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

The International Travel Child Consent Form: One Year Of Protecting Children From Parental Child Abduction

All of us at the I CARE Foundation are celebrating today.  Why?  Well,  one year ago today the I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form was released with the intent to help bring an end to international abduction. Today, but really each and every day, we celebrate the lives of the children that have been protected. We celebrate their innocence as they were protected from the abusive and unforgiving world of international parental child abduction.

As of today, hundreds of children around the world have traveled under the protection of the travel consent form, and in 100% of the cases, that we are aware of, they have concluded with the children returning home.  The travel consent form was, in fact, created as an abduction prevention tool to protect children from international abduction due to the wrongful retention abroad – so when the cruel reality is that approximately 70% of all Hague cases around the world are based upon wrongful retention, this single document is actually protecting children and their innocence, which was the goal.

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

While we talk about the I CARE Foundation’s travel consent form – and celebrate it’s successes over the past year – it is important to note that the most recent Department of State Hague Compliance Report to the U.S. Congress stated that there was a decline in the reported U.S. outbound international parental child abduction rate of 12.23% during 2013 in comparison to the previous year. Over the past 4 reporting years (2009-2013) the reported outbound child abduction cases of American children have declined by 38.06%.  We acknowledge the 12.23% decline in the outbound abduction rate of American children that took place in 2013. However, the truth is that this is not enough… it’s far from enough. 

It is also important to remind all parents that the summer holidays, in the work that we do, is also referred to as abduction season.  This is the time of year when the majority of international abductions occur.  Please, if you have a child traveling abroad this summer, consider utilizing the travel consent form – you can download a copy of the form HERE.  As well, parents everywhere should be aware of the risks and warning signs of international parental child abduction.  After all, education is prevention!

So, on this day, we celebrate!  And we celebrate knowing this ground-breaking document has, in fact, had such an incredible impact in the lives of so many.  But in saying that, there is much work to be done… so our work continues.

On behalf of the I CARE Foundation family,

Jen Cluff
Director of Social Media

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.

Abduction Warning Signs & The International Travel Child Consent Form

The I CARE Foundation has, for the past few weeks, as part of our outreach and education program, been sharing with parents the fact that summer is abduction season!  It is the time of year when most international child abductions occur, but in saying that, there are things that parents can do to help prevent these abductions from occurring.

First and foremost, any parent that has a child traveling abroad should consider utilizing the I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form, which has been hailed by the international legal community as a critical abduction prevention tool.

It is estimated that approximately 70% of all international child abduction cases occur when a child is wrongfully retained in a foreign country. The wrongful retention of a child abroad frequently occurs, to many parents' surprise, during travel under a court order or when travel occurs by mutual parental consent, particularly during the summer school break.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of children that are wrongfully detained in a foreign country do not come home. The I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form protects against misuse of all known international child abduction defenses under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, including Articles 12, 13, and 20, while upholding the intent and spirit of Article 1 of the Child Abduction Convention.

As important as protecting your child during travel, another critical key to stopping international child abduction is knowing, and not ignoring, the warning signs that the child's other parent may be planning an abduction, while also knowing exactly what to do in order to prevent the criminal act of parental child kidnapping once an abduction plan becomes evident.

One must realize that a parent conspiring to abduct their child creates and executes their schemes in absolute secrecy.  The would-be abducting parent does not want the targeted parent to know they are planning a child kidnapping.  In fact, concern among would-be parental child kidnappers that their abduction scheme may be exposed prior to being put into motion has increased as society becomes more aware of the abusive, dangerous and wide-spread infestation of child abduction around the world.

The reality is, a parent that is armed with the knowledge of what to look for in regards to the risks and warning signs of international parental child abduction, is a parent that is better able to act in a proactive manner by preventing an abduction from occurring. Please consider taking a few minutes and familiarize yourself with the warning signs of international parental child abduction.

Warning Signs of International Parental Child Abduction

There are no fool-proof warning signs that your spouse or ex-spouse is thinking of taking your child across international borders, with or without your permission and knowledge. However, there are in fact many signs and signals that can provide you with insight that your spouse or former spouse is intending to abduct with your child.


Trust your instincts and do not bury your head in the ground and think abduction will not happen to you. It is a mistake tens of thousands of parents once made.

If you believe international parental child abduction is in process, immediately contact local and national law enforcement, and, immediately contact the United States Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues Abduction Prevention Unit.

If you have reason to believe that your spouse is contemplating the abduction of your child, you should immediately contact a qualified lawyer familiar with international parental child abduction to immediately discuss legal options available to you and your child.  You should also immediately contact the United States Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues Abduction Prevention Unit. In addition, you should contact the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and open an abduction prevention case.  You may also contact the I CARE Foundation to obtain additional information on abduction prevention and to receive an attorney referral of a qualified lawyer familiar with abduction prevention litigation.

You may need to file an ex parte (an Emergency without notice filing) motion to the court of jurisdiction where the child lives, seeking court intervention prior to when the abduction or wrongful retention occurs.  Under most laws, the judge will have to hear your application so long as you present enough strong and credible evidence that your spouse or ex-spouse is planning to illegally take your child across state or international borders or intending to travel abroad with consent but may have no intent of returning the child to their country of habitual residency.

The following are a list of international parental child abduction warning signs. Each abduction case is unique so please consult with a qualified attorney to understand risk factors specific to your circumstances.

1. The most obvious warning sign is if the other parent communicates in any way that they have intent or a desire to remove the child of the relationship out of the country. In most instances, if the other parent threatens you with the idea that they are going to abduct your child, the fact is that in most cases, the abduction is already planned and may be in progress.
2. The majority of international parental child abductions originate when a marriage or partnership created between two individuals from two different countries occurs.  The reality is that failure amongst multinational partnerships is high. Often, when one of these relationships fails and there is a child involved, the parent living in a foreign country may want to return to their country of origin, and when they do, they nearly always want to bring the child of the failed relationship with them.  It should be exceptionally noted, as stated earlier, that often parents planning abduction will act with trickery in order to have the targeted parent not have concern over abduction.
3. The vast majority of international child abductions occur by a parent who is determined to cause hardship and harm to the other parent. The instrument that they use in order to cause this harm is the child or children of the marriage. A significant number of leading therapist from around the world have stated in numerous reports that revenge is the primary and leading reason why one parent will try to end the other parent’s relationship with their own child. Therefore, if you are involved with a person who has jealous or revengeful tendencies, you must be aware that these characteristics are common in the vast majority of would-be parental child abductors.
4. If your spouse or former spouse has in the past used the child of your marriage or relationship to cause you harm, pain, and suffering, or, has tried to control and manipulate your actions, then your concern should be magnified ten-fold. If the same individual has family members in another country or has lived in another country and has expressed a desire or threat to move there with your child, your concern should be magnified one-hundred fold.
5. If there is evidence of previous abductions, disappearances, or threats to abduct the child by your spouse or ex-spouse, these indicators demonstrate that any new abduction threat is real and in more likelihood already planned.
6. If your spouse or ex-spouse has citizenship in another country and/or has strong emotional or cultural ties to their country of origin.
7. A desire or intent by your spouse or ex-spouse to travel with the child to their own home country of origin with or without you.  As stated earlier, it appears this is the most prevailing way a child is illegally abducted abroad.  Often, the taking parent tricks their target into allowing travel, or is capable of fooling a court over their true intent. This is why the I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form must always be used during any type of international travel regarding a child.
8. Unexplainable removal of cash deposits and diminished assets, or unexplainable increases in credit card or bank debt.
9. Concealment of new credit cards or bank debt.
10. Concealed, hidden, and abrupt communication with individuals or family members living in a foreign country.
11. Concealed, hidden, and abrupt communication with a lawyer.
12. Frequent previous trips with child to a foreign country without other parent.
13. No strong ties to a child’s home state including having no or limited assets, having no or limited job prospects, having no or few friends or family members, and having strong cultural difficulties with the child’s home country.
14. Strong foreign support network.
15. No financial reason to stay.
16. Possible use of the child as a pawn in order to gain access to non-joint assets.
17. Engaged in planning activities such as quitting job; selling home; terminating lease; closing bank accounts or liquidating assets; hiding or destroying documents; or securing a passport, a birth certificate, or school medical records.
18. A history of marital instability, lack of cooperation with the other parent, domestic violence, or child abuse.
19. An announcement of an unexpected trip to another country with the child.
20. The taking of easily transportable high-valued items such as jewelry upon departing to another country.
21. Adamant unwillingness to leave the child behind with you while spouse travels to a foreign country.
22. Shipping of personal items to a foreign country, including those ordered from a vendor that are directly shipped abroad.
23. A past tendency of your spouse or ex-spouse to relocate and live abroad.
24. If your spouse or ex-spouse has ties to another country and makes a false police complaint against you concerning conduct against them or the child, you should be aware this may be the beginning steps of an Article 13 Defense under the Hague Convention. In essence by creating a history of complaints of abuse, the parent intending to abduct lays track to have a court in a foreign country remain abroad and sanction the act of international kidnapping – except it will be viewed as an act of liberation from abuse.  Tragically, claims of abuse are commonplace. After all, a parental child kidnapper has defend against the act of child kidnapping, and citing abuse is a common tactic equally used by men and women abductors.
25. If a parent living as an alien citizen of one country but has limited roots to that country and is intending to travel with the child abroad, the risks of an abduction are great. Additionally, if the parent who is planning to depart, say on a few week vacation, does not have the ability to purchase a return ticket back to the child’s country of origin and/or does not have employment and/or does not have housing, then you can bet that upon departure for the so-called ‘vacation’, that parent is not returning. Remember, Intent and Sustainability issues are critical. If a person can’t sustain themselves in the country that their child was born, and, they have no deep roots, why in the world would they want to stay?
26. If an alien-parent has deep connections to another country, and has deep connections to that country’s senior government officials, there is a clear risk. Recently, I have been advising on a situation where the potential abductor has immediate family members in charge of overseeing a fleet of aircraft owned by a Middle East family (or you could say government). Obviously, access to aircraft and departing under immunity of a foreign government are very concerning.
27. If you are planning to allow the child’s other parent consent to travel abroad with your child or if a court is willing to grant travel – and the other parent is not willing to sign the I CARE Foundation’s Travel Consent Form which was designed to uphold jurisdiction of the child’s country of habitual residency while also creating evidence that could moot an abductor’s legal defense strategies, then this too is a serious warning sign that abduction is planned.

International parental child abduction is complex.  There are many warning signs of abduction.  The most important being that parents need to be mindful that international parental child abduction is a real threat.

Please remember, should you have any questions, please consult with a qualified attorney in the state of jurisdiction applicable to you and your child.