1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention Officially Takes Effect In Japan

Effective April 1st, 2014, Japan officially became a member of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. Japan’s ratification of the Convention not only makes them the 91st Contracting State, but it comes after long-standing diplomatic efforts and global public outcry over Japan’s previous failure to participate in the international child abduction treaty, as well as the proven history of not offering victimized children and targeted parents of abduction a vehicle to turn to in order to resolve international parental child abduction disputes.

From the standpoint of the I CARE Foundation, Japan becoming a member of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention is a definite sign that diplomatic efforts throughout the international community are working. It also strongly reaffirms that the Hague Child Abduction Convention is the right mechanism for both  governments and families around the world to utilize in an effort to settle international child abduction disputes. However, it is also critically important to note that Japan's Parliment has created significant loopholes for their citizens who abduct a child to remain in Japan and enable the two newly established Hague Courts to sanction a Japanese child's kidnapping in cases that the Japanese parent claims essentially any form of child or spousal abuse. The Japanese government's exemptions to the Hague Child Abduction Convention are particularly concerning as in the vast majority of international parental child abduction cases around the world, the taking parent (regardless of man or woman) claims abuse.

In present cases of mobility, we urge the courts around the world to move very cautiously when making considerations toward travel or mobility. Specificially, it is our extreme view that courts should heavily weigh whether a Japanese parent living abroad who is seeking travel with their child to Japan has previously made false allegations against the child's other parent, or, has demonstrated a penchant to be a non-cooperating parent when the court is deciding on mobility and travel cases.  In the event that false claims by a Japanese citizen living abroad has been made against their child's other parent, courts must realize that these claims against the child's other parent will be enough evidence a Japanese national may need to permanently remain in Japan regardless of Japan's ratification of the Hague Child Abduction Convention. It is also important to point out that in Japan's culture, typically only one parent is permitted to raise the child of a failed marriage or partnership. Finally, in existing cases occurring between Japanese nationals living abroad seeking mobility or travel, courts must be aware that many Japanese citizens living abroad with a child but who are seeking to relocate back to Japan more than likely fully understand the new loopholes established under Japan's annexation of the Hague Child Abduction Convention.  Court's must proceed with extreme caution as the Japanese government begins it process of upholding the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention while also addressing their own domestic family laws.

As part of Japan's participation in the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, retroactivity, for those foreign parents that have previously had a child internationally abducted to Japan are not eligible to file a Hague Application or utilize the treaty.  Saying that, we must be sure to always remember the children who have become victims of international abduction and taken to Japan - as well their left-behind families - because it is many of those families that successfully advocated for Japan’s ratification.

Peter Thomas Senese Testimony Presented To The United States Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations Offers New Solutions To The Global Child Abduction Problem

On February 27th, 2014 the U.S. Senate's Committee on Foreign Relations conducted a hearing before the Honorable Committee Chairman Senator Menendez and Majority Representative Senator Crocker to discuss international parental child abduction and proposed HR. 3212 legislation allowing the President of the United States the ability to sanction other countries the U.S. government believes to be non-complying with the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

 

READ THE TESTIMONY OF PETER THOMAS SENESE SUBMITTED TO

THE UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

 

The I CARE Foundation applauds all stakeholders working to stop abduction while advocating for the rightful return of all abducted children to their country of original jurisdiction. There is no question that a collective effort by all countries to prevent child abduction and efficiently return abducted children to their home country must immediately occur. This said, we believe it critical that all offered solutions protect the viability of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, and, not jeopardize the recovery of children presently abducted or who may be a target of abduction in the future.

