Monday, October 13, 2014

Protecting An At-Risk Child From International Parental Child Abduction During Travel

Some of you may not be aware of the term international parental child abduction, but those of us that are involved with the I CARE Foundation are all too familiar with it.  International parental child abduction is a serious issue that affects many thousands of unsuspecting parents and children worldwide each and every year.  It is a severe form of abuse against not only innocent children, but also those parents that must then fight to reunite... hopefully safely... with their parentally kidnapped child.  It is a horrific and unforgiving world that no parent... and no child... should ever have to experience.  The I CARE Foundation is very aware of the incredible risks and challenges that face both the abducted child and left behind parents once an abduction takes place... so prevention is always the key!
When we look at abduction prevention, one of the most effective tools readily available to parents is the I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form, specifically protecting a child from wrongful retention in a foreign country which accounts for approximately 85-90% of all international child abductions. If your child is going to be traveling abroad, as a parent you should seriously consider utilizing this proven effective travel consent form to protect your child from abduction.  Being proactive is the key as the majority of parents who have become victims, have rarely seen the warning signs that may have told them the other parent was planning to kidnap their child.
Peter Thomas Senese, the Executive Director of the I CARE Foundation shares, "The travel document does not simply act as a parent consent form allowing a child to travel abroad but reinforces a child's return to their country of origin based upon affirmation requirements that remove the majority of an abductor's legal defenses to remain abroad in connection with Hague law.  The consent form is a tool that can be utilized by parents around the world, as well as attorneys who are trying to protect abduction. If a traveling parent refuses to sign the document, then under no circumstance should the other parent or a court permit a child to travel abroad as there is a heightened increase to an abduction threat."
As you read this you might think to yourself... "This could never happen to me".  Generally every parent that has become a victim would have, at some point, said the same thing. The parents that need to pay most attention to this information are those that are involved in relationships that are strained or are in the midst of a divorce or separation, as well, those that are involved in child custody disputes,  These parents should be very aware of the risks involved when it comes to your child traveling abroad - in particular if your child's other parent has strong ties to a foreign country. Another important aspect to this - if you happen to have a custody agreement that states that your child must travel, never assume that a court order is enough to ensure that your child will return home safely because this is just not the case.  A parent that is already willing to kidnap their child, which is an extreme form of child abuse, is not going to think twice about ignoring the requirements of a court order.  The simple fact is that without the protection of a travel consent form that has immediate and clear ramifications attached to it, such as the I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form, there are no guarantees that your child will return home.
Understand that the intent here is not to be blunt, but rather share the cruel reality that faces so many families today.  Is there a chance that yours might be one of these families?  If so, don't hide your head in the sand.  Being proactive and being aware of the warning signs of international parental child abduction, could well protect your child from a life of abuse at the hands of his/her other parent.
If you don't fit into any of the criteria above, you should still be aware when traveling. Parental child abduction can commonly occur when both parents are traveling with their child to a foreign country. Perhaps you have planned a family vacation over, say, Christmas holidays during which, something like this could happen: The traveling family arrives in the foreign country they are visiting, and once they have landed, the would-be abducting parent files false claims of abuse and neglect against the other parent... the unsuspecting parent!  Once this is done, they notify the other parent that they and the child will not be returning back to the country of original jurisdiction.  From here, the targeted parent is generally forced to return back home without their child where they then need to seek legal assistance.
This is an example of what the cruel and unforgivable world of international child abduction can be like.  But once again, it is important to note, that as a parent there are things that can be done to help protect your child and to help protect yourself.
The I CARE Foundation focuses a great deal of their efforts on abduction prevention and has been involved in an growing number of cases in both prevention and reunification. The work of those involved with the Foundation speaks for itself.  At the forefront of this work is Peter Thomas Senese, who shows time and again that protecting children from parental abduction is a commitment that he stands unbowed to so that children and their families may never know the nightmare that is the world of international abduction. There are numerous sworn testimonial letters from individuals regarding the advocacy and volunteer work that Peter does each and every day.  As well, Peter has provided testimony to the United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in regards to the issues that revolve around international parental child abduction.
And on a final note, it's important to mention again about the 12.23% decline in the reported U.S. outbound abduction rate during the year 2013.  This past year's decline brings the overall reduction in the outbound rate of international parental child abduction to over 38% since the I CARE Foundation began their advocacy efforts and working to bring an end to international abduction and trafficking.  As the I CARE Foundation continues it's extensive work in advocating and protecting children we hope to see this trend continue in the year to come.  However, the truth is, there is still a great of work to do... so our efforts continue while we work to protect the innocence of children around the world.


To DOWNLOAD a copy of the International Travel Child Consent Form, please visit the I CARE Foundation's official website.

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Murder and Death: Dangers Left Behind Parents Face Attempting To Reunite With Victims Of International Child Abduction

I CARE Foundation Call-To-Arms
Left behind parents of international child abduction face extreme and at times deadly risks when they attempt to reunite with their internationally kidnapped child under the auspices of a court order or when a legal arm of justice has no reach due to diluted, contradictory, or non-existent international law dealing with international child abduction.  In less than one month's time, the community of left behind parents lost two more parents (fathers) who were in the process of reuniting with their abducted children. The I CARE Foundation would like to express our deepest sympathies to families and friends of both fathers after such terrible tragedies.

The deaths of these fathers - one a murder and one an accident - should not have happened and would not have occurred if their children had not been abducted.  Responsibility in great part of these two tragic events undeniably falls on the international legal community at large that does not expedite the severity of international child abduction, and as demonstrated in the tragedy of Mr. Mattoni - countries such as the Philippines still have not acted responsibly and joined the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. Let me make this clear - the deaths of Mr. Exposito Moreno and Mr. Mattoni should not have occurred. But there is more - the reality is that so many left behind parents who have their children kidnapped abroad have their lives threatened. These threats are not rare but are actually the norm. As a society we must not accept either a child's international abduction or the very real threats aimed at targeted parents of abduction. This is an outrage!

The gravity of the hardships chasing parents face in the wake of their child's parental abduction are far from isolated incidences. Left behind parents are at often victims of murder, death threats (including threats to family members), tragic accidents, assaults, false allegations of abuse and/or assault, identity theft, slander, financial theft, and anything else that will assist the parental child kidnapper in getting away with their act of kidnapping.  The reality is left behind parents not only have to deal with the fact that their child has been internationally kidnapped, but that their life is under attack by their child's other parent - the child's kidnapper.

The I CARE Foundation has repeatedly stated there are typically two victims when it comes to international parental child abduction: the victimized, kidnapped child and the left behind parent.

Rightfully, society's primary attention focuses on the kidnapped child; however, for too long we have not addressed the real dangers that left behind parents, chasing into the darkest storms face in the wake of their child's abduction.

Make no mistake, the journey that chasing parents, left in the wake of their son's or daughter's international child kidnapping face, are extreme in every possible sense.

On June 25, 2014 Domingo Exposito Moreno, age 32 and a resident of Spain's Andalusian town of Fuengirola was shot five times by a hooded gunman while sitting in a car awaiting his attorney's arrival in the southern Argentina's Patagonian City of Comodoro. Domingo Exposito Moreno was a left-behind parent who endured a prolonged four years international child abduction litigation case under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention


The Argentinian court had ordered he would be able to bring his six-year old daughter home after she had been abducted by her mother and taken from Spain to Argentina. Previous to his murder, Domingo Exposito Moreno had made complained to Argentinian authorities that he had been receiving death threats via social media forums. Tragically, local law enforcement failed to act on his complaints. More than likely law enforcement did not take his concerns seriously and more than likely wrongfully viewed his concerns as a banter commonly associated with divorce and child custody cases as opposed to the reality that his case was in fact a child kidnapping case.  An expected march is scheduled for July 25th, 2014 in Comodoro to commemorate Domingo's murder and remind the world that international parental child abduction is a dangerous crime against both child and targeted parent.

July 12, 2014 New York City resident Frank Mattoni died after being involved in a motorcycle accident while in the Philippines while attempting to reunite with his internationally kidnapped daughter Kayla. Having seen numerous court documents and exhibits that were presented to the New York State Supreme Court, Frank Mattoni claimed the child's mother Sheila Digon Castillo had taken the child to the Philippines right after the child's birth nearly 10 years ago. The court documents Frank Mattoni presented to the New York State court stated that once he ended the relationship with Sheila Digon Castillo, Ms. Castillo never informed him that she was pregnant, nor, did she inform him until several years later that he was a father.

Instead of sharing with Frank Mattoni that she was pregnant, Ms. Castillo decided it would be better for the child not to have a relationship with her father (Frank), and as Ms. Castillo was focused on advancing her career as a nurse in New York City, she decided to bring the child to the Philippines so she could be raised by her relatives.  These details were unknown to Frank as he did not know he had a daughter born and raised for the first three months of her life on Manhattan's Upper East Side. According to Frank Mattoni (and extensive court documents and evidence presented into New York State's Supreme Court), Sheila Digon Castillo contacted Frank on his birthday several years ago after not contacting him since Frank ended his relationship with Sheila (in court documents presented by both parties, there were no claims of abuse made against Frank) and told him that she and his daughter wish him a happy birthday. He was told that his daughter's name was Kayla (who looks so much like Frank), and that she was living in the Philippines.
That day was the first time Frank ever knew he had a daughter.  Frank was a wonderful man and this news, about having a daughter, clearly brought such incredible joy to his life.

Soon after, Frank arranged for Sheila to travel to the Philippines and pick up Kayla in order to bring her back to the United States.  So Frank eventually got to meet his beautiful daughter, and with that he quickly stepped into the role of being a proud father, which was evidenced by the hours and hours of videos and pictures I personally viewed.

Obviously and rightfully so, Frank had serious trust issues concerning Sheila - how could he not when this was a person who would deny their child the love of their father, especially since Frank was a good man.  So one day, and unknown to Sheila, Frank took Kayla to the hospital to have both of their DNA tested.  Sure enough, Kayla was indeed Frank's daughter. And as he told me, "It was one of the greatest days of my life ... just knowing. The greatest day was when I looked at my daughter for the first time: I knew she was my daughter."

During the near month that Kayla was in the United States, Frank welcomed Sheila and Kayla into his extended family.  The pictures and videos I have witnessed showed a young girl ... finally coming home ... and a father who simply loved her and was willing to do anything possible in a cooperative, co-parenting way for Kayla's sake.

In order to have a voice in Kayla's life, Frank knew that he needed to seek the assistance of the courts. As he told me, he had some real concerns that Sheila was perhaps not telling him the truth when it came to co-parenting Kayla. So he sought relief and assistance from the New York State Supreme Court which at the time had jurisdiction over Kayla while she was in New York.

Unfortunately, Frank was unable to serve Sheila with his court papers before she whisked the child back to the Philippines and out of the reach of the New York State Supreme Court.  New York state no longer had jurisdiction because Kayla was no longer living in New York, nor had she been there for the required period of time that would have allowed the state's courts long-arm reach regarding jurisdiction... all this despite the fact that Ms. Castillo lived in New York and only one mile away from Frank!

Even with the DNA evidence that Frank had, proving that Kayla was his daughter, this evidence meant nothing in New York. Frank put forth real efforts, which revolved solely around the best interest of his daughter in a co-parenting light, to resolve this matter.  However, I witnessed on many occasions the telephone calls, emails, etc from Frank that went unanswered. Eventually, Frank left New York and went to the Philippines in an effort to reunite with his daughter, Kayla, who truly meant everything in the world to him. And I do mean, everything.

Tragically, during his efforts to reunite with his daughter, he passed away after being involved in a motorcycle accident. His death will be felt by so many individuals that knew and cared for Frank. Sadly, his daughter Kayla will only know a part of the loving father he was.

And should one day Kayla Castillo Mattoni ever read this, Kayla I hope you know just how much your father loved you.  You brought such joy and happiness to his life.  One day I hope you are able to obtain the United States of America flag that was flown over the United States Capitol in your father's honor, along with the accompanying citation in your name, that I presented to him.

Once again, the hard reality that the Philippines is not a member of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention further demonstrates, as in Frank Mattoni's case, how a loving parent has limited options available to them outside of traveling to the foreign country and attempting to reunite with the child overseas. The challenges Frank faced trying to reunite with his daughter are not uncommon.

Sadly, even the best of efforts to reunite a child with their left behind parent can often fail.  The hard truth is that international parental child abduction law is complex - and growing more complicated with each day as exemplified by a widened acceptance of Article 13(1) defenses under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

To put it as simple as possible - the vast majority of children around the world do not come home because the systems we use do not work effectively, or the systems we expect to exist to help children and parents of abduction simply do not exist.

The tragic deaths of Domingo Exposito Moreno and Frank Mattoni - though different - exemplify the risks left behind parents face. These tragedies are not uncommon, nor are the real death threats and other formidable acts left behind parents have to face.

Today, I am happy to share that the U.S. Senate passed Senate Resolution 2509. This is a very big deal in the fight to protect American children and their targeted parents from abduction.

With approximately 20% of American children abducted to Hague signatory countries being court ordered to be returned home, and approximately 11% of American children abducted to non-Hague signatory countries being court ordered by a foreign court to be returned to the United States, it is imperative that judges everywhere realize that the reality is that the most left behind parents will never reunite with their abducted child. In the meantime, the risks and peril they face are extreme.

The key to protecting children from international parental child abduction is to prevent it from happening. Since the I CARE Foundation's inception, the U.S. child abduction rate has declined over the past four years by 38.06%.

2009-2013_CasesChildren_AbductionDecline_sizeSmall 1

May God look over the souls of Domingo Exposito Moreno and Frank Mattoni while also protecting the lives of these two fathers' daughters.

On behalf of The I CARE Foundation,

Peter Thomas Senese 

Click here to read articles about International Parental Child Abduction

   

Sunday, July 6, 2014

What U.S. Travel Consent Form Should Be Used For American Children Traveling Internationally?

The I CARE Foundation: For divorced, separated, or parents in a volatile situation, using the right international travel child consent form is by far one of the most important choices a parent can make when a child is either court-ordered to travel abroad or by mutual consent. The reality is that the majority of international child abduction cases occur when one parent wrongfully detains a child in a foreign country outside of a court order or consent of the other parent. Tragically, only a small minority of children abducted abroad are returned to their country of habitual residency by court-order. The vast majority of children do not come home. 



The I CARE Foundation's international travel child consent form is the only global travel child consent form that was created in order to protect against international child abduction.  The document has been called an exceptional child abduction prevention tool by the Secretary General of the Hague Conference, as well as a wide global range of leaders around the world familiar with child abduction. 

Here is the truth of what you need to know in order to protect your child from abduction related to the child not being returned to their home when they travel abroad.


  1. All parents, regardless of where you and your child live, should ONLY use the I CARE Foundation's model, Hague-centric international travel child consent form.
  2. Despite international child abduction being a serious crime, it is seldom prosecuted. In addition, the vast majority of countries that a child may be wrongfully detained in will not uphold an extradition request based upon parental child abduction. The point being that you should not expect the criminal prosecution threat or component to prevent abduction.
  3. The 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention was created to protect against abduction and in essence return children to their country of habitual residence. The problem is that there are sizable abduction defenses in the Hague Convention, making it extremely difficult for a child to be returned home. For example, less than 20% of American children abducted abroad to a country that is a member of the Hague Convention were court-ordered to be returned to their country of habitual residency. Additionally, only 11% of children abducted to non-Hague countries were court ordered returned.  Making up for some of the returns are voluntary returns, but lets be very clear about this: at least 50% of children abducted abroad do not come home one way or another. In the meantime, if you are a parent that has a child abducted, you can expect to pay a fortune of money in order to bring your child home. And we're not talking about a few thousand dollars. Reality is that many parents experience costs of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and even then, there is no guarantee they will get their child home.
  4. The majority of targeted parents of abduction do not see the act of kidnapping coming. And why would they? After all, the number one priority of an abductor is to make sure that their intent to abduct is not revealed. It is critical to know the warning signs of child abduction
  5. The I CARE Foundation's international travel child consent form is a Hague-centric form. This means it takes into consideration nearly every possibility that may occur when an abductor wrongfully detains a child abroad. Thus far, and to the best of our knowledge, every child using our form has in fact come home. 
  6. Numerous law journals and law publications have published material on the I CARE Foundation's travel consent form. International child abduction is complex, as too are the defenses used by one parent against another when abduction occurs. When the I CARE Foundation created our travel consent form, we took into account the complexity of all these issues. Thus, our form is detailed and specific because we know the complexities of law surrounding abduction including the arguments an abducting parent may present in order to defend against their act. What we have done is essentially removed defenses often used in abduction cases by incorporating important language in our I CARE Foundation international travel child consent form. We invite you to review our legal analysis of the I CARE Foundation's travel consent form as published by the Colorado Bar Association to understand the complexity of abduction when a child is wrongfully detained abroad.


Here is the reality: the I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form is the best and only global international child abduction prevention tool. No matter what - any parent, but especially those who have children from a multi-national marriage, and those who have or may be experiencing divorce or separation - must use the I CARE Foundation's travel form

On behalf of the I CARE Foundation,



Friday, July 4, 2014

Peter Thomas Senese on the I CARE Foundation's Dedicated Work Protecting Children


Looking out over the past four years of the I CARE Foundation's activity working to protect children from international child abduction, my eyes and my spirit reflect upon a sea of faces of children and parents we have helped. However, there are other faces - the faces of the dedicated I CARE Foundation staff who work day-in and day-out on behalf of at-risk children. And today, on America's Independene Day, I applaud each member of the I CARE Foundation family around the world as each of your unselfish acts have, in reality, made a significant and immeasurable positive difference on the lives of so many others. Unquestionably, it is through each of your acts of dedication to fighting the fight against child abduction that we, as a private non-profit organization, have created a large, positive, and formidable footprint on behalf of children everywhere.

Since we formally commenced our operations, our achievements continue to grow. Yet, it is in the challenges that lay ahead that we continue our dedicated daily work. In these challenges and tasks that lay ahead of us, we are reminded that if we continue our work, we will continue to realize our goals of creating a global environment where children are not at risk of abduction. Some of the achievements we have accomplished include, but are not limited to:


  1. The United States outbound international parental child abduction rate has dropped by 38.06% while in the rest of the world the outbound child abduction rate continues to rapidly grow. For example, in England the outbound child abduction rate has reportedly grown by nearly 100% over the past decade. God willing, the I CARE Foundation's reach in England via our landmark and groundbreaking international travel child consent form will reduce the abduction rate in England and nearly every other country in the world, where, in reality, the abduction rate has grown to pandemic levels.
  2. The I CARE Foundation's creation and global implementation of our international travel child consent form has been directly responsible for ensuring the safety of a large and growing number of children around the world. In fact, the scholarly and legally sound travel consent form has been called the first and only global child abduction prevention tool: one that in a year's time has changed the landscape of child abduction prevention. We take great pride in knowing that not only has our travel consent form been called 'Remarkable' by the Hague Conference Secretary General, but due to its success, plans are underway within the Hague Permanent Bureau to create an official Hague International Travel Consent Form using the I CARE Foundation's form as a model.When we consider that studies show that at least 70% of all international parental child abductions occur when a child is wrongfully detained abroad, and less than 20% of all children are court-ordered to be returned to their country of habitual residency, not only has our work protected the lives of many, but in a very real way, the I CARE Foundation's travel consent form protects the integrity of the Hague Child Abduciton Convention. 
  3. Our work implementing the Prevent Departure Program has prevented a large and growing number of abductions in the United States.
  4. Our work associated with preventing child abduction in connection with the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative has made a meaningful and measurable impact protecting American children. 
  5. We have helped pass numerous laws and altered existing government policies geared to protect children while also successfully altering proposed legislation that could have been catastrophic in the real fight to protect all children from abduction. 
  6. We have become one of the leading organizations conducting research and publishing our findings on parental child abduction. In fact, our research has helped create new tools and policy that has had a giant impact on behalf of children.
  7. We have raised society's awareness of international parental child abduction, including awareness amongst potentially targeted parents. Our social media outreach has had immeasurable results: the 38.06% U.S. abduction decline is directly related to our outreach campaigns.
  8. We have prevented the abduction of a large and growing number of children.
  9. We have successfully reunited a large and growing number of children with their families.
  10. Perhaps most of all, we have acted with our compassionate hearts.
Today is Independence Day in America. Personally, it is a very important day for it celebrates liberty. 

On this special day, I am reminded that children around the world have a God-given right to live in freedom.  Our work continues. 

To all my friends who I am proud to work side-by-side with, I wish to each of you a Happy Independence Day - wherever you are in the world.

And America - Happy Birthday!

- Peter Thomas Senese -



Friday, June 27, 2014

Murder -The Reality of International Parental Child Abduction For Left-Behind Parents and Abducted Children

A left-behind Spanish father was assassinated gangland style in Argentina while in route to legally recover his young daughter, who had previously been internationally kidnapped by her mother. Mr. Domingo Exposito Moreno, age 32  and a resident of Spain's Andalusian town of Fuengirola was shot five times by a hooded gunman while sitting in a car awaiting his attorney's arrival in the southern Argentina's Patagonian City of Comodoro. Domingo Exposito Moreno was a left-behind parent who endured a prolonged four years international child abduction litigation case under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. The Argentinian court had ordered he would be able to bring his six-year old daughter home after she had been abducted by her mother and taken from Spain to Argentina. Comodoro is located 1,800 kilometers south of Buenos Aries

Previous to his murder, Domingo Exposito Moreno had made complained to Argentinian authorities that he had been receiving death threats via social media forums. However, it appears local law enforcement failed to act on his complaints. More than likely law enforcement did not take his concerns seriously and more than likely wrongfully viewed his concerns as a banter commonly associated with divorce and child custody cases as opposed to the reality that his case was in fact a child kidnapping case. 
Domingo Exposito Moreno was expected to fly back to Spain from Argentina with his daughter. Now that is not possible. However, an investigation is under way focusing on the child's mother. 
Mr. Domingo Exposito Moreno's last Facebook posting was made on May 31st, 2014. He wrote, "Today is 3 months since I have seen you. I miss your kisses, your hugs, your smile. I miss you so much daughter that my life is going out every minute that I know nothing about you. Every night I look at the star and send you a message of love and strength as I look forward to the day we meet again and embrace each other. Know that your Dad is always by your side and you will never be abandoned. I will continue to fight for justice."
The Reality of Murder When A Parent Internationally Abducts A Child
The singular most harmful omission made in the world of international parental child abduction is the downgrade of the horrific act of child abduction that targets both the child and the left-behind parent as a child custody dispute. It is not a child custody dispute. International parental child abduction is kidnapping - and children who are kidnapped by one parent from another are placed in extremely dangerous situations. So too are the targeted left-behind parents as exemplified by the murder of Domingo Exposito Moreno.
There is no question children-victims of parental child abduction are placed into intolerable, highly abusive physical, spiritual, and emotional situations.  In fact, in June of 2013, the United States Department of State issued a report stating that children of parental abduction face severe abuse including extreme violence and risk of murder. Truth is filicide: parental child murder is a cruel reality that takes away hundreds of innocent American child-citizens lives each year. Parents murdering their children is not an anomaly. It happens abundantly in each country around the world. Look at India with over 3,000 Honor Killings (really, 'honor'? Seriously?). 

In fact, in June, 2013 the Department of Justice issued a report warning that children of parental abduction face extreme violence and possible murder

Tragically, the risk of murder for child victims of abduction does not end when their physical parental abduction ends. Far from it. In the Fall of 2014 the I CARE Foundation will publish our 2 year study detailing the correlation between suicide and children who previously experienced parental child abduction.
For those stakeholders who are deeply familiar with international parental child abduction, it is commonly understood that Left-Behind Parents are in fact near-equal victims of extreme abuse. And as the fallen life of Mr. Domingo Exposito Moreno demonstrates, threats and acts of murder are realities. In fact, threats of murder are abundant in international parental child abduction cases as the abducting parent and their support system often are willing to do whatever is necessary to put fear and intimidation into the life of the targeted parent.

The fact is the vast majority of child abducting parents are not liberating parents. They are sociopaths who believe that they can use a child's life to cause great harm and destroy the very fabric of the child's other parent.  Sadly, some parents believe that if they can't have sole possession of their child, then the other parent should not either. And tragically, that scenario does end with murder.

Left Behind Parents and Death Threats

Several years ago the I CARE Foundation reunited an American parent with their child who had been kidnapped to a dangerous and unstable African country (one of many reunifications we were responsible for dealing with Africa). In this particular case, the left-behind parent (who possessed a court order for the child's return) was told that should they ever enter the country where the child was being wrongfully held, that he and his family would be murdered. He knew the threats were real. As I said - the I CARE Foundation brought the child home. But the threat of murder was real. This father was not alone in fearing for his life.

In fact, threats of murder are a rather consistent theme in international parental child abduction cases.

In another case the I CARE Foundation was involved with, a mother (who possessed a court order for the child's return) had her child abducted to an unstable, politically polarized Middle East country. She too was told that if she attempted to recover her child that she would never leave the country alive. Today, both mother and child are home and excelling, but the death threats were real.

Neither parent I mention above is alone. Truth it, death threats and the realities of murder and extreme violence against both child and targeted parent of abduction are real and rampant.

Of course, left-behind parents face threats outside of having their life permanently taken. For example, in many cases, the abducting parent launches their abduction plan well in advance of their act of kidnapping. Part of their scheme is to bring about false charges such as domestic violence and abuse against the other parent (and this happens amongst men and women near equally: it is gender equal).in order to put the targeted parent in jail (often with intent to leave the country while the child's other parent is detained) while also creating evidence in hope that the inbound court where they abduct the child to will sanction their act of kidnapping (In Hague Convention signatory countries abducting parents will rely on Article 13 b 'the best interest clause' of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention). Truth is, it is not difficult to fabricate a domestic violence claim.

A Message To The Courts And Law Practitioners Who Handle Abduction Cases

When we deal with an international parental child abduction case, the first view we must always keep in mind is that we're not here to determine jurisdiction or custody, but we are here to prevent murder and extreme violence. That's the threshold that every case should begin with. And with this initial step - urgency must always prevail.
This Is Outrageous: 91 of 92 Signatory Countries To The 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention Do Not Report The Number of Outbound Or Inbound Abduction Cases
In my capacity as the Executive Director of the I CARE Foundation, the topic of global abduction statistics often comes up in conversation.  The truth is NOBODY knows what the international parental child abduction rate is. NOBODY!

One of the shameful reasons as to why this is the case is because 91 of the 92 signatory countries to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention DO NOT report the abduction rate. So in this sense, we applaud the United States Department of State and Congress for their continued transparency. 

But really, how hard can it possibly be to sit in a room and count the folders of each case application that is filed with a Central Authority? Seriously - each Central Authority knows their own inbound and outbound case load - or at least has the ability of counting each folder file.

And for those of us who understand the operations of the Hague Conference, the Permanent Bureau has created INCADAT (the International Child Abduction Database). However, the vast majority of signatory countries and their Central Authorities do not provide to the Hague details of each case. In essence, they do not report their cases to the Permanent Bureau.

Now - there is no mandate to do so. But really?  We're talking about tens of thousands of victims - not thousands - but tens of thousands of child abduction victims kidnapped each year.

If you're wondering why I have stated 'Tens of Thousands' of international cases while no country other than the U.S. is reporting their statistics, it is because of the I CARE Foundation's own research in this area. For example, it is our strong belief that the number of unreported cases of IPCA in the United States is 100% to 125% of the reported cases of abduction due in part to a large population of undocumented immigrants not realizing they have the right to report abduction without fear of deportation, the failure to report abduction cases by targeted parents of children abducted to Non-Hague countries, limited knowledge on who to turn to by left-behind parents, failure of law enforcement to view this act as abduction as opposed to a child custody case, and a sense of hopelessness due to low return rates and high costs associated with international kidnapping recovery.  So, in the United States, the 2013 Department of State report to Congress stated there were 1,044 reported outbound cases of parental abduction. Thus, if the unreported cases is only 100% of the reported cases, the U.S. should have had at least 2,100 outbound cases of abduction in 2013.

Consequences Of Not Reporting: The Abduction Pandemic Grows
It is inconceivable that the overwhelming countries that are signatory members of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention do not report the inbound and outbound international parental child abduction rate. It is beyond unacceptable to know that the vast majority of Central Authorities do not uphold their responsibility and update the Hague's INCADAT database.

It is simply not acceptable that the majority of countries are purposefully concealing their international parental child abduction rates.  We're not talking about a difficult task: each parent who petitions for legal relief under the Hague Convention alone files a Hague Petition. How hard could it be for each country's Central Authority to count the petitions that are filed by either their own citizens (outbound) or petitioned to them by another Central Authority (Inbound).

The world needs to know just how severe this pandemic is. Failure for the leaders of each Central Authority to begin reporting accurately the number of international child kidnappings is immoral. Failures to report have minimized the severe problem at hand and have greatly marginalized the need for help parents like Domingo Exposito Moreno desperately need as they attempt to protect their innocent children.

Our children need more from us. We can all do better. Let the life of Domingo Exposito Moreno and all those victims of international parental child abduction who have come before Domingo and who will come after him be not only a reminder of the deadly reality of parental child abduction, but let it be a call-to-arms for greater transparency and action to protect our children.

On a personal note, I would like to extend my deepest sympathy to the family of Domingo Exposito Moreno. If anyone is aware of an educational trust being established for his daughter, I welcome any information that may be provided. The email address to write to is: legal@theicarefoundation.org.

On behalf of The I CARE Foundation,

Peter Thomas Senese

http://theicarefoundation.org/international-travel-child-consent-form/



Friday, May 23, 2014

2013 U.S. Outbound International Abduction Statistics Show A 12.23% Decline... 38.06% Decline Since 2009

The United States reported cases of outbound international parental child abduction declined by 12.23%  according to statistics supplied to the United States Congress by the United States Department of State.  The drop in the abduction rate marks the fourth consecutive year the number of American children victimized by international child abduction has declined. During fiscal years 2009 through 2013 the total abduction rate has declined by 38.06%. The reported drop in American child kidnappings is an anomaly in comparison to the existing worldwide growth of international parental child abduction cases that is nothing short of a pandemic.


On behalf of my I CARE Foundation colleagues and the families around the world we have assisted, I would personally like to acknowledge all individuals who have worked to protect children from abduction. I would also like to acknowledge the remarkable efforts and leadership in the area of governmental advocacy displayed by the United States Department of State's Office of Childrens Issues, who, over the past three years in particular have made great strides in protecting American children from abduction. There is a reason why American children are being protected, and it begins with the Office of Childrens Issues.

Additionally, the effort to protect children includes the many stakeholders, including other non-government organizations and their respective teams who have worked tirelessly to protect children and targeted families. It has only been through a collective effort by all advocates that the mountain of abduction here in the United States continues to be pushed back.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge all my colleagues at the I CARE Foundation around the world for the tireless efforts that have been put forth over the years since we actively began working to protect children from kidnapping. It is not coincidental that since we began our work to protect children from abduction that there has been a four-year consecutive decline equating to a 38.06% reduction in the United States international child abduction rate.

We acknowledge the 12.23% decline in the outbound abduction rate of American children that took place in 2013. However, truth is that this is not enough. Far from it. Additionally, there is a pandemic occurring worldwide that is destroying innocence. And it must be stopped.

There is work to be done.

Peter Thomas Senese
On Behalf Of The I CARE Foundation


THE I CARE FOUNDATION

Report on International Parental Child Abduction 
In The United States Of America

International Parental Child Abduction Today – 2014”

Written By
Peter Thomas Senese

Issued On May 23rd, 2014


United States Reported Outbound Child Abduction Rate Drops By 12.23 %

The 2013 reported number of outbound cases and actual number of reported child victims of international parental child abduction originating from the United States has significantly declined during 2013. Remarkably, this is the fourth consecutive year in a row (reporting years 2009-2013) that the United States international parental child abduction outbound rate has declined. According to the 2014 Department of State’s Hague Compliance Report to Congress, there was a 12.23% decline in the actual number of reported child victims of international parental kidnapping representing a reduction of 140 children. In addition, there was a 12.14% decline in the number of reported cases of abduction representing a caseload decline of 97 cases. The decline in the reported cases and number of child victims being removed from the United States is an anomaly: worldwide the vast majority of countries reporting incidents of international parental child abduction as defined by the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention continues to surge at pandemic rates, with the average annual child abduction growth rate forecasted at over 20% per year. 

Despite the significant decline in the reported outbound decline in the abduction rate of American children originating from the United States, we caution that international parental child abduction (herein referred to as ‘IPCA’) remains a severe, highly abusive, and potentially deadly crime that targets thousands of American children and hundreds of thousands of children around the world each year. The fact remains that IPCA is a highly abusive criminal act against a child that places the child in great physical and emotional danger, and could jeopardize the child’s life.

In the United States and abroad our reality remains child-citizens continue to be criminally kidnapped, illegally removed overseas, and wrongfully detained in foreign countries in shocking numbers by their non-custodial parent.

The significance in the 12.23% decline in individual cases of IPCA during 2013 should not be minimized, nor should the remarkable 38.06% reported decline in the number of reported individual outbound cases originating from the United States over the past four reporting years (2009-2013). In fact, statistically these are remarkable gains and exemplify the tremendous leadership and dedication first and foremost demonstrated by the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice combined with a collective array of child abduction prevention stakeholders who have had a significant impact not only raising awareness amongst potentially targeted families of abduction, but who have created or helped create new laws, policies, or protocols capable of stopping international parental child abduction.

The fact the United States IPCA rate continues to decline despite heavily contradicting global trends found in other nations combined with increases in the population, including growth amongst the immigration migration sector, clearly indicates the immense efforts put forth by stakeholders working to stop child abduction is working. Nevertheless, there is a great deal that can and must be done to better protect at-risk children while also increasing efforts to reunite abducted children.

On a sober note, we acknowledge that fewer child victims of IPCA come home to their country of original jurisdiction and the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention process is taking longer than in previous years. Neither the failure to return children or the long delay times related to litigation are country specific: these are internal issues for every country and are not specific challenges faced solely by American citizens, but by all left behind parents. Thus, we re-emphasize our belief that the most efficient way to protect a child from IPCA is to prevent their abduction from occurring.

A look at the previous years statistics tells a compelling child abduction prevention effort taking place in the United States of America.



Specifically,during 2013 there were a total of 702 reported cases of international parental child abduction representing 1004 children. Previously, during 2012 there were 799 reported international parental child abduction cases filed with the United States Central Authority representing a total of 1,144 children. In 2011 there were a total of 941 reported international parental child abduction cases filed with the United States Central Authority, representing a total of 1,367 children. In 2010 there were 1022 reported cases of international parental child abduction representing 1,492 children. And in 2009 there were 1,135 cases of international parental child abduction representing 1,621 children.

When considering previous extensive growth in the United States reported outbound cases of IPCA coupled with the reality that cross-border child abduction continues to surge worldwide, the decline in the outbound abduction rate of American children is noteworthy.

In fact, the reported number of individual child victims of IPCA declined in 2010 by 8% (1,492 child victims from 1,621 child victims reported in 2009), 8.49% in 2011 (1,367 children), to a landmark decline of 16.3% in 2012 (1,144 children), followed by a 12.23% drop in 2013 (1,004 child victims).

These statistical declines become more apparent when viewing the years collectively. For example, there was a 38.06% decline in the reported outbound IPCA rate over the five-year period of 2009 through 2013. During this five-year period, the number of reported child victims of IPCA declined from 1,621 in 2009 to 1,004 child victims in 2013.  This represents a differential gain of 617 children who were protected from IPCA during 2013 in comparison to 2009. In addition, for the same reporting period there was a 38.15% decline in the number of reported family cases of IPCA (Note: a family case may consist of one or more children) representing a remarkable drop of 433 reported cases over the five-year period.


    
A comparative chart below provides further insight on the efforts to protect American children from IPCA taking place in the United States.


To put into perspective the significance in the reported 2013 decline in the reported cases of international parental child abduction and the fourth consecutive significant reduction in the cross-border kidnapping rate, it is important to note that previous to the 2009 fiscal year reported numbers, the international parental child abduction rate grew on average by nearly 20% per year the previous decade. In addition, the United States witnessed a yearly increase in population of approximately 2,400,000 people during 2008 – 2013, with an estimated 1,000,000 of these individuals newly arrived immigrants. We take exceptional note to the ongoing increases in the American immigration population due to the fact that many individuals who parentally abduct (referred to as a ‘Taking Parent’) were born and previously raised in a foreign country but relocated to the United States.


It is important to note that the unreported cases of international parental child abduction remain a very troubling area not just in the United States, but worldwide. However, we believe that outreach efforts by the United States Department of State, The I CARE Foundation, and the National Center For Missing & Exploited Children are in fact reaching communities who previously would not turn for assistance under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. And though there is no specific way to determine the unreported cases of IPCA, we believe there has been an increased awareness amongst communities who may previously may not have sought assistance to 1) become more aware of IPCA warning signs, 2) IPCA prevention measures, and 3) to turn to the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues for assistance. 

It is our belief that the previously less proactive communities who may have traditionally believed that they were unable to protect against IPCA have begun to mobilize and become more proactive in protecting their children.

It is our assessment that due to the mobilization of parents who may have previously been less active to prevent IPCA, that it is conceivable that the overall reported outbound rate of IPCA (when considering both reported and unreported cases) may have dropped more than the 12.23% reported rate of abduction.

While there is much to be pleased about regarding the significant decline in reported outbound American IPCA rate, the reality is that many children who are internationally abducted do not come home, and the statistical trend of available data clearly demonstrates that the number of children worldwide being returned to their country of original jurisdiction continues to decline.

The following chart provides insight on the growing rate of child abduction to the United States.


COUNTRY COMPARISIONS: The United States, The United Kingdom, and Canada 
To understand the significance of the United States four consecutive year decline in the reported outbound IPCA rate, it is useful to compare the reported American data with statistical information provided by other nations. We note that global IPCA reporting amongst signatory nations and non-signatory countries to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention remains beyond dismal.
Canada IPCA Rate Grows By 40% Since 2009
In April, 2014, Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs reported there has been a 40-per-cent increase in the number of international parental child abductions since 2009. Most of those cases involve countries such as the United States, Mexico and those of the European Union that have signed an international treaty called the Hague Convention, which aims to help resolve such emotionally charged incidents. However, there are also a “significant” number involving such countries as Lebanon, India, Pakistan and China, which have not signed up to the Hague Convention, making already complicated cases even more difficult.
In November, 2013 Canada created the Vulnerable Children's Consular Unit under the Department of Foreign Affairs in recognition of their growing internal IPCA problem and in an attempt to assist targeted families from the grave ordeal of international child kidnapping.
Canada’s Senate’s Human Rights Committee is also studying the Hague Convention in the hopes of providing recommendations to make it work better. Senior leadership from the Hague Conference are expected to visit Canada and provide insight with Canada’s policymakers in the near future.
United Kingdom IPCA Rate Grows By 88%
The United Kingdom continues to face a growing problem of IPCA, though, similar to Canada, specific hard data has not been publicly reported.  However, according to public statements made by the Foreign Office’s Child Abduction Section in December, 2012, reported outbound cases of IPCA has grown by 88% over the past ten years.
This number appears extraordinarily low when considering that public statements by the Foreign Office's Child Abduction Section state that the unit fielded an average of four calls per day to its specialist advice line, more than half of which were new cases during 2011 alone. The Foreign Office also stated the statistics do not represent the total number of IPCA cases because many cases go unreported.

EXTREME DIFFICULTIES IN RECOVERING AN ABDUCTED CHILD

There are abundant reasons why it is very difficult for child-victims of IPCA to be returned to their country of original jurisdiction. They include, but are not limited to the following:
  1.  Amongst signatory countries to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, litigation proceedings and tactics by the Taking Parent and their counsel often deploy techniques to circumvent Article 1 (Expeditious Return Provision), while over-utilizing Article 13 b (Best Interest Provision). This is not a U.S. problem but a global issue all left-behind parents face. In addition, courts and the judiciary overseeing IPCA proceedings have taken a rather long-arm approach to Article 12 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.  The end result, as reported by a 2011 Hague Special Commission is that the average litigation period needed to make a determination has increased to 338 days as compared to 188 days; and,
  2. The reality is that attorneys familiar with Hague law often litigate before untrained judges who are not keenly aware of the spirit and intent of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.  Trained attorney-specialist familiar with the protocols of the child abduction treaty have successfully implemented litigation techniques created to extend or delay the court proceedings outside of the spirit of Article 1 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.  In implementing calculated strategies before judges not familiar with the treaty or who may not intend to follow the rules established under the treaty, Taking Parents have been remarkably successful in being able to not only remain in the inbound country they have relocated to, but in many circumstances, limit the rights of the child to have contact with the other parent. This phenomenon appears to occur equally amongst men and women; and,
  3. Judges are often not trained on how to deal with IPCA cases nor are they familiar with the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.  Because of a lack of training and education amongst the judiciary, many children around the world simply are not returned and the intent of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention is being marginalized. As an example of the problems best exemplified by an untrained judiciary, the United States has over 10,000 family court judges able to hear an IPCA case. The vast majority of these judges have no or extremely limited experience dealing with Hague matters. The average litigation period for cases being heard in the United States is 338 days. In comparison, in the United Kingdom there are 17 judges who handle Hague cases.  The average litigation period for cases heard in the United Kingdom has been reported at 49 days; and,
  4. Many nations do not comply with or uphold the spirit of the convention (ex, Brazil, Mexico, Germany); and,
  5. Many countries have not signed the convention (China, India, Saudi Arabia etc); and,
  6. Chasing Parents may not have an idea what country their child was taken to; and,
  7. Chasing Parents are responsible to carry the enormous financial burden associated with their child’s recovery. Many simply do not have the substantial resources needed; and,
  8. Many Chasing Parents do not have the knowledge necessary to navigate the difficult and complex legal system of international law, nor do they often know who to turn to and what to do; and,
  9. Nationalistic prejudices of court systems located in the ‘inbound’ country, whereas, a court may try to protect the abducting parent if that parent is a citizen of the country where they abducted the child to.
WHAT'S WORKING?

There are many reasons why the reported United States outbound rate of IPCA is declining.  Collectively, the primary reason is that efforts by government agencies and non-government agencies have increased efforts to not only raise awareness amongst potential targeted parents of IPCA, but educational outreach directed toward key stakeholders such as the judiciary, attorneys, law enforcement, and policymakers has made a major difference. The following are some important reasons why outbound cases IPCA is declining in the United States, while inbound cases are rising.
  1. There is an increased social awareness of IPCA, including awareness of warning signs and how to act in the event of a potential threat; and,
  2. Targeted parents at risk of having a child abducted have become more proactive in protecting their children; and,
  3. The Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues has become an exemplary child abduction prevention advocacy program under the guidelines available to all Central Authorities under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. Increased personal, extensive information via the Internet, and public outreach along with the ability to implement and take control of an assortment of abduction prevention programs such as the Passport Issuance Alert Program have been extremely beneficial.
  4. Inter-agency cooperation amongst the Department of State and other agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security have been extremely impactful. An example of this type of cooperation is found in the Prevent Departure Program.
  5. There is a strong core of NGO activism that has helped raise awareness of IPCA and provided outreach that government agencies are unable to.
  6. Courts and judges presiding over abduction prevention cases are acting with increased prudence when determining whether a child is a target of IPCA, including determining if a child should be allowed to travel, an assortment of passport-related issues, etc.; and,
  7. The I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form has become a globally effective tool in preventing a child’s wrongful detention abroad while also protecting against the wrongful use of Article 12 and Article 13 b; and,
  8. There is increased cooperation amongst law enforcement to assist targeted parents of abduction; and,
  9. United States lawmakers and policy administrators are taking a proactive stance against IPCA and this stand is having a trickle down effect amongst other stakeholders including judges, law enforcement, and child therapist, etc.
  10. The social media blogosphere of parent-bloggers has increased awareness of IPCA.
PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION IS A SEVERE FORM OF CHILD ABUSE

According to leading experts who specialize in international parental child abduction, conclusive and unilateral opinion and fact demonstrates that parental child abduction of a targeted child is a cruel, criminal, and severe form of abuse and mistreatment regardless if the child is with one of their (abducting) parents. This includes the illegal act of international abduction, whereas, the child is unexpectedly uprooted from their home, their community, their immediate and extended family, and their country. Sadly, severe short and long-term psychological problems are prevalent for many abduction victims who survive their kidnapping experience. It is commonplace for a child to be emotionally sabotaged, whereas, the abducting parent will try to remove all bonds and attachments the child has with the other parent, thus, removing the child’s right to know the love of the other parent, and keep in tact their own identity. Too many children simply never come home and in certain cases a child’s abduction overseas has led to the death of the abducted child.

In June, 2013 the United States Department of Justice issued a report stating that children who are victims of parental child abduction face increased abuse, including severe physical and emotional abuse at the hands of their parent abductor.

We strongly point that filicide - parental child murder - is a real threat to all children of abduction.

In addition, a leader in the field of parental child abduction issues, Dr. Dorothy Huntington wrote an article titled Parental Kidnapping: A New Form of Child Abuse. Huntington contends that from the point of view of the child, “child stealing is child abuse.” According to Huntington, “in child stealing the children are used as both objects and weapons in the struggle between the parents which leads to the brutalization of the children psychologically, specifically destroying their sense of trust in the world around them.”

We recall the words of Ms. Patricia Hoff who currently oversees the United States Department of State's Hague Attorney Network, who previously stated, “Because of the harmful effects on children, parental kidnapping has been characterized as a form of “child abuse” while the acting Legal Director for the Parental Abduction Training and Dissemination Project, American Bar Association on Children and the Law. Ms. Hoff also had stated, “Abducted children suffer emotionally and sometimes physically at the hands of abductor-parents. Many children are told the other parent is dead or no longer loves them. Uprooted from family and friends, abducted children often are given new names by their abductor-parents and instructed not to reveal their real names or where they lived before.”

The I CARE Foundation agrees completely with the sentiments shared above.

REASONS WHY ONE PARENT CRIMINALLY ABDUCTS A CHILD

Studies have demonstrated that an unprecedented number of abductions have occurred where one parent took unilateral action to deprive the other parent of contact with their child. The majority of abducting parents will typically use the child as a tool to cause the targeted parent great pain and suffering. Their intent is simple: to make the other parent suffer as much as possible by depriving that targeted parent with the love and connection to their own child. Nearly every published study on this subject has concluded that an abducting parent has significant, and typically, long-term psychological problems and may in fact be a danger to their child.

We take the time to acknowledge that in certain cases of parental child abduction, a parent claims to have no other choice but to flee the other parent due to serious, grave, and ongoing forms of abuse. We acknowledge that in many abduction defenses found under Article 13 of The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, an abducting parent will often claim mental, emotional, and physical abuse by the other parent as part of their defense to sanction their criminal behavior of abduction. However, we must also acknowledge that domestic violence is a very real, measurable, and in many cases, an ongoing crime that has limited law enforcement safety controls. We acknowledge that there are parents who must flee for their and their child’s safety due to failures by law enforcement and courts to protect their safety, combined with an habitual abuser who aims to cause grave hurt to the targeted parent.

In addition, and understandably, family abductions occur at a higher rate during times of heightened stress such as separation or divorce and often involve custody issues and visitation problems. The sad fact is that a large number of marriages, estimated to be between 40% and 50%, in the U.S. end in divorce.

One of the many considerations that factor into the increase in total abductions indicates that economic difficulties in the United States and elsewhere are a measurable factor in the number of increases in separations and divorces. This added stress can lead to a parental cross-border abduction, particularly since we live in a global society, and the number of international relationships has increased dramatically.

While all children can be potential targets of a family abduction, the likelihood increases when that child has a parent with ties to a foreign country. According to the Juvenile and Family Court Journal Vol. 48, No. 2 titled Jurisdiction In Child Custody and Abduction Cases, “Parents who are citizens of another country (or who have dual citizenship with the U.S.) and also have strong ties to their extended family in their country of origin have long been recognized as abduction risks.” This increase in cultural diversity within the U.S. population has created challenges for our existing laws. Many U.S. born children-citizens fall victim to parental abduction when a parents’ union ends.

Across the U.S., states are struggling to address their archaic and outdated laws, and establish additional precautions to better protect their child-citizen population. Unquestionably, it is critical that child abduction prevention laws are passed in each state and upheld by the judiciary and law enforcement. Failure to do so will likely lead to the looming disaster that is already upon us.

IMMIGRATION MIGRATION AND ITS AFFECT ON CHILD ABDUCTION CASES

A report compiled by the renowned Washington-based Pew Hispanic Center reports that most immigrant groups are comprised of young families. The likelihood that a child will be born while the parents are present in the U.S. is high. Prior to 2007, data collected on parents of children under 18 only identified one parent, and a second parent could only be identified if they were married to the first parent. Currently, a second parent identifier is considered whether or not the parents are married to each other. The new data more accurately reflects the number of children living in the U.S. with at least one foreign-born parent.

In 2008 that meant that 22% of all children in the United States had at least one foreign-born parent. In fact, consider the following statistics compiled by the Center for Immigration Studies in its March 2007 analysis. Immigrants and their U.S. born children under age 18, as a share of population: California – 37.9%, Los Angles County – 50%, New York State – 27.9%, New York City – 46.7% and Florida – 27.9%.

It must be noted that although 31.3% of all immigrants originate from Mexico, other countries have significant entry numbers as well. Included in the March 2007 Current Population Survey (CPS) were statistics indicating that 17.6% of all immigrants were from East/Southeast Asia, 12.5% from Europe, 5.5% from South Asia, 3.5% from the Middle East, and Canada at 1.9%.

Traditionally, states such as California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois and Arizona have had large numbers of immigrants in their population. What is surprising is the trends in migration toward new centers of immigrant growth. The CPS prepared an analysis of states with statistically significant growth in immigrant population between 2000 and 2007. Most notably, Wyoming, which experienced a percentage increase of 180%, Tennessee at 160%, Georgia at 152.1%, and Alabama at 143.6%. The impact of unprecedented increases in immigrant migration is likely to create multiple challenges as states struggle to keep pace with their newest segment of population and their children.

Additionally, it has been well established that illegal aliens do not respond to surveys such as the US Census or the CPS. Because the U.S. government does not have accurate records of arrival and departures for individuals present illegally in the country, their numbers must be estimated, as there is no hard data to draw from. However, indirect means for establishing these figures are used, and they must be viewed with a considerable amount of uncertainty. In 2007 CPS, it was estimated that of the approximately 37.9 million immigrants present in the U.S., nearly 1 in 3 immigrants were present illegally.

It is important to note this segment of our population when discussing child abduction because when a child is born in the U.S. that child automatically is a U.S. citizen. While the available data gives us fairly accurate figures regarding the number of children born in the U.S. as well as those immigrants who are present legally, a number is impossible to compile accurately in relation to the unauthorized resident population.

In regards to children born to illegal immigrants, in the five-year period from 2003 to 2008, that number rose from 2.7 million to 4 million. The report published by the Pew Hispanic Centers reported that nationally the children of illegal immigrants now comprise 1 in 15 elementary and secondary students in the U.S. Additionally, in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada and Texas more than 1 in every 10 students in those states are the children of illegal immigrants.

The ability of state governments to prevent the abduction of children by family members could be drastically improved by comprehensive legislation. While aiming to protect all children, special consideration must be given to those children who may be at increased risk simply by virtue of their parentage. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the U.S. projected up to April 22, 2010 estimated that one international migrant enters the U.S. every 36 seconds. International travel has become commonplace and as more cross-cultural relationships develop children are born. A number of these relationships will end and may result in an increased risk of international abduction of the child. Attempting to retrieve a child who has been abducted and possibly hidden internationally is a near impossibility as a multitude of problems surface in cases such as these. Unfortunately, studies have proved 4 of 5 Americans drastically underestimate the threat of a family abduction. Statistically, it is a sobering thought when you become aware of the vast numbers of children that are criminally abducted each year. Preventative laws are a necessity as an immediate remedy to this unconscionable crime.

SUMMARY

IPCA remains a serious problem worldwide. The challenges of parental child abduction prevention and reunification have no border.  As an organization dedicated to preventing IPCA, we take note of the decline in the 2013 IPCA rate and acknowledge that since the leadership of the I CARE Foundation began extensive advocacy to combat IPCA, the overall outbound rate of IPCA against American children has declined by over 38%. In our efforts to raise awareness of IPCA amongst families worldwide, combined with our efforts associated with utilization of the Prevent Departure Program, the global use of the groundbreaking I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form, and our work to create and implement numerous state laws created to protect children, we believe that there is substantial positive change on the horizon.

The I CARE Foundation’s role in fighting IPCA has been measurable. We would also like to acknowledge that as far as working to protect children from abduction all advocates are in this together.

There remains a great deal of work to do.