Posts Tagged ‘Child abduction’


May 23, 2013

Source: expressandstar.com

Experts are calling for better recording and sharing of information to help tackle child abduction in the UK.

British-Child

 

A national child abduction “hub” should be created to give a clearer picture of the problem and provide data and support to improve how agencies deal with abductions, according to Ceop, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, and the charity Parents and Abducted Children Together (PACT).

A report from the two organisations found that almost half of child abduction cases reported in the UK between 2011-12 were committed by strangers. The report was based on police data that included 592 cases involving 675 victims.

In 42% of police reports – 247 out of 592 cases – the abductor or would-be abductor was not known to the child. A further 17% were abducted or victims of attempted abductions by a parent, 2% by another family member and 35% by someone known but not related to the child. Another 4% were by unknown offenders.

The report, “Taken – a study of child abductions in the UK”, warns that at present the true extent of child abductions is “impossible” to calculate with the necessary accuracy because of inconsistencies in the recording of offences.

It reveals that details of different types of child abductions and held by police forces, government, legal bodies and voluntary agencies, but says that this information is not always published or made routinely available.

The report, which comes ahead of International Missing Children’s Day on Saturday, sets out 14 recommendations, including agreeing a UK-wide definition of child abduction and improving how police record and respond to incidents. It also calls for a revamp of current “stranger-danger” warnings for children, and suggests there should be better learning from why so many attempted stranger abductions fail.

Kidsentfuhrung

Geoff Newiss, PACT’s director of research and author of the report, said: “This new report exposes the reality of child abduction in the UK today. Whilst children are abducted by parents and people known to them, a large proportion of incidents still involve strangers, often trying to lure a child into a car, and sometimes succeeding in doing so.”

Lady Catherine Meyer, founder and chief executive of PACT, said: “Many will find its revelations shocking. More importantly, by showing the extent of this hidden scandal, PACT’s report provides a vital platform for future action. The next stage of our work will be entirely focused on the practical steps necessary to protect our children from the would-be abductor.”

In 2011, Ceop took over the national strategic lead on missing children and now collaborates with partners to better understand and address the issue. Chief executive of Ceop, Peter Davies, said the report shows the immense harm that child abduction can do. He said: “Together with our partners, we must constantly redouble our efforts to reduce the risk to children. International Missing Children’s Day is a good opportunity for us to reflect on this important and complex issue.”

 

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

profile pic.jpg

ABP World Group Risk Management

Contact us here: Mail

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

(646) 502-7443 United States

069 2547 2471 Germany

020 3239 0013 United Kingdom

01 442 9322 Ireland

031-753 83 77 Sweden

May 22, 2013

Tragically International Child Abduction has reached global epidemic proportions.  According to leading experts the increase in inter-racial marriages and relationships  will, in the future, lead to a significant rise in the number of children born to parents of different nationalities 

“It is a great misconception that a child abducted by a parent is a safe child” - Martin Waage, ABP World Group Ltd.

As is true for all relationships, a statistically significant number of these marriages or partnerships will also end in divorce. All too often, following the breakup of a marriage, one of the parents will abduct a child of that relationship against the wishes of the other parent,  frequently removing them to a country where the child has probably never lived. This is called “International Parental Child Abduction”.

Although there are various civil remedies available to parents of abducted children, the challenges they face are enormous, including first and foremost, locating  the child.

Unfortunately for the majority of targeted parents, the financial burden involved in recovery and litigation falls upon their shoulders. With tens of thousands of children abducted by parents each year, the reality is that too many of these children never come home.  ABP World Group is dedicated to assisting those parents who need help in locating, rescuing, and returning  their abducted child home safely.

Statement from a US client:

“After all my years of experience as Worldwide Medical Director for the worlds largest medical assistance company, I found only ABP World capable of providing the unique service of non-violent recovery of a abducted child. It is very difficult to find a company like ABP World that can provide the experience, honesty, integrity, and assets to actually recover an abducted child safely and at a reasonable cost. I hold ABP World in highest regard and recommend them whole heartedly. The world is simply a better place because of the work they do.”

Our intelligence and investigative capabilities combined with our ability to dispatch personnel to most locations in the world offer a safe and strategic solution to protecting what is most important to you, your child.

Unfortunately in this present climate parental kidnapping occurs all too frequently and we are here to help you through this extremely traumatic period.

We are aware that parental child abduction can be difficult to resolve, but through the use of professional operatives with the skills and expertise necessary to find a resolution. We are here to help you.

ABP World Group’s successful recovery and re-unification strategies rely on the use of all the means available  including, but not limited to:

Electronic Forensic Foot printing Investigations

. Intelligence Gathering

. Information Specialists/Skip Tracing

. Evidence Procurement

. Interview/Evaluation

. Surveillance Special Ops

. Non-Combatant Evacuation Ops

. Domestic Support

. International Operations

. Maritime/Land/Air transport

Danish Client:
“I have received assistance from ABP World Group in bringing my kidnapped child back home. The situation demanded alternative solutions in order to bring my child safely home, as the country where my child was kidnapped to, did not actively participate in helping solving the kidnapping. In this regard ABP World Group proved to be invaluable help. They provided the necessary experience in dealing with these matters and throughout the planning and execution always kept calm and seemed prepared for everything. It was my impression that the safety of my child and myself was always the top priority, and they always made sure to take any necessary precautions through detailed planning rather than pursuing a quick solution.

I can definitively recommend getting assistance from ABP World Group to anyone else in the same situation”

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

profile pic.jpg

ABP World Group Risk Management

Contact us here: Mail

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

(646) 502-7443 United States

069 2547 2471 Germany

020 3239 0013 United Kingdom

01 442 9322 Ireland

031-753 83 77 Sweden

April 1, 2013

Source: europa.eu

If your child has been wrongfully taken by your former partner to another EU country (without your authorisation or in breach of court decisions in the EU country where you and the child live), you can launch legal proceedings to have the child returned.

cute-kids-13

Central authorities Available languages responsible for international child abductions can help you take the necessary steps.

Once the proceedings are launched in the country to which the child was taken, the courts there will order the child to be returned - provided that all legal requirements are met.

Possible exceptions

  • if the child might be in danger in the country where they lived before the abduction
  • if the child is old enough to declare that they do not want to return.

In theory both you and your child should be given the opportunity to be heard by the court during the proceedings.

You cannot reverse a decision on custody by abducting a child and having a court in a different EU country make a different custody ruling.

If you want to try to reverse a custody decision, you must go to court in the country where the decision was taken.

cute_child_$_cat_Wallpaper_y1n5m

Exceptions

These rules do not apply to Denmark or the EEA countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland).

Instead, Denmark, Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland are parties to the 1980 Hague Convention on Child Abduction Available languages and abduction cases involving them are treated under this convention or other international agreements.

Sample story

Making sure custody rights are respected

Irena and Vincenzo lived in Italy for 14 years, but are now going through a divorce,. In 2007, an Italian court granted Vincenzo custody of their daughter Alessandra and ordered her to be placed provisionally in a children’s home in Pisa. On the same day, Irena left Italy for Slovenia with her daughter.

A Slovenian court recognised the Italian court order and launched the procedure to return Alessandra to her father, but Irena opposed this decision.

Citing the best interests of the child, the Slovenian court granted Irena provisional custody of Alessandra, on the grounds that placing her in a children’s home in Italy could cause irreversible trauma. Also, Alessandra had expressed her desire to remain with her mother during the court proceedings in Slovenia.

Vincenzo appealed the Slovenian court’s decision and won. Alessandra was returned to Italy.

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

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

(646) 502-7443 United States

069 2547 2471 Germany

020 3239 0013 United Kingdom

01 442 9322 Ireland
031-753 83 77 Sweden

March 7, 2013

Source: dw.de

Tokyo is inching closer to signing the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, but foreign parents who have not seen their children for years have little faith the treaty will help them.

0,,16647520_303,00

In the last 18 years, Walter Benda has only managed to see his two daughters once. That was for a few moments on a street in a Japanese town in 1998 after a private investigator managed to track down the girls and their mother.

His Japanese wife spirited the girls away to Japan after seeing him off to work in Virginia, USA, one morning and rebuffed all his efforts to make contact with them. And as soon as he did find them again, they vanished once more.

Benda’s case is far from unusual. Critics of the Japanese judicial system accuse it of abetting Japanese nationals who want to leave their foreign spouse abroad and prevent them from staying in touch as the children grow up. And as Japan is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Japanese courts set the rules on access.

The situation is largely about foreigners living abroad with their Japanese partners who return to Japan, but the issue also affects foreign nationals who marry Japanese and opt to live in Japan. Unsurprisingly, foreign parents have been given short shrift in legal efforts to see their children in Japan. An estimated 20,000 children are born to mixed-nationality couples here every year.

Currently, Washington is dealing with 47 cases of US children being abducted to Japan, 30 cases involve Canadian citizens and British officials admit to dealing with around 10 cases.

Promises from Tokyo

A mother and her child waitat the airport (Photo: TOSHIFUMI KITAMURA/AFP/Getty Images)The US is investigating nearly 50 cases of abductions to Japan

When Prime Minister Shinzo Abe met with US President Barack Obama during his recent trip to Washington, the issue came up. The Japanese leader promised that politicians in Tokyo would soon sign the Hague Convention into law, bringing the country into line with 89 other signatory states.

Of the Group of Eight nations, Japan is the only one not to have signed the agreement. But even if Tokyo does sign the pact, foreign parents do not believe that Japanese courts will be even-handed.

“I believe it is quite possible Japan will sign it this year, but I feel it will just be window dressing, as is the case with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child that Japan ratified in its entirety in 1994,” said Benda, the joint founder of the Japan chapter of the US-based Children’s Rights Council (CRC). “That agreement provides for regular, direct contact between children and both parents, but Japan does not honor it.

“I’m not very optimistic. I believe Japan is doing this more for symbolic reasons to satisfy its foreign allies rather than out of sincere concern about children’s rights.”

Benda’s experience with Japan’s appalling track record on child abduction dates back to July 21, 1995.

A normal farewell

“I had no clue that this was going to happen,” he explained. “It was the first day of school vacation, so the children were still at home when I left for work in the morning.

“I remember hugging both my daughters at the front door of our house before I left. When I returned home that evening, I immediately sensed something was wrong when I noticed that the children’s bicycles, which were normally parked in front of the house, were gone, and their shoes, and their mother’s shoes, were all gone.

“As I walked into the house I noticed a lot of the furniture, paintings and appliances were gone as well,” he said. “There was a note from my wife, along with a business card for an attorney, on the dining room table. In the note, my wife asked me to forgive her for leaving me.”

Talking to Japanese friends, however, he felt confident that he would be seeing his children soon and that the system would handle the situation in a similar way as is done in the US.

He was quickly to come face-to-face with the rules of parental abduction in Japan. Even though he remained legally married and shared equal custody of the children, it took Benda three-and-a-half years to even find out where they were living as none of the Japanese authorities would help locate them or provide information about their health or school situations.

He approached the local police, the Tokyo Metropolitan Police, the local city office, the health and welfare ministry, schools and education officials, the US Embassy, INTERPOL and various other organizations set up to assist foreigners in Japan. None were willing or able to help and he was forced to approach authorities in the US to have his children registered as missing and have an international arrest warrant issued against his wife for kidnapping.

No visits with daughters

“I have pursued custody and visitation rights through the Japanese courts twice now, each time appealing my case all the way to the Japanese Supreme Court,” said Benda. “I have never been granted a single scheduled visit with my daughters.”

A Japanese baby girl plays with a Japanese flag as her mother holds her (JOHN MACDOUGALL/AFP/Getty Images)Foreign fathers are often powerless in finding their children

In the US, the Justice Department has indicted his former wife under the International Parental Kidnapping Act as the girls are US citizens being retained overseas. The Japanese government, however, refuses to recognize the charge and will not take any action on the extradition request.

“I feel very angry and misled by the Japanese legal system,” he explained. “The Japanese Constitution guarantees the husband and wife equal rights in family matters and the Japanese have signed international treaties which guarantee children regular direct access with both parents.

“The reality is, the Japanese courts thumb their noses at these legal obligations.”

At the root of the problem, CRC of Japan believes, is that Japanese judges do not have very strong enforcement authority in family law cases. That means that even if the abducting parent is ordered by the court to ensure the other biological parent has access to the child, the court is essentially powerless if that arrangement is not adhered to. In other jurisdictions, if a parent is ordered to allow visitation and refuses to do so, that person can be charged with contempt of court and be imprisoned.

Pressure on Japan

CRC believes it is only the cumulative effect of international publicity and increased public awareness that have led the US and other foreign governments to put pressure on Japan.

In many ways, CRC Japan co-founder Brian Thomas admits, he and Benda are relatively lucky as they have at least sufficient financial resources to contest the legal cases through the courts and devote time to supporting other parents in similar situations. The majority of international marriages in Japan are between Japanese men and foreign women from other Asian nations. When those relationships hit the rocks, the women have fewer resources to fight for their right to see their children.

Parental abduction not only affects international marriages. Because there is no equivalent organization to fight for the rights of parents, CRC of Japan has several cases on its books of Japanese couples seeking access to their children as well.

Thomas moved to Japan from South Wales in 1988, two years after meeting his wife Mikako. Their son, Graham Hajime, was born in January 1990, but Thomas has not been permitted to see him since April 1993. He carries his son’s photo with him at all times.

And he is not optimistic that Japan signing the agreement will bring about meaningful change for him or other parents in his predicament.

“I hope that Japan can change for the better, for the sake of its own people, and I would like to be optimistic,” he said. “But history does not lend itself to optimism when dealing with Japanese matters of this nature.”

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

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

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

UK Phone Number: 020 3239 0013

German Phone Number: 069 2547 2471

Or you can call our 24h Emergency phone number: +44 20 3239 0013

qrcode.11947504


Source: Earthlink.net

Prolog

Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) is a collection of behaviors where one parent turns a child against the other parent. So when one parent deprives their  child of a healthy relationship with the other parent, the child may experience chronic psychological distress leading to the deterioration of the parental relationship. Since distress can affect physical health, health care professionals must not overlook the possibility that the child has been subjected to abuse by the custodial parent.

The Details

Blocking or inhibiting contact with the children - The custodial parent blocks or discourages contact between children and the other parent. The most heinous word in family law is ‘visitation’. With this word, the non custodial parent and his (or her) children become mutual guests under the oversight of the custodial parent and the courts.

Only a father can imbue certain intangible qualities to his children that a mother cannot. The corollary that a mother can imbue intangible qualities is also true. Children benefit most when their parents work and act together for their children, rather than two biological parents in conflict acting separately. This is the well-known phenomenon of synergism where the sum of the efforts of persons working together is greater than the sum of each person working alone. This is also called teamwork.

Berating the other parent in the presence of children - Comments such as ‘your mother is no-good’ or ‘your father has abandoned us’ are degrading to the child who respect the parent. What the controlling parent is saying to the child is that their feelings toward the other parent are wrong. The controlling parent’s intent is to berate and change the child’s view of the other parent. This conflict between the controlling parent’s demands and what the child knows and believes can lead to later conflicts in the child’s life.

Threatening children with withdrawal of home, love, and support - J. Michael Bone and Michael R. Walsh came up with a simple statement. “My way or the highway.” That says it all. What the controlling parent is saying is that the child must think the way I do, believe as I do, and feel as I do or else! The ‘else’ word is a threat.

Teaching or forcing the child to fear or reject the other parent - The most prevalent tactic is coercion. Through repetition, the controlling parent relates false accounts of abuse by the other parent. When repeated, this deception can become accepted fact that replaces the child’s own true experiences – my way or no way. This tactic is not acceptable.  A similar tactic is that the instigator tells a child that they cannot have contact with the innocent parent unless the child admits that he or she abused them. This is a guaranteed losing strategy for the child and the innocent parents. When the child is forced to admit that abuse occurred then the child cannot have further contact. This is called Catch-22, or my way or no way.

False Allegations of Abuse

The problem is that many courts ignore false allegations against fathers and men. False allegations of domestic violence and child abuse are common in family law proceedings and the person making the allegation (predominately female) far too often succeeds. This is a low risk tactic because the courts rarely hold false accusers accountable for their conduct.

I have found that mediators, social workers, police and probation officers extensively quote the accuser and ignore the facts given by the falsely accused person. Worse, they deliberately fabricate statements and then attribute these fabricated statements to the falsely accused party. I have seen sixty-three (63) separate occurrences where such persons used the same text and just filled in the blanks, changing only the name. Many judges fail to act in good faith and sometimes courts alter signed documents and testimony given under an oath of truthfulness.

The core of this issue is that one spouse wants to control the other through child custody and the money and the property they gain to receive. A key factor in false allegations of spousal abuse and in Parental Alienation Syndrome is that the controlling party is incapable of civility and truthfulness about their partner. These abusers are selfish and do not care what their spouse or children feel.

A false accusation can give an abusive woman exclusive control of the children and the property.  This gives them a nearly insurmountable advantage in the legal system. Our misandrious courts often treat innocent males as the guilty party and do not require proof that an accusation is true.  The problem is that false allegations of abuse, even when recanted or proven false, can devastatingly affect the victim and their children.  This can bring about permanent physical, emotional, and economic effects.  The problem is that those who lie or abet such conduct are rarely punished.

So with a stroke of a pen, a female can get her spouse out of her life and assure herself of control of the children. That power extends to her control of her husband, his earnings, and his property. Our support laws are structured to account for household income rather than the ex-husband’s income alone. Child support is taxable to the payer and not the recipient. With those so easily made signatures. The ex-wife can increase her tax-free income from combined incomes of her former husband and his current spouse or a live-in partner.

The problem is exacerbated in states having high child support guidelines, high wages, and high cost of living. Higher wages bring higher tax rates yet most payers of child support cannot claim children as dependents. Moving to other states that have a lower cost of living is not an option for non custodial parents because court ordered child support payments remain unchanged. Worse, moving to another region with a lower cost of living may trigger a court review that increases child support payments.

Custodial parents can often improve their living standard by moving to states or regions that have a lower cost of living and still collect the same court ordered tax-free child support payments. Child support payments are often based on the extent of contact that the non custodial parent has with their child (or children). Moving away and false accusations are tactics that have exacted larger child support payments.

Read more about PAS here: Link

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


Source: Japan Today

WASHINGTON —

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Monday pressed for action on the abductions of half-American children by their estranged Japanese partners.

Speaking to reporters after meeting Japanese Foreign Minister Koichiro Gemba, Clinton said she “urged that Japan take decisive steps so that is accedes to the Hague Convention on International Parental Child Abduction and address outstanding cases.”

Japan is the only member of the Group of Eight industrialized powers that it not part of the 1980 convention that requires countries to return wrongfully held children to their countries of usual residence.

Mindful of international criticism, Japan has agreed in principle to sign the Hague treaty. But the move would only apply to future cases and not to the more than 120 ongoing cases in which US parents are seeking children in Japan.

Japanese courts virtually never award custody to foreign parents.

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: Modern Tokyo Times

President Obama of America raised the issue of the Hague Convention with regards to the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction with Prime Minister Noda of Japan. The issue is clearly delicate in Japan and domestic law also infringes on the rights of Japanese nationals when it comes to joint custody. 

Domestic law in Japan and the Hague Convention may be separate issues but enforcement and other areas overlap despite the situation being very different.  Therefore, if Prime Minister Noda is serious about implementing the Hague Convention which relates to Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, a complete overhaul of the justice system will need reforming in family law and issues related to joint custody in Japan.

It surely would be strange if Japan abided by enforcing the Hague Convention without enabling the enforcement of domestic laws related to joint custody and other aspects. Also, it is clear that Prime Minister Noda is still learning the ropes and only time will tell if Japan is really serious about implementing reforms and allowing loving parents to see their missing child or children.

In saying this, it is clear that international pressure is mounting on Japan about this issue and the DPJ is more open-minded.

If Japan does start to recognize international law and court orders related to child abduction then clearly this will bring music to the ears of many parents, grandparents and other relatives and friends, who have also suffered great anxiety.

President Obama also highlighted existing abduction cases and how these needed to be resolved. This is very important because it is feared that these cases would be in limbo but according to the sensitive conversation between both leaders then it would appear that existing cases will also be prioritized.

It must be stated that the Democratic Party of Japan (DPJ) appears to be much more serious about this issue than past Liberal Democratic Party governments.

The Hague Convention and the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is one of many different areas in Japan which relates to parental alienation. After all, Japanese left-behind parents are also victims and some foreign nationals will have got married in Japan. Therefore, issues related to equality in the internal legal system are a major issue. This applies to the bias towards Japanese nationals in domestic courts and parental alienation in cases involving family courts irrespective of the ethnic background of the individual.  .

However, it is heartening for parents, grandparents, and other relatives, that light is starting to flicker in a cave which was so dark for many decades.  President Obama also must be praised for taking this bold step and highlighting the need to solve existing cases.

According to The Asahi Shimbun they report that “Obama also praised Japan’s efforts to join the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.”

Prime Minister Noda commented that “We are preparing the domestic laws that will be needed to enter into the convention at the earliest possible date.”

Brian Prager commented that “This was a statement made by Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell yesterday, September 21, 2011, after Barack Obama met the new Japanese PM Noda at the U.N. General Assembly. Our pain and agony, Japanese International Child Abduction, has finally reached the level of the President of the United States.”

“It is not the public statement from Barack Obama that we are hoping for, but it is a significant step in the right direction. It shows that at the executive level there is much greater awareness of Japanese International Child Abduction today than ever before.”

It is clear that both America and Japan will have vetted each other before talks began between both nations who have friendly relations and strong bonds.  Also, from the DPJ’s point of view they may have desired President Obama to have raised this issue because President Obama’s thinking carries a lot of weight in Japan.

Therefore, without any cross-party support to implement legal reforms in Japan the statement by Obama will carry a lot of importance.

Obviously, for the vast majority of left behind parents they may be either surprised or angry by President Obama praising “Japan’s efforts to join the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction” which was reported by the Asahi Shimbun.

However, the DPJ, unlike the LDP, does appear to have moved dramatically in the right direction, even if “the extra mile” is still not seen because implementation will take time until domestic laws are put into place.  Also, pressure will be put on the DPJ to implement some safety measures from the Japanese point of view.

Despite this, the current government in Japan is much more open to change than prior LDP governments which either turned a blind eye or just dragged their feet by leaving it to the next administration but without any real conviction to change anything.

Therefore, while the vast majority of parents will be at a loss by President Obama speaking positively about“Japan’s efforts” this must be viewed by past governments in Japan who did little to nothing about this very important and tragic situation.

Obviously, many obstacles are still in the way and the road remains to be long but some hope is being seen at the end of the tunnel. However, until real change is implemented and images of children are seen with parents who have been disenfranchised and abandoned by a brutal system, then doubts will always remain about sincerity.

It is essential that individuals and pressure groups keep on demanding their rights and building a positive network with senior politicians and important agencies which have influence.

However, like Brian Prager comments “It shows that at the executive level there is much greater awareness of Japanese International Child Abduction today than ever before.”

http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/politics/AJ2011092211633

http://japanabductionrui.wordpress.com/2011/09/22/campbell-speaks-about-obama-noda-meeting-at-u-n-general-assembly/

http://japanabductionrui.wordpress.com/

http://www.crcjapan.com/ Children’s Rights Council of Japan

http://bachome.org/wordpress/ Bring Abducted Children Home

Children First http://www.childrenfirst.jp/ 

http://www.chowiechowz.com/  

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook
Join the Facebook Group: International Parental Child Abduction

Published by The Local, 5 July 2011

An eight-year-old, kept hidden in the Dominican Republic from her Swedish father for four years, is back with her family in Sweden. 

“That feels good, but I still miss my mother a lot,” said the girl when questioned by the police.Her mother is now being charged for child abduction. The woman denies the crime, stating that she had good reasons for living there with her daughter for 3.5 years, according to newspaper Metro.
The girl has been in Sweden for a month now, living with her father, his new wife and her two baby sisters, according to daily Dagens Nyheter (DN). Her father hopes she will be able to see her mother in the future.The mother is currently jailed and waiting for trial. She faces up to four years in prison for abducting her daughter.

“My interpretation of the situation is that prison time is reasonable, and not in the lower end of the scale,” said prosecutor Hélène Dalhammar to DN.

Before being reunited with her father last month, the eight-year-old girl had not seen him since January 2007.

The parents were involved in a drawn-out custody case, in which the father wanted shared custody, but the mother demanded sole custody, claiming she was concerned there was a risk for sexual abuse.The court dismissed these claims and finally decided to grant the father sole custody, but the day before the court’s decision came into effect, the mother disappeared with her daughter.

The future remains uncertain as to whether the girl will be able to see both her parents without risk for another abduction.

“We can only hope the situation can be solved in time,” said Dalhammar to DN.

 TT/Clara Guibourg (news@thelocal.se)

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

June 10, 2011 by Rosalind English, UK Human Rights Blog

In the matter of E (Children) [2011] UKSC – read judgment 

The Supreme Court has ruled that two girls, aged seven and four respectively, be returned with their mother to Norway, after she had removed them without the father’s consent. The decision was made largely under the Hague Convention on the Rights of the Child which gives more specific direction to the courts in abduction cases than the European Convention on Human Rights, although, as the Supreme Court observed, a little more reassurance that the necessary safeguards can be enforced in the destination country would make it easier for the courts in the requesting country to make orders protecting the interests of the child.

The following summary is based on the UK Supreme Court’s press release. The numerals in bold refer to paragraph numbers in the judgment.

The case

The children had lived all of their lives in Norway until September last year when their mother brought them to England with a view to staying here permanently. The father was not asked and did not consent to their removal from Norway. The mother had an older daughter, Tyler, who is nearly 17 and also lived with the family in Norway, but left Norway for England shortly before her mother.

The father applied to the Norwegian central authority under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction 1980 for the children to be returned to Norway. Article 12 of the Hague Convention requires a requested state to return a child forthwith to her country of habitual residence if she has been wrongfully removed in breach of rights of custody. But Article 13 provides three exceptions, one of which is that the child should not be returned if

there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation

The mother, with Tyler’s support, argued that this exception applies. She made allegations against the father which, if true, amount to a classic case of serious psychological abuse. She recounted incidents of physical violence towards other people, property and the ill-treatment of the family pets. There was also psychiatric evidence that the mother is suffering from a mental disorder which would deteriorate if she had to return with the children to Norway.

Although the father denied some of these allegations, he did admit to bouts of anger, and to killing two of the family pets, a cat and a rabbit. But he undertook to vacate the family home and not go within 500 metres of it; and he said would pay household costs and provide money for child support. He also promised that he would not remove the children from the mother’s care.

The judgment

The Supreme Court, like the Family Court and the Court of Appeal before it, unanimously dismissed the mother’s appeal.

Reasons for the judgment

The case law of the European Court of Human Rights indicates that the right to respect for family life in article 8 of the European Convention must be interpreted in the light of the Hague Convention and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. The best interests of children have two aspects:

1) to be reunited with their parents as soon as possible so that one parent does not gain an unfair advantage over the other through the passage of time; and

2) to be brought up in a “sound environment” in which they are not at risk of harm[52].

The President of the Strasbourg court has recently acknowledged extra-judicially that

the logic of the Hague Convention is that a child who has been abducted should be returned to the jurisdiction best-placed to protect his interests and welfare, and it is only there that his situation should be reviewed in full [25].

Violence and abuse between parents may constitute a grave risk to the children. But where there are disputed allegations which can neither be tried nor objectively verified, the focus of the inquiry is bound to be on the sufficiency of any protective measures which can be put in place to reduce the risk.

In this case, the trial judge was satisfied that medical treatment would be available for the mother and that there were legal remedies to protect the children should they be needed. It is not the task of an appellate court to disagree with the trial judge’s assessment [49].

A full analysis of this case will follow shortly.

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

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

Holiday season signals an increase in cases of child abduction

Incidents of international parental child abduction – where a child is taken overseas without the other parent’s consent or contrary to a court order – are expected to peak over the summer, according to the FCO’s Child Abduction Section.

In many cases, parents pretend they are going on holiday with their child to their country of origin and then fail to return.

Worryingly, it is also common for parents not to realise that they have committed a child abduction offence. Research recently commissioned by the FCO* showed that a third of people didn’t know that if you take your child abroad without the permission of the other parent, this may be considered abduction under UK law.

“International parental child abduction, whether intentional or not, can cause huge distress to families.

“If a parent wishes to take their child to live in a new country they will normally need either the permission of the other parent or the British courts. Cases of parental child abduction increase in the summer holiday period. We urge parents who are worried to get specialist legal advice and contact our Child Abduction Section and the charity Reunite which can provide them with information to try to prevent an abduction from happening in the first place, or to try to resolve disputes if a child has already been taken overseas.

“We also see cases where British nationals simply return to the UK with their child after their relationship breaks down whilst living abroad – this is still likely to be considered abduction. A parent will normally require the consent of the other parent and possibly permission from the courts of the country concerned. It is important that a parent obtains legal advice before taking any action.”

If you are worried that your child may be abducted overseas you should:

  • Seek advice from a  family lawyer and  request a Prohibited Steps Order (or equivalent depending on where you  live in the UK) prohibiting your child from being taken out of the UK
  • In the event of an imminent abduction (in the next 24-48 hours), contact the police who may be able to issue an All Ports Alert to try to prevent a child from leaving the UK.  The police in England and Wales do not need a court order before instituting a port alert.  Police in Scotland do need a court order.
  • Ensure that you keep their child’s passport in a safe place and contact the Identity and Passport Service (and relevant local embassy if your child has dual nationality) to request that another passport is not issued without your permission
  • Contact the Child Abduction Section at the Foreign Office on 0207 008 0878
  • Contact the Reunite International Child Abduction Centre on 0116 2556 234
Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook