, sociopathic parents are unable to perceive their children as having separate needs or rights. Consequently, they often use their children blatantly as instruments of revenge or punishment or as trophies in their fight with the ex-partner. Hence, the sociopathic parent believes that domestic violence and child abduction can be perpetrated with impunity. Like paranoia, a diagnosis of severe sociopathy is rare (4 percent of the studies’ samples).

Parents Murder Their Children

Filicide is not a term that I like to talk about, but the reality is, we need to talk about it more.  For those that are not aware, the term filicide refers to the deliberate act of a parent killing his or her own child.  In the United States, hundreds of children are murdered by their parents each and every year. Proportionately, filicide occurs everywhere. It is not a phenomenon isolated within American borders: parents do kill children. And we can't put our head in the sand and think this does not exist.

According to a recent statement released by the FBI, there is a trend that I find incredibly disturbing coming from non-custodial parents - and that is the rate in which they are abducting and threatening to harm their own children... all with the intent of retaliation against the parent who has been given legal custody.


Now, with a large number of American children being born to unwed parents, along with the high rate of marriages ending in divorce, the reality is that there is an increasing number of cases where a single parent is going to have custody of the child. The FBI's statistics show that between the years 2010 and 2012 there was an increase of 41% in child abduction cases that involved custody matters.  So if we add that to the increased number of those parents seeking retaliation through harming their own child - do we need to be concerned?  You bet we do!

In the FBI statement there were some recent cases of filicide that occurred at the hands of non-custodial parents:

• In 2009, a non-custodial mother abducted her 8-month-old son from his custodial father in Texas. She told the father she killed the boy to prevent the father from employing his custodial rights and in retaliation for his alleged involvement with other women.
• In 2011, a 2-year-old girl was abducted by her non-custodial father in California. A week later, both were found dead. The father committed suicide after shooting his daughter.
• In 2012, a non-custodial father in Utah abducted and killed his 7- and 5-year-old sons and then committed suicide. He was angry over not being afforded sole custody of the children.

Ashli-Jade Douglas offers up this advice to help keep children safe:  “Custodial parents should inform schools, after-care facilities, babysitters, and others who may at times be responsible for their children about what custody agreements are in place so that kids are not mistakenly released to non-custodial parents.”

The common misconception that parental abductions are considered a family matter has to end.

Parental child abduction is a serious crime. The act of abduction leads to ongoing forms of abuse toward a child. When a child is abducted they should immediately be considered to be in great danger!

Law enforcement agencies need to act quickly to ensure that these innocent children are not going to be harmed.  The sociopathic behaviors that a kidnapping parent exhibits has them believing in their own mind what they are doing is in the best interest of the child.  When we think again about the fact that many of these cases revolve around revenge or retaliation, you can see it’s not out of the question to have the ultimate revenge be at the expense of the innocent child… with the act of filicide.


This is all very disconcerting, but one thing is for certain:  raising awareness and stewarding the message about the warning signs of international parental child abduction is the key.  This awareness has played a role in reducing the number of reported outbound child kidnapping cases originating in the United States by 15% during the last two consecutive years after nearly 30 years of continued growth.

If I may ask you to please share the warning signs of international abduction – you may very well be getting this information out to a family that needs it… ultimately possibly saving the life of an innocent child.  It is that desire, that is so ingrained in me, that I continue my fight each and every day!

Together we can, and are, making a difference.

- The I CARE Foundation -