 

Respectfully, we submit that the testimony provided by Peter Thomas Senese on behalf of the I CARE Foundation supports an immediate synchronized efforts by all U.S. Ambassadors to resolve the issues of American child-victims of kidnapping while escalating the functionality of the Hague Conference Secretariat. Contrary to the position of others who have submitted testimony to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, we believe passing legislation granting the United States government to sanction any other country for non-compliance to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention or creating and upholding an MOU must only occur if all other options are explored and have failed. This has not occurred as of yet.  In addition, we respectfully submit that the failure of abducted children to be returned to their home country is not simply an American problem but a global pandemic. The reality is there are many children wrongfully detained in the United States due to actions that have unfolded in American courtrooms that are not in line with the intent and guidelines established by the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, thus creating significant hardship for families living abroad victimized by abduction.  These issues and viable solutions are offered in Mr. Senese's submitted testimony.

 

We believe there are key immediate provisions the U.S. government can implement that will prevent abduction, and on a global scale, we believe several of the recommendations provided in Mr. Senese's extensive testimony offer real solutions on the global abduction front. In particular, we believe the I CARE Foundation's 'International Child Travel Consent Form' is the most efficient and effective tool all signatory countries of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention must utilize.

 

 

We invite you to read the testimony submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations by Mr. Peter Thomas Senese on behalf of the I CARE Foundation along with the insightful testimony of:

 

Ambassador Susan Jacobs on behalf of the U.S. Department of State

 

Mr. Ernie Allan on behalf of the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children

 

Mr. David Goldman of the Bring Sean Home Foundation

 

Mr. Patrick Braden of Global Futures.

Dr. Noelle Hunter

 

To read more about the I CARE Foundation please click here.
 

Japan Becomes A Member Of The 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention

(January 24^th, 2014)

Today in Tokyo, the Government of Japan approved ratification of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention; a few hours later, the Japanese Ambassador to the Netherlands, Mr. Masaru Tsuji, deposited the instrument of ratification, making Japan the 91^st Contracting State to this important treaty. This significant development reaffirms that diplomatic efforts among the international community, together with the invaluable assistance provided by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, are working; it also reaffirms that the Hague Child Abduction Convention is the proper mechanism for all governments and families around the world to utilize in order to settle international child abduction disputes.

Japan’s ratification of the Convention comes after long-standing multi-lateral diplomatic efforts combined with global public outcry over Japan’s previous failure to participate in the international child abduction treaty and to offer victimized children and targeted parents of abduction a vehicle to turn to in order to resolve international parental child abduction disputes.

The 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention will enter into force for Japan on April 1^st, 2014. Under Japan’s participation, foreign parents who have previously had a child internationally abducted to Japan are not eligible to file a Hague Application or utilize the treaty. Retroactivity remains a concern for hundreds of left-behind parents still seeking to reunite with their kidnapped children.

The 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention seeks to combat parental child abduction by providing a system of co-operation between Contracting States and a rapid procedure for the return of the child to the country of the child’s habitual residence. Judges overseeing litigation revolving around the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention are not to determine issues of custody as that issue typically falls under the jurisdiction of the courts located in the child’s country of habitual residency.

Japan’s ratification of the convention demonstrates that international diplomacy and education continues to work, while also creating a stronger atmosphere for other countries that are not participants to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, such as India, to strongly consider ratification.

In the past, Japan has been considered a ‘black hole’ for international parental child abductors as the overwhelming number of children abducted to Japan by a Japanese national living abroad have not been returned to the child’s country of original jurisdiction.

The vast majority of left-behind parents are fathers residing in Europe and North America. Tragically, the targeted parent often has little or no rights of access or custody to their child once the child lands in Japan due to the country’s antiquated and prejudicial family law policies that tend to grant a child’s mother sole custody of the child while simultaneously removing the child’s father’s access to the child. Japan’s legal system does not recognize the concept of joint-custody.

In May 2013, the Diet had approved Japan’s compliance to the treaty, sending out a clear indicator that the country was steadily moving toward participation. Until today, Japan was the only country in the Group of Eight (G8) that has not affirmed the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

The following month (June) Japan’s Parliament enacted a law stipulating domestic implementation procedures for the Hague child abduction treaty.

