Posts Tagged ‘16’


Source: Delaware online

By TERRI SANGINITI The News Journal

December 16, 2011

A federal grand jury has indicted a former Delaware man on charges he abducted his three children six years ago to obstruct the parental custody rights of their mother.

Benjamin John Soliman Defensor 3rd, 39, was charged with international parental kidnapping for taking his three children to the Philippines in May 2005.

Defensor is believed to still be living in the Philippines with the children, the oldest of whom is now over 18 years old.

“Individuals who illegally remove children from the United States to thwart a parent’s legal custody rights are in violation of federal law,” said Charles Oberly III, U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware.

If returned to the United States, Defensor could receive up to three years in prison on each of the three counts.

FBI Assistant Special Agent Leo Taddeo, of the Baltimore Division, said the indictment and arrest warrant is a special step toward returning Defensor to this country to face charges.

In a statement, Taddeo said that the FBI will continue working with Interpol and its international partners on the case.

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


The Stephen Watkins case is just one of many IPCA cases in Poland, where the polish courts rule in the criminal abductors favor. Poland protects their own,and doesn’t respect international laws or the Hague convention. A legal process in Poland is a total waste of time and money. – Martin Waage, ABP World Group

Source: Digital Journal

Polish judge rules that Watkins boys to remain with their mother

A judge in Poland is defying arrest warrants from Canada allowing a mother who is accused of parental abduction to retain custody of her two sons, Christopher and Alexander Watkins.

Earlier this month it was reported that Toronto born Christopher and Alexander Watkins had been found in Poland. Their father Stephen Watkins was on hand to finally see his two young sons after two and a half years.

In Canada a warrant had already been issued for the capture of Edyta (Ustaszewski) Watkins. She is also featured on RCMP’s Canada’s Most Wanted list after leaving Canada for the United States with Christopher and Nicholas. It is alleged she used a suspended passport to travel into Europe disappearing until this year.

On Thursday a Polish judge recommended that the boys remain in Poland with their mother. The court also recommends that the mother’s parental authority be limited and that a Court Guardian be appointed to the boys.

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, also during The Christmas holidays. Christmas is the high season for parental abductions.

U.S Phone Number: (646) 502-7443
UK Phone Number: 020 3239 0013 -
Or you can call our 24h Emergency phone number: +47 45504271


Source: Times Colonist 

Knowing what to look for can help prevent, solve kidnapped-child cases

ANDREW FELDSTEIN

The story of Joe Chisholm finding his daughter, now 20, after an 18-year search has a happy ending. Patricia O’Byrne, 54, was arrested at her home in Victoria on Dec. 1 and charged with parental abduction in contravention of a custody order for the alleged 1993 abduction of their 20-month-old child.

Yet many more parents, undergoing separation and whose children have been abducted, suffer a more uncertain ending to their trauma.

When either ex-spouse takes the law into their own hands – practising a form of “vigilante justice” – they are leaving family law and entering criminal law.

This means that when the police do catch up, the offending spouse will be arrested and charged.

Here are some warning signs that may be helpful in preventing child abduction, if you believe your child is at risk.

To start, do you consider your separation and divorce to be “high conflict?” Is your custody and access arrangement not working properly, or being ignored altogether? These two factors are warning signs. Promptly inform your lawyer.

Next, the physical ties that your ex-spouse has to his or her jurisdiction or geography are of extreme significance. Essentially, is your ex-spouse giving you exit signals?

You have to consider all of the following four conditions: Does your ex-spouse have any valuable assets in Canada and/or another country? Does your ex-spouse have a foreign passport? Does your ex-spouse have family anywhere else in Canada or across the world? What is the current employment situation of your ex-spouse?

If your ex-spouse quits their job and begins to sell off local assets, that is a good sign that they are thinking about leaving, perhaps with your child(ren).

Finding out ahead of time about assets, family and a foreign passport are important because they give you clues as to where your ex-spouse might be going. For example, if your ex-spouse has an Italian passport or a large family in Italy, your search may begin and end there.

As a preventive measure, you can file your child’s travel documents with the court pursuant to a court order, or have Passport Canada put your child’s name on the passport-control list.

Separation agreements often deal with how parents are supposed to travel with their children, but despite that, you want to try and arm yourself with the tools that will allow you to put all possible preventive measures in place before it is too late.

When an abduction does take place, what are some clues to look for and who might be in a position to help you find your child(ren)?

Schooling is an important part of the investigation into the abduction of a child. Sometimes, children who are abducted are home schooled or enrolled in private school in order to avoid detection by the public school system.

