RSS
Print This PageThe Problem of International Parental Child Abduction
Last month I posted a story about a decision coming out of Indiana that required the non-custodial parent to be subject to supervision during parental visitations. The reason the court issued the order was due to fears that the American-Egyptian father would flee with the child to Egypt and never return.
The comments generated by the post were some of the more engaging and difficult comments I have read on this blog. Story after story of parents struggling with a child who was abducted. Here are a few of the comments:
My Sister was abducted almost fourteen yrs ago, she still has not been recovered. If the court system had protected my sister as they are with this child, I would have gotten to know my sister instead of wondering is she alright, is she even alive. (link)
I still live in fear each day, but as my son gets older, little by little it gets better. But the past 4 years have been a nightmare - wondering each week if something would happen. My son’s mother is dual American-Russian citizen and she has had a long term relationship with a man from another country. Mine is a case of the non-custodial parent (me) worried that the custodial mother will abduct. I received not a thread of sympathy in my local court. I tried protecting my son’s passport, but the court gave it to the mother. Soon after, it expired, and I will not sign for another. But I was notified by the State Department a month ago, that she has fraudulently applied for one for him by lying saying she has sole custody. (link)
Read more … about Adam Haseeb—in his memory…. He is my son who is now deceased. I blame the abduction—and how the State Department handled this case on his death…. Back in the year 2000 I was not notified that his father had obtained a passport on Adam and then while we were still fighting for custody he abducted four year old Adam to Syria. Hakeem Haseeb (Was a U.S. citizen—converted to ISLAM) and had no relatives in Syria…. Adam Haseeb, R.I.P. (November 9, 1995 - March 10, 2004) (link)
My ex-wife obtained passports for my sons Adam and Jason from Dept.of State in 2001. She had no legal custody, and was already on court-ordered supervised visitations because of child abuse. She received a single week ‘unsupervised’ in August 2001, and we have not seen my sons since that day. American born, but with a father born in Egypt her mother assisted her to flee there as she had duel citizenship through him. (link)
My child was abducted to Saudi Arabia in 1997 and remains there to this day. Neither the FBI, the State Department, the US Congress, not the Saudi Government have done anything to repatriate my daughter. The abductor, her non-custodial father, had several of the risk factors mentioned in the ABA Manual. Despite the fact that the judge in my case was well aware of the risk factors, he imposed no supervision on my ex-husband. The result has been 10 years of heartache for my family and me, as well as my kidnapped daughter…. Shame on the judicial system that allows this to happen again and again to the most innocen among us! (link)
My ex-wife abducted my children, Takara (then 10) and Manami (then 7), from Vancouver, B.C. to Japan in November 2004. I had sole custody and guardianship of the children by Order of the Supreme Court of British Columbia but, in keeping with Mr. Alford’s concerns about children being able to maintain strong relationships with both parents (and their extended families), I decided that it was in Takara and Manami’s best interest to visit their grandparents in Japan with their mother. I was wrong. Despite having exhausted all legal avenues within Japan, I have not seen my children for over 2 years…. (link)
Clearly for these individuals the law has failed them. With only 55 signatories, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction has offered no relief to these and other families. And as for a federal response, to the best of my knowledge, there is no federal law to address the problem of international parental child abductions except for the Hague Convention and the rules regulating the issuance of passports. One of the commenters suggested a possible solution: passing a federal law that would require both parents to be with the child at the port of departure, or alternatively one parent providing notarized documentation of permission from the other parent. I think that is an interesting idea. The State Department also strongly suggests obtaining either a state court decree of sole custody or a decree that prohibits the travel of a child without both parents’ permission or that of the court.
I would be curious if any of our readers are knowledgeable about these issues and have other ideas. I am particularly interested in whether a federal response is appropriate rather than a patchwork of state laws and ad hoc state court decrees.
Related Posts
http://opiniojuris.org/2007/02/27/the-problem-of-international-parental-child-abduction/
4 Responses
- There are no trackbacks or pingbacks associated with this post at this time.
One of the commenters suggested a possible solution: passing a federal law that would require both parents to be with the child at the port of departure, or alternatively one parent providing notarized documentation of permission from the other parent. I think that is an interesting idea. The State Department also strongly suggests obtaining either a state court decree of sole custody or a decree that prohibits the travel of a child without both parents’ permission or that of the court.
While these are good suggestions, they are mere bandaids on the bigger issue of countries (Japan, Germany and Saudi Arabia among the worst offenders) who are essentially kidnapping our citizens by their complicity. The Wall Street Journal has championed the victims on a several occasions in past years, without so much as a shrug from our government.
The State Deparment has a long history of being willing to sacrifice individual citizens for continued good relations with our allied countries. It’s long past time that we threatened severe repercussions if our citizens are not immediately returned. We should demand them back, politely but firmly. I doubt many countries would enjoy the spectacle of being held up for international scrutiny for their complicity in child kidnapping. Those countries which care to continue in such behavior should know we must reconsider our friendship with them in light of such actions.
We would never countenance the abduction of our adult citizens in such a manner.
Now, of course, American children are not the only ones abducted. They are merely the ones fortunate to have the possibility of a powerful state actor demanding their release. However, decisive action could be the catalyst to revitalize international law aspect and shame the guilty into participation.
Bush would be well advised to take up the issue, as it is one that could most likely find both popular and bipartisan approval, as well as being an issue the Executive can confront with little interference from Congress. It would give him a worthy cause sorely needed in the twilight of his Presidency and perhaps restore his luster in the eyes of the populace.
at 2:58 pm EST Matthew Gross
Dear Roger,
There actually is Federal legislation relating to this issue. See Title 18, Section 1204. This legislation was passed in 1993 if memory serves correctly. Unfortunately, the U.S. Attorney offices are not well-versed on the issues involved. Also, for some time, the legislation at the state level defining joint custodial rights was less than ideal. However, with the widespread adoption of the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, this situation has changed. In fairness to the U.S. Department of Justice, they produced a very informative and specific publication in 2001, which was designed to educate prosecutors on the unique issues involved in child abduction/kidnapping, which can be downloaded from the USDOJ website. That said, from my own personal experience (my wife kidnapped my infant son in 2005 in Switzerland), the U.S. Attorney offices are almost wholly unfamiliar with the latest developments in the law. Moreover, the literature on this issue adequately demonstrates that in most U.S. jurisdictions that the victimized parent will be dismissed summarily–frequently, with comments such as, “We don’t get involved in domestic disputes.” If you explore this further with FBI agents, you will find that there is a substantial level of frustration within their ranks because of the consistent refusal of U.S. Attorney offices to take such cases forward.
As to the comments regarding the State Department, I would have to agree with some of the commentators that their responses and capacity are suboptimal. In the first year of Hague case, I was rotated through 3 different case officers. Phone calls and e-mails are frequently ignored, etc.
On the whole, the system is not working in accordance with the law. Victimized parents are left with few options and resources at their disposal. I consider myself fortunate because I am an experienced international lawyer, and I at least knew some of the basic steps to try at the point of kidnapping.
I would be glad to provide you with further information if you wish and I would be glad to testify before the Congress and the Senate on this issue. If you knew all the details in my case, I am sure you would be shocked and appalled.
The bottom line is that this country talks about family values frequently, but in international kidnapping cases, it does very little.
Best regards,
Scott
at 10:33 am EST Scott N. Carlson
Dear Roger:
I’m not surprised at your reprise with this subject - we are all aware that child/family law issues are extremely emotive and add to the mix the international dimension and you have a recipe for tragedy.
I concur whole heartedly with the comments regarding the US Department of State, but as a non-American who has received the sharp end of their Hague stick, I believe that “sub-optimal” is far too soft an adjective.
The Office of Children’s Issues is staffed by individuals who operate their own agendas outside of official US government policy - Georgina DeBroer, Anne, MacGahuey and Barbara Greig to name a few.
While the US is the only Hague signatory that has a Central Authority resident in it’s foreign service rather han justice department children, US and foreign, are going to continue to receive short shrift from being sacrificed in the name of diplomatic expediency or xenophobic/mysandry that also makes repeaed appearances.
I research international child abduction issues extensively, and I am confronted by the emotional pleadings of so many parents for their missing children - the Hague Convention is nothing more than oil on very troubled waters - but with each country the focus is on “Me ! Me ! Me !” without regard to the situation when it is reversed e.g. a child is abducted to the United States, usually that results in a general laissez faire attitude and oh well, this is the US so the kid will be OK.
Until Hague starts being imposed and enforced (how we do that I honestly don’t know) and also, when Hague signatories start imposing some sanction against abductors to their own state (eg the US makes law that not only addresses chid abductions out of the US but also into it, removing the safe haven aspect of such abductions) and we see this reciprocated, then I believe we are all in a leaky boat with an Elastoplast over open heart surgery.
My daughter is Emily Rose Hindle - taken to the US 4 years ago by her US mother with the help of the State Department who advised law enforcement I was not to know where Emily was.
2 months after being taken she was placed up for sale, and into the care of a convicted pedophile in WI, while she has been allowed to go blind due to medical neglect for a condition that was treated for 5 months in the UK prior to being taken and while in the US was classified as missing and endangered.
Go to court I am told - but I am not allowed into the US after being barred by the very same State Department officials that helped the taking US parent and arranged for me to be arrested and kicked out of the US when I tried in 2004.
Emily was 5 years old yesterday and I doubt we shall ever see each other again no matter what court orders are issued.
Regards
Karl
http://www.emilyrosehindle.blogspot.com
at 2:36 pm EST Karl Hindle
I received this thoughtful email from a reader and I forward it to you without attribution (but with permission):
Hi Roger:
Noted your post on Opinio Juris and I have these suggestions in response to how to further prevent international abductions:
Prevention i.e. before a child is removed
1. Rigorous enforcement of the two parent signature law (Nance/Donovan etc) for passport issuance to minors within and without the US (removal of passport issuance function from the Department of State);
2. Cessation of domestic violence exception in 8 CFR 51 for issuance of passports to minors
3. Exit controls at point of departure from locations within the US (currently there are none - have passport will travel);
4. Federal level legislation and control - (at the State level it is worthless as it is so easily by-passed and if a child is removed from the US, federal level intervention alone will carry weight with a non-US jurisdiction, State warrants are practically useless) cf Synclair-Cannon Law, California (Larry Synclair and Josef Cannon - put either name in google and you’ll find the legislation) - further unilateral state legislation eg Nebraskan LB 341 sponsor Senator Schimek, can compromise international cooperation between the whole of the US and another HC contracting state.
Cure i.e. after a child is taken
1. Rigorous enforcement of the Hague Convention and obligations imposed upon the US in the event of a return of a child to the United States - currently it is a take it or leave it buffet, once a child is sent to the US for proceedings an abducting parent subsequently has very little chance of fair proceedings in the US which is causing “disquiet” abroad;
2. Removal of administration and functions of the US Central Authority from the Department of State to the Department of Justice - in practice, the US has a reputation for operating a three-tier system in regard to international abductions based upon a sliding scale of diplomatic expediency, then gender and claims of domestic violence and thereafter you have a catch-all - this is not appropriate, a legalistic approach to the Hague Convention is required not a diplomatic one (note the US is the only contracting state to the HC that has the Central Authority embedded in it’s foreign service and not the justice department);
3. Full adoption of the HC by the US - at present it has reserved on certain aspects such as providing free legal representation for HC hearings (in the UK it is fully expensed by the UK taxpayer and in many other contracting states but this is not reciprocated); and
4. Full accounting by the US Central Authority of returns and access orders granted AND enforced - currently the US claims a 90% return rate (Asst Sec of State Maura Harty &Ernie Allen NCMEC) however no substantive evidence to support this has ever been provided despite censure by Congress and the GAO - the only study of comparative return rates I am aware of is that of Professor Lowe, Law Professor Cardiff University UK which indicates that under reported HC cases a return of 52% from the US is demonstrated - this is an average result for the largest budget in the world.
These suggestions do not directly assist US parents in recovery but the first thing the HC is about is mutual trust not custody issues - to this end it is interesting to read what foreign judges have had to say about returning children to the US (as it is after all a non-US judge that will determine a return or not) cf Tom Johnson and Sweden non-return (google him); Josef Cannon in the High Court London UK non-return to the US.
Presently, the US is perceived by many in the EU and elsewhere as a major violator of the HC, not officially of course, but judges, practitioners and civil servants abroad are not stupid and many EU states only allow a small pool of judges to hear HC cases who have gained experience of events after a US return is made, it does not generally make for happy reading - there have been several cases of children sent to the US on the basis that it will protect a child and has failed, several spring to mind involving Sweden, UK, Germany and Spain.
Suggestions for HC Development
1. Reciprocal agreements between contracting states regarding use of their jurisdictions as safe havens - ICARA/IKPA deal with abductions out of the US but not to it, I think this is a fundamental weakness in the current HC aproach of dealing with the issue after the child has been taken - imposing sanctions on a parent who abducts to your jurisdiction may be a better way of preventing an abduction to begin with rather than the current cat-and-mouse game with an abducting parent simply hiding until a child is settled in the new environment;
2. Sanctions against non-compliant contracting states e.g. suspension of returns, demand for monetary damages enforceable and mandated at the Hague, enforcement powers at the Hague for dispute resolution;
3. Contracting states provide “attributable rights” to foreign parents litigating in the jurisdiction - by this I mean, a right to freely enter and leave a contracting state (i.e. no visas or no revocation of spousal visas upon divorce cf Japan); same rights and protections as a native of a contracting state would enjoy eg privacy (US Privacy Act and current State Department practice as outlined in FAM 7 denies a right to privacy for a non-citizen for instance) - this develops art 7 &21 and the removal of obstructions by contracting states to resolution;
4. Change the name of the HC from “Child Abduction” to “Jurisdiction for Child Hearings” as with the UCCJA/UCCJEA - abduction = kidnapping in laymans eyes, even for law enforcement and social services and it is not - it benefits no-one to make this a more emotive affair.
at 10:07 am EST Roger Alford