Japan’s Parliament established procedures requiring the country to create a Central Authority under the auspices of the Foreign Ministry. The Central Authority’s responsibilities include the tasks of locating children who have been abducted and encourage families involved in international parental child abduction claims to settle disputes through consultations.

If the consultations fail, family courts in Tokyo and Osaka specifically trained in 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention matters will decide on matters. The Central Authority will be staffed with legal experts in international private law as well child psychologist and domestic violence counselors. A third Hague Court location could later be added.

Under the terms of Japan’s Parliamentary action in June, 2013 the new law provides grounds forrefusal to return a child if abuse or domestic violence is feared, issues that are expected to draw keen interest in light of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention’s Article 13, a provision that is almost always utilized by parental child abductors regardless of the gender of the abductor.

Child abduction prevention advocates from around the world hope that Japan’s ratification of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention will further push non-Hague countries including India, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the Philippines, and China (mainland) who are all believed to be actively assessing the Convention with a view to becoming a party to.

Today Japan has taken its place at the table of nations and finally a stand against the atrocity of international parental child abduction and severe abuse against targeted children and their families.  As Japan works to uphold the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention we must first and foremost not forget the children who have been abducted to Japan and their left-behind families, many whom successfully advocated for Japan’s ratification of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.

We invite you to read the official comments shared by The Hague Permanent Bureau concerning diplomacy and Japan’s ratification. Please click here.

(End)

To visit the I CARE Foundation official website, please click here. 

The Need For An International Judiciary College And Training Center Under The Auspices of the Hague Permanent Bureau

Disenchanted Left-Behind Parents And Lawmakers Point To The Need To Create A Strong And Sustainable International Judiciary College And Training Center As The Need For An Educated Global Judiciary and Support Personnel Becomes Clear In Matters Of International Parental Child Abduction and Post-Abduction Reunification.

 

 

The creation of an International Judiciary College And Training Center is perhaps the singular most important step that can create the greatest impact of protecting the hundreds of thousands of children each year who are targeted for international abduction and trafficking. The reality is the vast majority of judges overseeing international parental child abduction cases are not trained in the complex legal, psychological, political, financial, and logistical matters that all impact abduction cases.

Given its expertise on the operation of all relevant Hague Conventions, including of course the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, and experience in providing technical assistance to judges and other relevant actors involved in their operation, we suggest and hope that the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference can be prominently associated to this proposal and become an integral part of its realization.

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

In addition, failures to have a highly educated global judiciary deeply familiar with child abduction have caused diplomatic unease with the potential of severe long-term problems.  For example, if a Hague signatory country that believes other Hague signatory countries do not uphold the intent and spirit of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Prevention and decide to impose their own penalties and sanctions on countries that do not adhere to the Hague Child Abduction Convention we may have a significant disaster on our hands.  The risk that any legislation that seeks sanctions from a member-state against another state may have the potential to remove the validity of the international treaty and may in reality cause more children who are abducted to not be returned to their country of original jurisdiction particularly if countries take matters into their own hands and remove diplomacy. 

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

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

Unquestionably, we acknowledge the existence of significant failures amongst the judiciary and support personnel (including untrained child therapist and psychologist who are hired to assist in abduction matters but who do not understand the unique and complex issues surrounding abduction and child custody) around the world to understand the scope and nature of parental abduction and the tendency of untrained judiciary to allow abduction defense litigation to derail the very nature and scope of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Conventionthat’s very purpose is to determine which court has a right of jurisdiction on a child’s welfare and then to return that child to such jurisdiction. Equally, there are grave challenges many children of abduction face post-reunification. The majority of the hardship a child faces often revolves around new actions created by the abducting parent who was forced to return with the child to the country of original jurisdiction. In these cases the abducting parent will often make new false claims against their previous victimized targeted parent in hope to create an environment that would enable them to remove the child from the country or original jurisdiction. At times this is done illegally and at other times new charges of abuse are levied in hope that a court will grant the previous abduction parent full custody of the child coupled with mobility to relocate abroad.  The challenge in post abduction cases where new allegations of abuse are made is that all actors involved in protecting the child’s best interest – judges, law enforcement, child therapist and evaluators, and social workers – all must consider the previous abusive act of abduction and the intent of the complainant who makes the allegations against the previous left-behind parent.

Failure to thoroughly consider all abduction events and weight the horrendous acts of abuse related to a child’s abduction is in fact a complete and unacceptable failure for a legal system and its actors to protect a child.

Sadly, lack of understanding concerning the unique matters associated with international parental child abduction during and post-reunification by the necessary actors charged with protecting a child, including judges, law enforcement, child therapist and social workers only creates an environment that perpetuates further abuse of the child.

The creation of an International Judiciary College And Training Center that can educate all actors dedicated to protecting children from child abduction and assisting them post-reunification would have far-reaching benefits.

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

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

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

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

It is critical that we point out that during international parental child abduction the victimized child is not the only victim. The targeted parent is also a tragic victim as they are often thrust into an unknown storm that has limited navigation maps to guide them through. Adding to the challenges of a left-behind parent is the reality that the key actors that they turn to for help such as the courts and judges, law enforcement, and social workers and child therapist often do not understand the complexity and severe dynamics of abduction.  Combining these issues is that the legal system itself, if overseen by an inexperienced judge, can exasperate abduction cases by not following the intent and spirit of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Prevention to preside over legal proceedings in a fastidious manner.

Of great concern is the reality that victimized left behind parents who successfully reunite with their child but find themselves facing additional schemes that utilize their child they are desperate to protect often lose hope in the legal system they once turned to for help. When this type of disenchantment occurs due to real failures by the actors who were responsible to protect the child and the victimized parent the result is anarchy. Everyone suffers. Everyone.

We must protect our children from abuse. In order to do so we must create an International Judiciary College And Training Center.

 Kind regards to all,

 

Peter Thomas Senese

International Executive Director

The I CARE Foundation

Zero Tolerance For Parental Child Abductors And The Importance Of An Educated Judiciary

Zero Tolerance For International Parental Child Abduction and the Need For An Educated Judiciary

The  I CARE Foundation takes international child abduction very seriously and feels that there should be zero tolerance for anyone that is involved in planning or participating in these abusive crimes that victimize innocent children and unsuspecting parents.  As a parent one does not have the right to abduct a child, nor should a parent ever think that removing a child from the other parent by way of abduction is in the child’s best interest.  It definitely is not! There are both short and long-term ramifications on the child, and these are well-documented.  The underlying reality is that once abduction occurs, regardless if the kidnapping is done by a known person or stranger, the child’s safety is placed in grave risk.

When issues arise regarding mobilization (when a parent wants to relocate to another country with the child but without the child’s other parent), these issues should be rectified in accordance with the law. Not by creating an evil scheme filled with false innuendos and accusations against the other parent so to create a misleading impression that abduction is critical for the child’s safety and well-being. It is not. Seeking legal assistance via criminal and civil remedies if abusive conditions exist is the option that must be sought.

A would-be abducting parent puts their child in harm’s way, and this is not acceptable! The I CARE Foundation takes the position that international parental child abduction is a severe form of child abuse with consequences that will be extreme and will impact all phases of the child’s life.  With that being said, we also acknowledge the severe negative impact that abduction has on the victimized targeted parents. Both parties, the child and the targeted parent, are victims when we are dealing with parental child abduction.

In nearly all cases of parental abduction, children are used as pawns by the abducting parent in order to carry out their extensive premeditated plan which includes, but is not limited to causing severe suffering to the child’s other parent. One of the greatest challenges that children and their targeted parent face is the lack of accountability through the courts.  If a court neglects to hold abductors or would-be abductors accountable, this not only means that the targeted parents may remain at the mercy of a vengeance-seeking abducting parent that has already caused considerable harm, but it also sends a very dangerous global message that parental child abductors have limited risks when it comes to legal accountability, both in respect to the courts, but also law enforcement.  This needs to change!

The I CARE Foundation believes strongly that the Hague Child Abduction Convention is the right mechanism that all nations should participate in and adhere to.

As we look forward and create changes to help protect the hundreds of thousands of children each year who are targeted for international abduction, we see the critical need to create an International Judiciary College.

The fact is that the vast majority of judges who oversee international child abduction cases have not been trained in the very complex legal, psychological, political, financial and logistical matters that impact all cases of international abduction.  We face a reality that has untrained judges and courts contributing to many failures, including properly and expeditiously overseeing legal proceedings that seek the return of abducted children to their country of habitual residency.  An International Judiciary College, ideally under the guidance of the Permanent Bureau, would have a dramatic impact on reducing the global abduction rate, but also increasing diplomatic relationships among countries. As well, it is highly conceivable that the issues that exist today regarding the lack of judicial compliance would be greatly reduced as more judges become trained on Hague matters.

The reality is that today many targeted parents who have experienced abduction and who have been abused by the abducting parent remain targets of their child’s kidnapper.  Courts are hesitant to hold parental child abductors accountable for their act. Part of the problem lies heavily in an untrained judiciary – judges who are not trained in the deep understanding of parental abduction matters.  Tragically, the result of untrained judiciary and actors involved in abduction matters is that the targeted parent will believe that the courts will not hold the abductor accountable and equally alarming – by failing to hold the abductor accountable – the courts in essence empower the abductor who has returned with the child after the kidnapping – to attempt to abduct again or to continue making allegations against the targeted parent.

Tragically, when a targeted parent of abduction receives little or no support or protection from the court while they are working to protect their child from abuse (including but not limited to abduction), then that parent can become disenchanted with the legal system they once believed would protect them and their child. They lose hope.

Sometimes claims of abuse are real, and we acknowledge this reality.  In such cases we urge all parents to seek all intervention and assistance available to them under the rules of law.  Conversely, we have also seen in a great number of international child abduction cases when both men and women make false claims against one another.  This is a reality.

As always we encourage all parents to be familiar with the RISKS AND WARNING SIGNS of international parental child abduction.  Being aware of these warning signs is critical in preventing an international abduction from occurring.  Never think that you or your child(ren) could not become a victim of this inhumane crime.  Be proactive and protect yourself… and your child(ren).

If you happen to be a parent that has a child that is traveling abroad, either by choice or by court order, please consider using the I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form.

For more information on international parental child abduction, please visit the I CARE Foundation’s official website.

Kindest regards,

Peter Thomas Senese
Executive Director
I CARE Foundation

Benjamin Harris Todd Finds His Internationally Abducted Daughter After A 19 Year Global Search

Internationally Parentally Kidnapped South Carolina Girl Found In Australia  After 19 Years

After a 19 year search, internationally parentally kidnapped victim Savanna Harris Todd of South Carolina was located in Queensland, Australia. Similar to other victims of parental abduction, Savanna Harris Todd lived the life of a fugitive: moving from country to country, including New Zealand and South Africa under an assortment of alias names, before she and her kidnapping mother, Dorothy Lee Barnett, were located in Australia. Unquestionably, the story of how Savanna Harris Todd was able to move under the radar of a global law enforcement for nearly two decades despite a never-ending search for his daughter led by her father Benjamin Harris Todd sends out a loud and resounding message to courts and judges everywhere overseeing international child travel, international mobility, and international parental child abduction prevention of the great risks and relative ease a parent can disappear with a child if the act of abduction is well thought-out and planned.

Kidnapping parent Dorothy Lee Barnett is now facing a series of federal charges including but not limited to kidnapping, forgery, and possession of fraudulent documents. She is expected to be extradited to the United States in the near future.

Peter Thomas Senese of the I CARE Foundation, a leading non-profit organization dedicated to stopping global international parental child abduction while also assisting at-risk families of abduction commented, "First, I would like to express my heartfelt congratulations to Benjamin Harris Todd for his incredible efforts in never stopping to find his daughter. Clearly the love and dedication he holds for his daughter Savanna are extraordinary. Hopefully Savanna will recognize the love of her father while also carefully coming to terms of the malice brought into her life by her mother. I am sure there will be a great deal of reflection as this young lady reflects upon events in her life and realizes the extent of what she faced and the truth of part of her life.  And as the healing and reunification begins, it is imperative that judges and courts understand that threats of international parental child abduction are not custody disputes under any circumstance. They are acts of brutal kidnapping that can at times end horribly. Today we celebrate the pending reunion of father and daughter as we also rededicate ourselves to bring about sweeping change to stop worldwide international parental child abduction. Most of all, I hope and pray that this young lady takes the time to listen to what her father has to say to her before she makes any judgments. All too often in long-term abduction cases, the child is an unknown victim who has been manipulated by untruth after untruth by their abductor." 

In 1994, Savanna Harris Todd had been listed as a missing person by her father in South Carolina. She was 11 months old at the time that Benjamin Harris Todd, the child's sole custodial parent, had filed the report to local authorities.
 
On April 22nd, 1994 Barnett, who had been separated from Harris, picked up her daughter from her former mother-in-laws home and disappeared the next day.

First time she has been seen in 20 years: Savanna Harris Todd (right) pictured for the first time since disappearing as a baby in 1994. Now living under the name Samantha Geldenhuys in Queensland, Australia, she is seen here in a Facebook photo

A long way from South Carolina: Savanna Harris Todd and her mother Dorothy Lee Burnett have been living on the Sunshine Coast, in the Australian state of Queensland, for at least the last four years under fake names. They had been officially listed as missing persons since 1994 until Barnett was arrest on November 4

 

 Then and now: Savanna Harris Todd has remained a missing person for 19 years after being kidnapped by her mother in April 1994. Pictures of her as a baby (left) were used to create impressions of what she might look like today (right). On November 4, Savanna was located in Queensland, Australia, living under the name Samantha with her mother, Dorothy Lee Barnett, who has been charged with three federal offenses

 

Now, Barnett, 53, has been arrested by Australian Federal Police on the Sunshine Coast in Queensland after living under several aliases. Savanna, now 20, who has been living under the name Samantha, was by her mothers side during a court appearance on Wednesday, where Barnett was denied bailed.

In many international parental child abduction cases the abducting parent often will travel to one country but then move quickly to another. Often the first inbound country will be where new identities are obtained, as is suspected in the Barnett abduction case.

During a court appearance, Barnett, 'winked' back at her daughter Savanna - who was supportive of her mother. On the surface, the abducted child-victim now turned young adult has not yet fully understood the ramifications or truths that transpired in her life. Clearly, and after all this time, parental alienation has to be a key factor that all parties need to address.

Barnett's barrister, Jeff Hunter QC, said his client was not a flight risk and had a close and special relationship with the Sunshine Coast community.

Barnett was charged with international parental kidnapping and two counts of false statement in a passport application after being captured on November 4. Barnett will be extradited back to the United States to face her charges.

She is thought to have fled the United States using a fake passport with the help of a secretive organization called Children of the Underground, who help women stuck in abusive relationships.
According to Queensland news reports, Barnett initially fled to South Africa, where she married a man, Juan Geldenhuys, in 1995 and later gave birth to a son, now 17, before moving to New Zealand and becoming a citizen.

Five years ago she settled in Australia after splitting with Mr Geldenhuys, who recently died of bone cancer. During her alleged time on the run, Barnett used aliases such as Alexandria Maria Canton, federal authorities said, to evade detection.

 

 

Dorothy Lee Barnett (pictured left in the early 1990s and right in an artists impression of her today) lost custody of her daughter Savanna to her ex-husband Benjamin Harris Todd because tests showed her to be bi-polar. Barnett and Savanna disappeared from South Carolina in 1994 but have now been found in Australia following almost 20 years on the run. Barnett has been charged and faces extradition to the U.S.

Once in March 2003 and again in March 2004, Barnett used her new name, Alexandria Maria Geldenhuys, to attempt to get a U.S. passport, according to the indictment against her.

Court papers say Savanna's father was the one who lead authorities to find his ex-wife.
An Australian friend of Mr Geldenhuys, Barnett's second husband, had grown suspicious of her.
He heard Barnett call her daughter Savanna and she had previously spoken about escaping an abusive relationship. A simple internet search provided old photos of Barnett as wanted in relation to the disappearance of Savanna, and the Australian man was able to contact Benjamin Harris Todd.

Outside court this week, Savanna- Samantha - would not comment when approached by reporters.

an amazing woman, having raised both myself and my brother and always giving us the support we needed to become the people that we are - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/law-catches-up-with-mum-20-years-after-she-fled-with-baby-savanna/story-e6frg6nf-1226759338165#sthash.gCK6J3ob.dpuf

Barnett, a flight attendant, and Todd got married in December 1991 in Beaufort. She filed for divorce in February 1993, alleging in court documents that Todd had left her because he was angry about her being pregnant, reports The Post and Courier.

Todd countered, saying Barnett physically and emotionally abused him. That month, Todd was given temporary custody of his unborn daughter after psychiatric tests showed Barnett to be bi-polar. 
 
Savanna was born May 6, 1993.

During a court-supervised visit in April 1994, the two left for a birthday party without an escort and never returned, the police reported at the time. Barnett’s disappearance prompted a probe by the FBI, which obtained a warrant for her arrest in April 1994.

If convicted of the charges she is facing, Barnett could spend three years in prison on the kidnapping charge and 10 years on each of the two passport counts. Barnett will next appear at an extradition hearing in Australia.

Stopping A Parent From Boarding A Flight and Abducting Your Child To Another Country

What To Include When Contacting The Department Of State's Office Of Children's Issues:

If you are an at-risk parent who believes your child's other parent is planning or in the process of international parental child abduction, please contact the United States Department of State's Office of Children's Issues Abduction Prevention Bureau to discuss potential measures that may be available to you to ensure the individual parent suspected of an international child abduction threat does not illegally depart the United States and remove your child in violation of a court order or in breach of your right of custody.

Please contact the Office of Children's Issues Prevention Bureau to discuss if there are potential prevention techniques unique to your case that may allow the Department of State to work with other federal agencies so to secure your child is not a victim of international parental child abduction.

To contact the Department of State's Office of Children's Issues Prevention Bureau please contact:

The United States Department of State

Office Of Children's Issues

Abduction Prevention Bureau

                                                                      CA/OCS/CI
                                                                   SA-17, 9th Floor  

Washington, DC 20522-1709 

                                           Phone: 1-888-407-4747   or   202-501-4444

                                                       Email:  prevention@state.gov

 

To contact the I CARE Foundation concerning abduction matters including possible methods available to stop international parental child abduction please email us at legal@stopchildabduction.org.

Individuals seeking to Department of State assistance and implementation of the Prevent Departure Program should make sure that they have the following information ready to submit to the Office of Children's Issues:

1.      Full name, date, place of birth of Potential taking parent.

2.      Full name, date, place of birth of Potential left behind parent (and PLBP’s contact info, including a surface address).

3.      Passport number and issuing country (if available, and not U.S.) for both parents.

4.      Full name of child.

5.      Date, place of birth of child.

6.      U.S. passport number of child.

7.      Passport number and issuing country of any dual national passport of child (if available).

8.      Copy of court order with travel restrictions.

9.      Full contact details, including a 24/7 phone and email (to email court documents, we do not have after hours fax access), for law enforcement contact.

10.   Details of potential travel plans.