You may also want to stay in touch with your ex-spouse’s family, as they may be more concerned about the missing child’s welfare than they are about protecting the abductor.

You can also speed up the search after an abduction by providing the authorities with a detailed list of attributes pertaining to your child(ren) and the abducting spouse, as there are various agencies that are in the business of returning abducted children to their parents and families that could put this information to good use.

As a parent, I can imagine nothing more emotionally damaging than being separated from my children. In Joe Chisholm’s case, 18 years is a long time to hope and wait for redemption.

Andrew Feldstein runs a family law firm in Greater Toronto.

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


Source: The Daily Star

BEIRUT: The government was urged Monday to sign up to an international agreement that would help reduce the rate of child abduction in Lebanon.

Experts from several countries gathered to discuss The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, of which Lebanon is not a signatory, and measures to combat what is a growing trend of missions relocated against their will.

“Our biggest problems come with non-signatories of The Hague convention,” said Allison Shalaby, the acting director of British anti-abduction charity Reunite. “The more awareness we can raise the more we can reduce the number of abductions.”

Shalaby, whose own daughter was abducted to Egypt, said that a large proportion of abductions were committed by parents who are unaware such action is illegal.

“A lot of parents don’t realize that they can actually abduct their own children,” she said.

Statistics collected by Reunite suggest that 70 percent of abductions are undertaken by mothers. Shalaby said that her organization had seen a 45 percent annual rise in reported cases.

British Ambassador Tom Fletcher, whose mission helped to organize the conference alongside the U.K.’s Foreign Office, said diplomats were increasingly finding themselves dealing with abduction cases.

“These are always complex, traumatic and sad,” he told The Daily Star. “There are never any winners. We wanted to explore how we can protect the children involved more effectively. This conference attempts to do that, for the first time bringing together embassy staff from across the world, with governments and relevant NGOs.”

He urged all countries to sign up to The Hague Convention, which protects children from abduction.

“We find that Lebanese authorities are usually keen to help resolve tricky cases. [The convention] gives us a better framework for dealing with cases of this sort.

“We should remember that these cases are not one-way – we are also trying to combat child abduction from the region to the West,” Fletcher said.

Personal status disputes in Lebanon are decided through religious courts and often favor the side of fathers.

The judiciary does not consider international parental kidnapping as a crime and it is permitted to prevent family members from leaving the country, even if they hold dual nationality.

A clutch of Western countries already alert foreigners to the risk of child abduction in Lebanon.

“Lebanese family law is very different from U.K. law and particular caution is needed if child custody is [or becomes] an issue,” Britain’s Lebanon travel advice states.

Australia’s Foreign Office warns dual nationality parents it is powerless to intervene in abduction cases committed in Lebanon.

“Australians [including mothers with children] have been prevented from leaving Lebanon when relatives have legally placed border alerts [known as ‘stop orders’] on them,” it says. “The Australian Government cannot prevent or overturn the issue of a ‘stop order’ on an Australian citizen.”

With a large expatriate population in Lebanon, Australia is no stranger to the idea of child abduction involving Lebanese victims.

Earlier this month, Melbourne’s Herald Sun reported that more than 100 Lebanese minors had been transferred to Australia on marriage visas, requiring them to marry their sponsors within nine months of arrival.

“In one case, Lebanese [teen] sought protection after she arrived on a prospective spouse visa for an arranged marriage to a man decades her senior,” the paper reported.

“She found he was a violent drunk who kept a previous wife and three children in an adjoining townhouse. She was granted a protection visa after her own family threatened to kill her.”

Lebanese lawyers Ibrahim Traboulsi, Laura Sfeir and Shawkat Howeilla offered advice to conference participants on the views various religious courts had on child abduction. Representatives of General Security were also present at the event, the first of its kind in the region.

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


Source: NRK/Nyheter og VG Nett
Stina Brendemo Hagen kom i slutten av oktober tilbake Norge, etter å ha flyktet fra Bolivia i august.
Hagen rømte fra soningen av en fengselsdom, etter at hun ble tatt for å ha forsøkt å smugle kokain ut av landet.
Hun hadde på tidspunktet hun rømte gått over i åpen soning med meldeplikt, men skal med hjelp fra to innleide hjelpere ha rømt via Brasil til Norge.

Sendes på tv

Se klipp her: NRK/Nyheter

Flukten fra Bolivia ble filmet underveis, og TVNorge har kjøpt rettighetene til det som skal bli en tv-dokumentar
Med på turen var også den norske journalisten Jonas Forsang som den gang jobbet i det nå nedlagte mannebladet Alfa.
Forsang står fram i dokumentaren og forteller at han har knyttet et sterkt vennskapsbånd til Hagen.
- Til syvende og sist veier det menneskelige aspektet mye mer enn det presseetiske, sier Forsang.

Kan ha finansiert flukten

TVNorge sier de ikke vet nøyaktig hvem hjelpere underveis i flukten er, men Hagen bistås i flere ulovlige grensepasseringer.
TV-kanalen kan ikke utelukke at de ved å kjøpe rettighetene til dokumentaren har vært med på å finansiere flukten.
- Vi har ikke betalt noe til Stinas familie for dette. Vi har betalt for det materialet vi har fått tilbudt, sier kommunikasjonsdirektør i TVNorge Svein Tore Bergestuen til NRK og legger til.
- Men jeg kan ikke garantere for hva folk vi betaler har valgt å bruke de pengene på, sier Bergestuen.
- Betyr det at penger fra denne filmen kan ha vært med på å finansiere flukten?
- Det kan jeg ikke tenke meg
- Men du kan ikke utelukke det?
- Nei, sier Bergestuen.
“Stina Brendemo Hagen har forklart flukten med at hun var livredd for å bli drept. Hun hevdet at hun hadde kilder som sa at hun ikke ville overleve i to måneder til.”

Dokumentaren varer i én time vises på TVNorge mandag klokken 22.00.

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


The Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF) yesterday received a much-needed boost in its investigative response to cases of missing and abducted children, with a United States donation of 23 investigative guides on how to respond to child abductions.

The Child Abduction Response Plan, which will be used by the JCF’s Criminal Investigative Branch (CIB), was officially presented to the JCF by Lazaro Andino, legal attache at the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) during a handing over ceremony at the Office of the Police Commissioner on Old Hope Road in Kingston.

“We understand based on our cooperation with the JCF that there has been a problem here in Jamaica with missing children, abducted children, exported children and when the JCF reached out to us for any resource we might have in this regard, we were happy to be able to find something that we could provide to the JCF that hopefully will facilitate the JCF capabilities to investigate these matters,” Andigo said.

He expressed the hope that the kit will assist the JCF, adding that the US Government and the FBI looked forward to more cooperation and collaboration between both countries.

The kit, according FBI’s assistant legal attache Patrick Wren, contains a check-off sheet on all of the investigative steps that should be taken by the police officer who is responding to a missing child or child abduction report .

So far, he said, the FBI had found the kit to be, “extremely effective as it provides the responding officer with the ability to collect all of the necessary information from the matter is reported.”

Meanwhile, Superintendent Wilford Gayle, second in command at the CIB who accepted the kits, thanked the US Government and the FBI while noting that the kits will go a far way in strengthening the policy that the JCF has developed to address the problem of abduction.

“We are indeed grateful for this kit. We have been grappling for a long-time with cases of child abduction, we have developed policy on it and now that we have got a state of the art plan to assist us, it certainly will enhance our investigative capabilities,” he said.

Source: Jamaica Observer

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

Av: Kjell Schevig, Bortført.no

Det er oftest mor som bortfører barn, og nå vil Justisdepartementet endre loven, slik at også hovedomsorgspersonen skal kunne straffeforfølges, skriver Aftenposten 13.07.11. I dag straffes ikke foreldre med hovedomsorg, men når foreldre med helgesamvær bortfører barn, risikerer de både fengsel og erstatningsbeløp.

BLD-minister Audun Lysbakken går inn for å stanse både barnetrygd og barnebidrag ved internasjonal barnebortføring. ”Jeg ser at det kan fremstå som en logisk brist at en person på den ene siden etter etterlyst for en straffbar handling, samtidig som staten sender denne personen penger” sier Lysbakken til Aftenposten. Barnetrygden stoppes i dag etter 6 måneder i utlandet, så dette er ikke problemet.

Problemet er underholdningsbidraget som innkreves fra norske foreldre. Samt at NAV forverrer en allerede vanskelig situasjon ved å reklamere for hvordan barnebortførere kan opp justere bidragene hos utenlanske domstoler på sine nettsider. lysbakkenVi kjenner eksempler hvor fedre har fått mangedoblet bidragsutgiftene til barnebortførere, og hvor NAV inndriver pengene i ren torpedostil.

NAV tar ikke hensyn til fedrenes lovfestede rett til midler for eget underhold. Dette fordi fedrene er dømt etter loven i landet barna deres er bortført til og er derfor, i følge NAV, ikke beskyttet av norsk lov. Slik kan altså norske borgere bli rettsløse i eget land, kun fordi noen har stålet barna deres. Kjønnsdiskriminering ved barnebortføring Når norske barn bortføres til utlandet er det bortførerens kjønn, og kjønn alene, som er avgjørende for om forsørgerplikten følges opp eller ei.

Norske fedre må betale underholdningsbidrag til barnebortførere, mens mødre slipper. NAV vet ikke noe om bortførte barns livssituasjon i utlandet, siden norske myndigheter har ikke noe system for å innhente informasjon om bortførte barn. Likevel hevder NAV at hensynet til barnets beste ligger til grunn for deres praksis. NAV fremskaffer ikke barnebortførernes inntektsopplysninger, så man vet heller ikke hvilke barn som har størst forsørgelsesbehov.

NAV Utlands bidragspraksis fører til at det finnes barn med allerede velsituerte mødre som får unormalt høye underholdningsbidrag, mens barn bortført av sine fedre, som kanskje lever i fattigdom, ikke gis noen rett til underhold. NAV benekter imidlertid at kjønnsdiskriminering foregår, men er samtidig ikke villig til å gi innsyn i saker som kan opplyse om forholdet. Likestillings- og diskrimineringsombudet gransker nå NAV sin bidragspraksis for tredje gang.

Allerede i 2005 påpekte daværende Likestillingsombud Kristin Mile at bidragssystemet medfører forskjellsbehandling av menn, men ingenting er gjort for å endre systemet.

Les hele artikelen her: Bortført.no

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

By David Story, Special to The Villager
Alabama June 17, 2011 

[PHOTO]

Contributed Auburn Villager

Luis Gallardo-Rivera and his daughter, Amaia

Last Father’s Day, Opelika city employee Luis Gallardo-Rivera didn’t know if he’d ever see his daughter Amaia again as he embarked on a desperate odyssey. His search ended up spanning two states, crossing the Atlantic Ocean, and including a trek across Bulgaria from Sofia to Burgas on the Black Sea.

A single man with visitation rights to see his 6-year-old daughter Amaia, Gallardo-Rivera says the disappearance of his daughter was unexpected. In the prior year, his relationship with her mother Beatriz had “settled down.”

“Things were rocky with Beatriz after Amaia’s birth, with visitation disagreements,” admits Gallardo-Rivera, a Columbus native. “I’d travel to Florida from Puerto Rico, where I was living and I’d first met Beatriz, and later to Florida from Columbus.”

Then Beatriz announced she had a real-estate job offer in Spain.

“Beatriz said she’d take Amaia for nine months,” says Gallardo-Rivera, who had joint custody. “It was temporary, and though I wouldn’t see Amaia for nine months, I could have her every summer per our new visitation arrangement.”

Bulgarian connection

The only hitch, adds Gallardo-Rivera, was that Amaia’s mother was engaged to a Bulgarian national.

“The day before they left for Spain, Beatriz called and said they were making a pit stop in Bulgaria to meet the fiancé’s family and get married,” he says.

Gallardo-Rivera admits resenting the fact that Beatriz’s fiancé was a father figure to Amaia. But he appreciated that Amaia got along with the man who might become her stepfather. He says he was glad his daughter had a chance to travel, and he understood the fiancé’s wanting to see his home and family.

But weeks passed and then a couple of months went by with only email and webcam communications between Gallardo-Rivera and his daughter. Beatriz explained that there were visa problems delaying their departure for Spain. Because he has a friend who’s an immigration lawyer, Gallardo-Rivera says this didn’t sound improbable.

The first warning bell rang when Beatriz said Amaia couldn’t come back to visit her father, adding that it wasn’t feasible for the child to leave Bulgaria and try to get back in. She said Gallardo-Rivera could come and visit, however.

“I was frustrated, but not entirely suspicious,” he says. “Now, I look back and think, how could I have been so stupid!”

By February, Gallardo-Rivera was planning a visit. Shortly afterwards, his story took an alarming turn.

Arrest warrant

“On March 16 of last year, I found an arrest warrant online for Beatriz on federal charges of mortgage fraud,” he says. “A 50-plus-page document from the federal Department of Justice initiated by the FBI, which had first interviewed Beatriz the day before she called me with the Spain story.”

Gallardo-Rivera says he didn’t care so much about the bank’s allegations of mortgage fraud as he did about what Beatriz had done to him and his daughter.

“Everything fell into place, so, I called the FBI,” he says. “They had no news of her whereabouts—she and Amaia had boarded a flight from Atlanta to Amsterdam—so I gave the Bureau an address.”

Gallardo-Rivera immediately tried to obtain emergency full custody, filing in Florida.

“It was denied for lack of jurisdiction, and their court ruling said I could file in Alabama or Puerto Rico,” he says. “My lawyer said not to file in Alabama, so I filed in Puerto Rico, and the request was denied.”

Months pass

Months passed and Gallardo-Rivera still communicated with Amaia via webcam, watching what he said to avoid giving away anything. Then, things began to turn in his favor.

“The FBI had to go through the State Department to work with the Bulgarian embassy in Sofia” he says. “I had called the embassy repeatedly, having written to the U.S. ambassador to Bulgaria, Nancy McEldowney.”

Gallardo-Rivera finally got in touch with a female official, Kimberly Atkinson of the embassy’s American Citizens Services, who became his contact. The search for Amaia evolved from a federal case to an Interpol case.

“Atkinson was very proactive,” says Gallardo-Rivera, who had been assured that once Beatriz was apprehended the American embassy would hold his daughter.

“I was sitting tight, and in mid-October I received a call from Atkinson,” he says. “The embassy had just finished a legal consultation and said they couldn’t hold Amaia overnight if they found her. ‘Are you going to get her soon?’ I asked, and Atkinson said she couldn’t answer that.”

Atkinson said she could pass Amaia on to an American missionary couple, the Ridgways, pending Gallardo-Rivera’s arrival.

“‘Should I come?’ I asked,” recalls Gallardo-Rivera, “and Atkinson couldn’t give me a definitive answer. So I slept on it, decided to go, and bought a ticket for Bulgaria.”

Gallardo-Rivera flew into Letishte Sofia-Vrazhdebna airport in Sofia, arriving on a Friday. He checked into the Kempinski Hotel Zografski in the Lozenets neighborhood near downtown Sofia. As Gallardo-Rivera strolled past the hotel’s lake, he contemplated his situation.

“The Kempinski Hotel was next to the embassy,” he explains, “and by Monday I was frustrated when Atkinson informed me Beatriz still wasn’t in custody. I didn’t know what to do, so I went back to the hotel and tried to contact the Bulgarian police. Then my sister told me about a private investigation agency she’d found online,”

A private detective

Korona AIK Detective Agency at 14 Budapeshta St. is known for tracking hiding or missing persons, and the agency had a 10-year for reputation working with foreign clients.

“I gave Korona’s Alexandra Karmanska my daughter’s last address in Bulgaria, plus the name of the Drita School,” says Gallardo-Rivera, “She arranged surveillance of the school and learned Amaia was abruptly checked out by her mother’s fiancé on the same day I’d gotten the call from the U.S. Embassy about the American couple, the Ridgways.”

Gallardo-Rivera moved to a less expensive hotel, the Hotel Maxim, close to downtown Sofia and the Vitosha Street commercial district. He stayed till the end of the second week but was on leave without pay.

“I was trying to email Beatriz because the webcam communication had suddenly stopped,” he explains, “but there were no email responses.”

Gallardo-Rivera decided to return home. Once he was back in Alabama, the emails started again and were forwarded by him to the FBI, which forwarded them to Bulgaria. There, authorities traced the IP address to the seaside town of Burgas.

Gallardo-Rivera was still trying to arrange a trip without letting Beatriz know he knew where she was. He said he was going to visit his brother in Ibiza, Spain, and wanted to make side trip to Bulgaria.

“No, don’t come,” Beatriz said. “Amaia is going to winter camp with her school.”

The Hague Treaty

The emails slacked off, and when they came again, Beatriz was elusive about her address. Gallardo-Rivera tried to get Amaia on the Missing Children’s List, a process that only local authorities can initiate. The Florida police wouldn’t follow through, however, so Gallardo-Rivera turned to the International Missing Children’s List and made a petition through the Hague Treaty.

The Hague’s Office of Children’s Issues provides direction to foreign service posts on international parental child abduction and fulfills U.S. treaty obligations relating to the abduction of children.

The Hague Treaty, a multilateral treaty protecting children from abduction and retention across international boundaries, provides guidelines for an application process to have a child returned under the treaty.

“In the week or two leading up to finally getting Amaia back in November, I made calls and wrote letters to my congressmen, the State Department, Bulgarian Minister of Interior Tsvetan Tsvetanov, the International Missing Children’s List and Interpol’s Bulgarian office,” says Gallardo-Rivera. “I got flooded with calls in response.”

Then Atkinson called from Sofia, saying the embassy had Amaia. She and Beatriz had been in the home of a friend of the fiancé’s in Burgas. Gallardo-Rivera drove straight to the Atlanta airport, thinking his daughter was en route to the Ridgways. There were complications, however.

“It was alleged that Beatriz said I’d given up custody rights or they’d been revoked,” according to Gallardo-Rivera. “But I had my documents when an embassy car with a translator picked me up at the airport.”

Gallardo-Rivera’s documents showed he had never relinquished joint custody, and he immediately became custodial parent as soon as Beatriz was incarcerated.

The embassy got Gallardo-Rivera to the Social Assistance Office, but Amaia wasn’t with the Ridgways; she was at the Dragalevtsi Shelter for Children because Beatriz claimed Gallardo-Rivera had relinquished custody.

When Gallardo-Rivera saw Amaia there she hugged him. The embassy staff drove them to the airport, and they were out of the country three hours after his arrival.

Home at last

Amaia’s aunt and paternal grandfather were waiting when they landed in Atlanta.

“I am grateful I’d always tried to communicate with Amaia, because she was comfortable with me,” says here dad. “Amaia took it all like a champ.”

Amaia started school at Jeter Primary in Opelika the following Wednesday.

“Amaia was smiling and acting like a little girl,” recalls Sandra Gallardo, Amaia’s aunt, of their airport reunion. “She’d say little things in reference to her time in Bulgaria, and it caught us off guard and was hard to respond to. Amaia has a strong sense of leadership and a deep need to understand things but is as silly as any young girl.”

Her aunt adds that Amaia has always been extremely social, makes friends quickly and never forgets names.

“Folks stop me and tell me they can’t believe Amaia’s only been with me for a few months,” says Gallardo-Rivera. “She’s resilient and integrated into school. She’s gotten used to new rules; it’s like we’ve always lived together.”

Be careful with whom you have children, sums up Gallardo-Rivera.

“It’s a challenge—going from bachelor to full-time single Dad with the ‘technical’ aspects of health plans,” he says. “Nothing can prepare you for day-to-day parenthood. It’s not like when you could eat a bowl of cereal for dinner or skip a meal; you have another mouth to feed.”

The ‘big picture’

His sleep was the first thing affected. He wakes up an hour early and stays up at night to make dinner and help with homework.

“All of these things are peanuts compared to the big picture, so it’s worth it,” he muses.

Amaia and her dad even make it down to Florida so she can see her maternal grandparents, who knew nothing about Beatriz’a legal troubles.

“I’ve learned so many things about Amaia,” says her dad. “She is into art. Her drawings are very detailed. I signed her up with 4-H club at school, and we visit different parks and go to Opelika’s Sportsplex to swim.”

The one thing he hasn’t figured out yet is how to fix a little girl’s hair, confesses Gallardo-Rivera.

“I try to convince her to go with a short haircut, but with the movie Tangled, that hasn’t been successful,” he says. “You can tell when my sister or a female co-worker has helped with my Amaia’s hair and when ‘Daddy’ did it.”

This is the first Father’s Day Amaia will spend with Gallardo-Rivera, his father and all his siblings.

“My family has showered her with so much love,” he says. “She adores them, and they love her. They’ve grown so close so fast; she calls my dad ‘abuelo.’”

Gallardo-Rivera’s father Orlando—Amaia’s grandfather, says she is totally different from when she first arrived.

“When we are together, she is very affectionate and talks of things she does with her Dad; she loves being with him,” he says. “My son has a unique way with her. He’s always there for Amaia.”

Note: Gallardo-Rivera said Amaia’s mom Beatriz was extradited and is awaiting trial in Florida. Gallardo-Rivera now has full legal and physical custody, and Beatriz will have to request visitation in court. So far, she has not. The facility she is in does not allow visitors, so Amaia has only seen her mom via webcam since leaving Bulgaria. Beatriz’s fiancé is still in Bulgaria, and since he didn’t formally sign anything or directly commit any mortgage fraud, he is not facing charges.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

MANILA, Philippines – Hundreds of delegates from the Philippines and around the world are expected to attend the annual Ako Para Sa Bata (I Am For The Child) Manila Conference to be held at the SMX Convention Center, Mall of Asia Complex, Manila from Dec. 5 to 7.

Organized by the Child Protection Network Foundation (CPN), the three-day conference with the themeCreating Safe and Caring Environments for Children is set to discuss key issues and feasible measures to effectively combat child neglect.

“Child neglect is one of the most prevalent forms of child abuse. We forget abuse is not limited to the physical aspect, there are also many environmental factors that threaten the emotional wellness of children,” said Dr. Bernadette Madrid, executive director of CPN.

Last year’s conference proved to be a success as it was attended by more than 650 participants, including representatives from government and non-government organizations (NGOs), domestic and international law enforcement agencies, medical professionals, academia, as well as parents, social workers, youth and children organizations and the media.

“We will be presenting a comprehensive review of the latest research, on-the-ground experience and different perspectives in tackling child neglect. By bringing together the diverse groups we hope to come up with recommendations that are inclusive, practical and doable in the Philippine setting,” said Dr. Stella Manalo, Organizing Committee Conference chair.

The two-day symposia will tackle a wide range of topics including media, sex and violence; proper media diet for children; family values in children; preventing child neglect and child endangerment; safe havens for children in times of disaster/in areas of conflict; caring homes; changing Filipino perspectives in adoption issues; non-violence in the school; and safety in the field, in court or at home.

Post Conference Workshops will be also conducted by the Philippine Society for Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Philippine Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Society of Adolescent Medicine of the Philippines, Inc., PsychConsult, Inc. and CPN itself.

“The nation cannot afford not to prevent the abuse of its children. Through proper support, training and resources, we can ensure every child gets the bright, safe and healthy future they deserve,” concluded Dr. Madrid.

Interested delegates and sponsors may contact the Event Manager, Global-Link MP Events International, Inc. at 750-8588/887-1304; fax no. 750-8585/887-1304 or e-mail manilaconference@globallinkmp.com  for details.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

June 14, 2011 by Rosalind English, UK Human rights Blog

E (Children) FC [2011] UKSC 27 – read judgment see previous post for summary

This case shows some of the difficulties thrown up by the interesting tension between the primacy of children’s interests implied by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights and the controls on child abduction exerted by the 1980 Hague Convention.

The Human Rights Convention, in requiring that states ensure respect for family life,  protects first and foremost the rights of the child. But of course the Hague Convention has different priorities. The first aim of that instrument is to deter either parent from taking the law into their own hands and removing themselves and their children to another jurisdiction. If abduction does take place, the next object of the Convention is to restore the children as soon as possible to their home country, so that any dispute can be determined there, since the parent left behind is the wronged party, and should not be put to the trouble and expense of coming to the requested state in order to participate in the resolution of factual issues here. Article 12 therefore requires a requested state to return a child forthwith to its country of habitual residence if it has been wrongfully removed in breach of rights of custody. Article 13(b) mitigates that obligation if there is a “grave risk” of “physical or psychological harm.”

So far, so good. But this limitation on the duty to return has to be restrictively applied if the object of the Hague Convention is not to be defeated. In any event, it is rarely appropriate for a court to hear oral evidence  of the allegations made under article 13b and so neither those allegations nor their rebuttal are usually tested in cross-examination.

Children’s interests: where are they on a scale of importance?

To complicate matters further, Article 3(1) of United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child also plays a role. This provision also ensures the primacy of the child’s interests:

“In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.”

As Jacqueline Renton points out in her excellent analysis of this case,’ “a” primary consideration’ is not the same thing as ‘“the” primary consideration’ or “the paramount consideration”. Nor does the Children Act 1989 apply to apply in Hague cases so as to make the child’s best interests “the paramount consideration.” But this somewhat begs the question of what all these adjectives mean. If there is a sliding scale of importance involved, then each of these words “paramount”, “the/a primary” etc should be clearly allotted their appropriate level so that practitioners and parties understand their chances in court.However, when the Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg Court attempted to do something like this  in  Neulinger and Shuruk v Switzerland [2011] 1 FLR 122,  it seems to have caused great consternation by concluding that the primacy of the best interests of the child should determine the outcome, even if it went against the aims of Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.

This consternation is expressed in the first paragraph of the Supreme Court’s judgment in this case, given by Lady Hale and Lord Wilson, and most of the following paragraphs are given over  to diluting the effect of the Grand Chamber’s decision.

Objectives of the Hague Abduction Convention

In considering the primary aims of the Hague Convention, the Supreme Court acknowledges that there was “no doubt” that the paradigm case which the Convention draftsmen had in mind was a dissatisfied parent who did not have the primary care of the child snatching the child away from her primary carer. Nowadays, the Court accepted, things have changed.

 the most common case is a primary carer whose relationship with the other parent has broken down and who leaves with the children, usually to go back to her own family. There are many more international relationships these days than there were even in the 1970s when the Convention was negotiated, so increasingly returning to her own family means crossing an international boundary.

There are other problems with the implementation of the Hague Convention. It is not only “all too common” for courts to recognise that there may be some truth in the claims of domestic abuse and ill-treatment – even violence – by the abducting parent,  but even if they do suspect there are some grounds to these allegations, they grant the return order sought under the Convention without any assurance that undertakings for the safety of the parties returned will be observed. Indeed, as this judgment observes, “the whole concept of undertakings is not generally understood outside the common law world.”

We have posted before on the primacy of children’s interests under other legislation involving cross-border matters (such as section 55 of the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009).  The Hague Convention contains no express requirement for  the court hearing a case under its provisions to make the best interests of the child its primary consideration. Given that the objective of the Hague Convention is that the child should be present in the jurisdiction where the factual issues as to its upbringing are decided, the dominant theme of the instrument is that the best interests of the child will be served by a prompt return to the country where it is habitually resident.

An anachronism in a changing world?

This flies in the face of all the other areas of judicial endeavour where children are involved; there is nothing in modern life, where mass movements of people, be they refugees, economic migrants, or simply warring families, that dictates that the restoration of a child to “familiar” surroundings is a good thing in its own right. Those familiar surroundings may have involved violence, war, poverty, disease, a whole range of pestilences that drove the child away in the first place; this is why appeals to family rights carry weight in asylum cases. This was the thrust of the AIRE centre’s intervention.  It cannot be logical for one Convention to restrain the government from returning refugees to countries where they face torture or inhuman or degrading treatment or the risk of an unfair trial, when another Convention requires that an abducting parent should be returned to face such a risk.

Yes, the Hague Convention may be primarily concerned with routing the factual assessment of the family situation back to the jurisdiction where the deserted parent abides, but in any cases where Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention predominates, a full factual analysis is (or should be) undertaken of the emotional, psychological, material and medical nature of the interests at stake; how then is this analysis to be barged aside when the case also involves an abduction? This is precisely why the Strasbourg Court said, in Neulinger , that Article 8 should be applied to any case being decided under the Hague Convention; it follows that

 a child’s return cannot be ordered automatically or mechanically when the Hague Convention is applicable. The child’s best interests, from a personal development perspective, will depend on a variety of individual circumstances, in particular his age and level of maturity, the presence or absence of his parents and his environment and experiences. . .. For that reason, those best interests must be assessed in each individual case.

In doing so, the Supreme Court complains, the Strasbourg Court

 gives the appearance of turning the swift, summary decisionmaking which is envisaged by the Hague Convention into the full-blown examination of the child’s future in the requested state which it was the very object of the Hague Convention to avoid.

Although it sticks in this blogger’s craw to defend the Strasbourg Court, for once, I think, that Court got it right. It is not, indeed, for the Strasbourg court to decide what the Hague Convention requires. Its role is to decide what the ECHR requires. But where another Convention appears to be undermining the very interests that are so vigilantly protected by the Human Rights Convention, then what is this judicial body to do? It is simply wishful thinking to suggest that Article 8 can never “trump” the Hague Convention; that in some inchoate way “they march hand in hand” (sic). How can they possibly be so compatible when, on the one hand, Article 8 prevents the return of families to destinations where they may not be entitled to  a certain level of healthcare, while, on the other,  the Hague Convention return obligation is only lifted if there is a “grave” risk of  harm? In the Supreme Court’s own words -

“grave” characterises the risk rather than the harm, there is in ordinary language a link between the two. Thus a relatively low risk of death orreally serious injury might properly be qualified as “grave” while a higher level of risk might be required for other less serious forms of harm. [italics mine]

Hmm. Put in context, the children in this case face being returned to a father who, allegedly, laid about them and tormented and killed family pets as a form of intimidation.  Are we seriously being asked to believe, as this judgment suggests we should believe, that this is the sort of “rough and tumble” that every child has to put up with (“it is part of growing up” (para 34)? There were all sorts of undertakings made by the father, to be sure, which led the original trial judge to make the order, but these were undertakings given to the English High Court which cannot be enforced in Norway. Even at the time of this appeal there were no orders yet made in the Norwegian courts. The fact that the Supreme Court had real concerns about the children and mother in this case is betrayed by their request to the Hague Conference to consider putting in place some sort of mechanism to ensure that protective orders and undertakings are enforced in the requesting state.

Let’s have some clarity on where the weight to be given to the child’s best interests in all the areas of legislative endeavour where this is relevant – terrorism, asylum, immigration, family and social welfare law. Without such clarity, it is hard to believe that Article 8 considerations are really being taken into account within the Hague Convention, rather than being paid mere judicial lip service.

Sign up to free human rights updates by email, Facebook, Twitter or RSS

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook