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

AS A REMINDER, IF A CHILD IS TRAVELING ABROAD THIS SUMMER, PLEASE MAKE SURE YOU USE THE I CARE FOUNDATION'S INTERNATIONAL TRAVEL CHILD CONSENT FORM

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.

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