HARRISBURG — State Rep. Deberah Kula, D-North Union Township, has introduced legislation aimed at preventing parental child abduction.

This legislation would create guidelines for Pennsylvania courts to follow in custody disputes that involve a parent or guardian deemed at risk of abducting a child.

In cases in which a court deems that there is a risk of abduction, a parent would be able to petition the court to order anti-abduction measures, including restricting the travel of the child when the child is with the other parent, restricting access to the child by the other parent and requiring the other parent to surrender any passport or visa held for the child.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

One key to ABP World Group`s successful recovery and re-unification of your loved one is to use all necessary means available

Contact us here: Mail

Join the Facebook Group: International Parental Child Abduction

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

U.S Phone Number: (646) 502-7443

UK Phone Number: 020 3239 0013 -

Or you can call our 24h Emergency phone number: +47 45504271

The Hague Conference on Private International Law is to convene Part II of the Sixth Special Commission Meeting to review the practical operation of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention from 25th to 31st January 2012. 

The Child Abduction Convention applies typically where one parent has moved a child abroad without the consent of the other parent and without the permission of a court. In such a case, the “left behind” parent may apply through the Hague system for the prompt return of the child.

The Hague Child Protection Convention provides for co-operation among States Parties on a wide range of cross-border child protection matters, e.g., parental disputes over contact with children, the protection of runaway children and cross-border care.

The Special Commission programme includes, among other things, presentations and discussions on:

• the enforcement of mediated agreements:
• grave risk of harm defence in return proceedings;
• international family relocation; and
• the future of the Malta Process, a dialogue between senior judges and high ranking government officials from Contracting States to the 1980 and 1996 Conventions and non-Contracting States with Sharia based law. The Process is aimed at improving State co-operation in order to assist with resolving difficult cross-border family law disputes in situations where the relevant international legal framework is not applicable.

ABP World Group Ltd. deliver one of the safest and advanced panic room / safe rooms available today. – World Wide.

The simplest safe room is simply a closet with the hollow-core door replaced with an exterior-grade solid-core door that has a deadbolt and longer hinge screws and strike-plate screws to resist battering. Sometimes, the ceiling is reinforced, or gated, to prevent easy access from the attic or from an overhead crawlspace.

More expensive safe rooms, such as those constructed for celebrities and executives, have walls and a door reinforced with sheets of steel, Kevlar, or bullet-resistant fibreglass. The hinges and strike plate are often reinforced with long screws. Some safe rooms may also have a externally-vented ventilation systems and a separate telephone connection. They might also connect to an escape shaft.

Safe rooms in the basement can be built with concrete walls, a building technique that is normally not possible on the upper floors of wood-framed structures unless there is substantial structural reinforcement to the building.

Safe rooms may contain communications equipment, such as a cellular telephone, land-line telephone or an amateur radio transceiver, so that law enforcement authorities can be contacted. There may also be a monitor for external security cameras and an alarm system. In basic safe rooms, a peephole in the door may be used for a similar purpose. Safe rooms are typically stocked with basic emergency and survival items such as a flashlight, blankets, a first-aid kit, water, packaged food, self-defence tools, firearms, a gas mask, and a simple portable toilet.

Immediate access to current information about the missing child is critical.

Although nobody hopes to be in such a situation where this information is needed, parents have to keep in mind that child abduction can occur anytime, anywhere, to any child. Therefore, parents must have the resources and knowledge about their children ready, so they can take action if their children become missing.

The goal of ABP World Group international child recovery services is to locate, negotiate and recover your missing child. We can dispatch personnel to most locations in the world; we specialize in locating missing children up to ages 18.

Areas of expertise: Parental abduction, Missing children, Kidnappings,
Runaway children and Counselling.

Unfortunately in this day and time parental kidnapping happens and we are here to help you trough this difficult time.
We are aware parental child abduction can be difficult to resolve, but we use professional operatives with the skills and expertise to help find a resolution.

The day before Thanksgiving Max Troitsky got a call from his mom asking if he knew that his estranged wife and toddler daughter were visiting Russia.

He didn’t, but should have. Anna Troitsky was not supposed to leave the U.S. with their only child without his permission under their court-ordered custody agreement.

Nearly two months later, the Bensalem man is going public with what had been a private and bitter custody dispute in an effort to convince his wife to bring their daughter home or convince Russian authorities to intervene.

His attorney believes the situation could be Russia’s first test under the Hague Abduction Convention, which dictates civil aspects of International Child Abduction. In October Russia joined the Convention as a partner country, meaning it will honor civil verdicts issued by foreign courts, such as custody orders.

The U.S. State Department has seen a sharp increase in the number of international parental child abductions.

The federal agency had 1,135 reports of international child abductions in fiscal year 2009, and most of the alleged abductions were in Hague Convention partner countries, according to the most recent U.S. Department of State statistics. In 2006, there were 642 international abduction cases.

That same year, 436 children abducted or wrongly retained in foreign countries were returned to the United States, most of the children were returned from countries that are Hague Convention partners with the U.S.

The Troitsky’s custody saga started not long after the couple, both Russia natives, filed for divorce in 2010 after five years of marriage citing irreconcilable differences, according to court papers. At the time, Julie was 7 months old.

After the couple separated, Troitsky moved to Bensalem and Anna, Julie and mother-in-law Elena Demyanyuk continued to live in the family’s Upper Southampton home.

As the divorce and custody cases proceeded through the courts, Anna filed a petition seeking court permission to relocate to either Moscow, Russia, or Denver, Colorado, where her brother lives.

Troitsky says Anna, who came to the U.S. shortly before they married, often fought his efforts to get more visitations and overnight stays with their daughter.

“What parent doesn’t want to spend time with your child,” he said. “It was painful to me, painful to my parents, who rarely see their grandchild.”

In mid-November, though, a Bucks County judge issued custody order granting the couple shared legal custody of Julie. Anna had primary physical custody and Troitsky partial physical custody including weekends, overnight and weekday dinners. The judge also denied Anna’s request to relocate to either Russia or Denver, according to court papers.

Troitsky claims Anna only started talking about wanting to return to Russia after the divorce was filed, but he never anticipated his wife would violate the custody order.

“I certainly had no idea they were contemplating this,” he said.

The Courier Times was unsuccessful in reaching Montgomery County attorney Matthew F. Fox who is listed in court records as representing Anna Troitsky in her divorce and custody cases.

Four days after the final custody order was issued, though, Anna, Elena and Julie secretly left the U.S., Troitsky said.

Newtown Township attorney Jeff Leibmann, who represents Troitsky, believes Anna was able to leave the U.S. with Julie, who did not have a U.S. passport because she added her name to her Russian passport. Russia allows its citizens to add the names of children to the passports of parents.

Two days after arriving in Moscow, Elena told Troitsky’s mom in a phone call the three were in Moscow for a few days visiting Anna’s sick father.

Elena allegedly claimed that when Anna and Julie tried to return to the U.S. they were turned away at the airport because of a passport issue with Julie. She said Troitsky had to send a consent letter showing he authorized her to leave the U.S. with Julie, as required by their custody agreement.

The next day, when Troitsky reached Anna on the phone, she assured him she planned to return with Julie, but she also wanted a guarantee that she wouldn’t face criminal charges for taking their daughter out of the country.

Troitsky says he agreed not to pursue legal action. He made Anna an appointment at the U.S. embassy in Russia to start the process to get Julie a passport but she didn’t show up, Troitsky said.

Two days later, on Nov. 26, Troitsky said, Anna told him that she decided she wanted to stay longer in Russia. During that conversation, Troitsky spent a few minutes with Julie on Skype. It was the last time he saw or spoke to her, he says.

Within days, Troitsky says his suspicions that Anna had no plans to return were confirmed.

After he visited the Upper Southampton home, he discovered most of Anna and Julie’s clothes and personal belongings including family photos were gone. All the joint legal documents, including the deed to the house and title were gone, as were the car keys. He learned she quit her job after arriving in Moscow.

“It was clear she had no intention of ever coming back,” he said.

Troitsky and Anna had their last phone conversation three days before an emergency custody hearing was scheduled in Bucks County Court, he said. She told him she didn’t know when she’d return to the U.S.

At that hearing, a Bucks County judge ordered Anna to return to the U.S. with Julie within seven days, otherwise full physical and legal custody would be transferred to Troitsky.

But as far as he knows the three remain in Russia, most likely Moscow.

The U.S. embassy in Russia has been providing updates to Troitsky, but there hasn’t been much to report recently. The embassy has not had much success reaching Anna and Elena and even if they do, they can only encourage her to return, Leibmann said.

The embassy also has reached out to the Russian authorities for help finding Julie, but they are not under any obligation to help find her until Russia establishes a Central Authority to oversee compliance with the Hague Convention.

Troitsky said there is no reason his estranged wife should want to limit his access to Julie. There are no abuse allegations or evidence in any of the custody trial or related investigation. A check of county court records shows no protection from abuse orders filed against either Troitsky.

At this point, Anna may believe that she will be arrested if she returns, Troitsky said, adding he is not interested in pursuing criminal charges. The Upper Southampton police and the FBI have been notified about the situation to get Julie’s photos added to Interpol and U.S. law enforcement databases.

To get his daughter’s face, and his story, into the public eye, Troitsky and his supporters have created a Web site, called “Help Bring Julie Home.”

Troitsky says he has been on an emotional rollercoaster and he has spent many sleepless nights wondering about his child. He misses their special “father-daughter kind of moments.”

“At this point all I want to say is bring Julie back, come back with her, we’ll figure out the details of the custody,” he said. “Taking a child away from a father is not an option.”

In a few weeks Julie turns 2. The most time passes without contact with his daughter, the more Troitsky worries.

“She is probably starting to forget me,” he said.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is an international treaty signed by more than eighty countries.

-It provides that a child who is taken to or retained in a foreign country without the consent of a person with “rights of custody” over the child under the law of the child’s “habitual residence” must be returned to the habitual residence unless one of six exceptions applies.

Hague Convention Member Countries

What is ICARA?
In the United States the Convention is integrated into law by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, known as “ICARA.” That law gives state and federal courts concurrent jurisdiction to handle Hague cases. The law also provides the burdens of proof that govern the conduct of Hague trials. In addition, the law provides that if a petition is successful the parent who has taken a child away from its habitual residence must pay the legal fees and travel expenses of the petitioning parent.

The Purpose of the Hague Convention
The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that the purpose of the Convention is “to prevent harms resulting from abductions” which “can have devastating consequences for a child” and may be “one of the worst forms of child abuse” which “can cause psychological problems ranging from depression and acute stress disorder to post traumatic stress disorder and identity formation issues” and lead to a child’s experiencing “loss of community and stability, leading to loneliness, anger, and fear of abandonment” and “may prevent the child from forming a relationship with the left behind parent, impairing the child’s ability to mature.”

The Key Terms in the Hague Convention

1. “Right of Custody” in the Hague Convention

A petitioner in a Hague case must establish that he or she had a “right of custody” over the child under the law of the child’s habitual residence.. This does not require that there must have been a custody order in place before the child was taken. It means that the law in question gave certain rights to the petitioner which are sufficient to constitute a custody right. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that a parent’s right to prevent international travel, known as a ne exeat right, is a “right of custody” within the meaning of the Convention.

2. “Habitual Residence” in the Hague Convention

The key term of “habitual residence” is not defined in the Convention.

In many judicial circuits in the United States there is a heavy presumption that a child’s habitual residence should be determined by “the last shared intent” of the child’s parents, unless it is clearly shown that the child has become acclimatized to another jurisdiction. The courts in other circuits look primarily at the position of the child reviewed objectively without regard to parental intention. Many Hague cases are won or lost based on the application of the competing approaches to the often-complicated facts of particular international situations.

Mr. Jeremy D. Morley is an international lawyer & advisor who is well-known for international child abduction & hague convention issues.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

TOKYO (Kyodo) — Japan’s foreign minister will be responsible for collecting information on children abducted to the country by one of their parents in determining their whereabouts and settling cross-border custody disputes as a result of failed international marriages, according to newly compiled guidelines made available to Kyodo News on Sunday.

The guidelines compiled by the Foreign Ministry in preparation for Tokyo’s accession to an international treaty that sets procedures for the settlement of international child custody disputes state that the foreign minister can seek the help of local governments, police, schools, childcare facilities and shelters for abused people to determine the whereabouts of children in such cases.

The government is aiming to submit a bill to parliament in March to endorse the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and have it enacted during the 150-day regular parliamentary session to be convened Tuesday.

The bill will state that a central authority will be established at the Foreign Ministry to locate children wrongfully removed or retained by one parent and secure their voluntary return in response to requests made by the other parent, according to government officials.

The guidelines state that those requested by the foreign minister to provide information on abducted children will be required to do so “without any delay.”

The foreign minister could also inform parents abroad and their former spouses who have abducted children to Japan about the system of mediation by Japanese courts as a way to resolve their disputes, according to the guidelines.

The planned submission of the bill to endorse the Hague Convention based on the ministry’s guidelines is in line with Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda’s pledge to U.S. President Barack Obama during their talks in November. Around 10 countries including the United States have been pressing Japan to join the treaty.

Japan is the only member of the Group of Eight major countries yet to join the convention after Russia acceded to it in July. At present, 87 countries are parties to the treaty, which came into effect in 1983.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

Abdutor Motives and Popular Assumption Regarding Family Abduction.

Through out my story I have came across many different people from which I sought the help or they were designated to my case. I’d like to thank you the high level experts and their commitment to the preventing abduction. However I faced also some front line “specialists” who meant to be trained in such cases to support effectively however they seemed to be rather sharing the below assumption.

A lot of people are convinced that a child is not in danger if the child has been abducted by a family member.

That is incorrect assumption which results in taking the problem too easy and risking the child’s safety.

Vast majority of parental abductions are not based on motive of love to a child.

Parental Kidnapping is closely associated with the Divorce. During separation the parents battles over child custody is a common place.
Child abduction can take place at any time: during, after, or even before divorce. For example there are known cases where one parent took the child to his/her home country for vacation never to return. Once far away these parents proceeded to file for divorce.

The fury and vengeance towards the other parent are reasons for most parental abductions.

The experts list the following motives for the parental kidnapping:

• To force an agreement or carry on the contact between themselves and the left-behind parent
• To get revenge or punish the other parent
• Fear of losing custody or contacts rights
• Frustration and allienation by the legislation with the custody order or other court proceedings
• Rarely, to keep safe the kid from a parent who is perceived to molest, abuse or neglect the child

• Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook
  

  One key to ABP World Group`s successful recovery and re-unification of your loved one is to use all necessary means available

  Contact us here: Mail

  Join the Facebook Group: International Parental Child Abduction

  NOTE: We are always available 24/7

  U.S Phone Number: (646) 502-7443

  UK Phone Number: 020 3239 0013 -

  Or you can call our 24h Emergency phone number: +47 45504271

A dark side to family life in Japan

THIS Christmas Moises Garcia, a Nicaraguan living in America, got the gift he had spent almost four years and $350,000 fighting for: the return of his nine-year-old daughter. In 2008 Karina was whisked away to Japan by her Japanese mother. He set about fighting in the Japanese courts for the right to see her. During that period, he met her only three times. Their longest meeting lasted for only two hours.

Then he had a stroke of luck. Last April Karina’s mother travelled to Hawaii to renew her green card. She was arrested at the airport and charged with violating Karina’s custody agreement. As part of a plea bargain, the mother relinquished Karina, who became the first child seized by a Japanese parent to be returned to America via the courts. (Feel sorry for Karina, in the middle of this tug-of-love.)

Because of such cases, America is one of many countries that has pressed Japan to honour its promise to join the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Japan proposes to do so this year. The convention sets rules for the prompt return to their normal country of residence of children under 16 who have been abducted by one of their parents. The State Department says Japan has about 100 such cases involving children of Americans. There are scores from other countries, too.

But for one category of parents—those living in Japan without access to their children—the Hague convention changes nothing. When parents separate, Japan’s legal system does not recognise the joint custody of children common in other jurisdictions. Instead, children are put into the custody of a single parent after divorce. The family courts usually grant custody to the parent, most often the mother, who at that particular moment is in possession of the child—even if the parent has abducted him. The courts rarely enforce the stingy visitation rights of the “left-behind” parent. And so many fathers, in particular, vanish altogether from their children’s lives. Every year as many as 150,000 divorced parents in Japan lose contact with their children, according to estimates gleaned from official data. Some do so of their own accord, but most have no say in the matter.

One such father, an ex-deputy mayor, describes the system as a conjugal version of the prisoner’s dilemma. He says that when a marriage starts to break down, the unspoken question is: who will seize the child first, the mum or the dad? In his case, she did. For two years he has had no contact with his four-year-old daughter—even his presents are returned unopened—and all with the blessing of the family court. When he reminded the judge that the civil code had been changed to encourage visitation rights, the judge silenced him.

Satsuki Eda, who as justice minister last year pushed through the change in the civil code, says he hopes it will lead to more generous visitation rights. It may, he also hopes, one day lead to a serious consideration of joint custody. But, he cautions, judges are conservative, finding it “very difficult to change their minds”. And so, in a cruel twist, a country that has long sought redress for the past abduction of a few dozen citizens by the North Korean state tacitly supports vast numbers of abductions each year at home. “Many people in my situation commit suicide,” the estranged father says. “I can understand the feeling.”

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook