Posts Tagged ‘retrieve’


Source: Jewish Tribune

On Thursday, 28 July 2011, the Russian Federation deposited its instrument of accession to the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Convention will enter into force for the Russian Federation on 1 October 2011.  This means that for the first time ever, if a parent abducts her child to Russia, the parent left behind may be able to successfully apply to a Russian court to have the child returned and do so on a reasonably expedited basis.

Up until now, no Russian court would do so since under Russian law, even a child born in Canada to a Russian parent was deemed to be ‘Russian’ no matter how old that child may be.  In many cases, abducted children would be snatched from their Canadian homes, their schools, friends, relatives and the parent left behind in Ontario. The typical scenario occurs during a planned vacation when a Russian born mother announces she is leaving for a brief vacation with a child to visit her family in  Moscow or St. Petersburg.  Once there the mother (or father) announces that she (or he)  is not returning.  Moreover, she immediately obtains a court order from a Russian court for custody. A Canadian lawyer might then obtain a Canadian court order for custody in Canada and an Order for the return of the child, contact the RCMP and even retain a lawyer in the Russian Federation.  However, in the past, obtaining such a court Order in Ontario was useless as it would not be enforced by any Russian domestic court since the child would be considered Russian, no matter how many years he or she lived in Canada, and even if the child was born in Toronto.  It was only useful in the event the child ever left Russia since it could be enforced by the international police, INTERPOL.

If a parental abduction now takes place the parent in Canada should retain a competent Family Law lawyer in Ontario.  He or she would then call the Ontario Government at (416) 240-2484 to enforce the Hague Convention Treaty for the international abduction of children   The Ontario Government would contact the Russian Government which would notify the appropriate court in Russia.  The lawyer in Ontario would retain a lawyer in Russia to make the court application to return the children in accordance with the Hague Convention and help draft the court documents.   A parent “left behind” normally only has one year from the date of the abduction to file an application for the return of a child, but there are exceptions to the rule. There are also “defenses” to such an application.  For instance, if the child is old enough and insists that he or she does not wish to return to Canada or if the parent who left with the child  can prove that there was violence, the foreign Courts may possibly not enforce the Hague Convention. But these are defenses that do not normally succeed because in international family law such issues should be decided where the child normally resides.

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

ROCHESTER, N.H. — As private investigator Monty Curtis sat at an outdoor cafe in downtown Portsmouth on Wednesday, he was only a few communities away from the place where two small children were abducted by their father 25 years ago.

Read the FBI Wanted poster here

It was an abduction that sparked a nationwide search and investigation that Curtis and others have followed for 25 years.

The case began on Oct. 9, 1986, when Charles Martin Vosseler, 44 at the time, told his wife, Ruth Parker, with whom he was separated, that he was taking their two young sons, Charles Jason (C.J.) Vosseler, then 4, and William Vosseler, then 2, to visit family. The trio never returned.

While there have been sightings of Vosseler since, his whereabouts are still unknown. Vosseler is wanted by the FBI for unlawful flight to avoid prosecution and for parental kidnapping.

And while the case may be decades old, there are still several agencies and organizations investigating it today.

Curtis has been involved in the case twice throughout its 25 years, beginning in 1988 and then again in 2006, after having drifted away from the case years before.

Now, he and several other investigators are continuing to search for the man who Curtis describes as “meticulous” and “narcissistic” — a man whom Curtis said he believes is likely living in plain sight.

When Charlie met Ruth

Ruth Parker met Charles Vosseler in 1981, when she answered a personal ad he placed in Mother Earth News. They began communicating through letters and by telephone, and a few months later met in person for the first time at Niagara Falls — his pick, Parker said.

Parker was living in Madison, Wis. at the time, but it was not long before she moved to Newton, N.H., where Vosseler was living at the time.

Parker said it was his openness and honesty that drew her to him initially.

“Given the circumstances, some might find that amusing,” she said Thursday from North Carolina, where she currently resides. “It turned out to be an illusion.”

Parker said Vosseler also seemed to embrace the notion of living a simple life and living with little government intrusion, something that she, too, was committed to.

Still, it was his desire to have children that was particularly attractive, Parker said.

“By that time I was in my 30s, and he was a proponent of having children, which was certainly a draw,” she said.

About a year after meeting, Vosseler and Parker were married, and began moving around the country buying foreclosed and distressed houses, fixing them up, and selling them for profit.

When the couple had their first child, C.J., about a year later, the family moved back to New Hampshire, where they stayed with Vosseler’s parents in East Kingston when they weren’t flipping houses.

Vosseler dabbled in real estate, in the stock market, holding yard sales and even horse racing, Parker said, before the family settled in Rochester and he opened his own real estate business in the city.

Parker described Vosseler as a typical family man, saying he was always kind to her and their sons.

“In the beginning he was around home a lot,” she said. “As a caregiver of the children, he was supportive of my efforts but he didn’t do the child care. He always told me that when the kids were 2 or older, he would help.”

And while Parker said she never would have thought her husband was capable of taking their children from her, Curtis said that in his talks with Vosseler’s ex-wives, he’s determined that he was likely planning on abducting any children that he had.

Curtis said that Vosseler’s first wife told him that when the couple separated, Vosseler told her they were lucky that they did not have children and that if they did, they wouldn’t be staying with her.

“She thinks she would have been a victim of the same circumstances,” Curtis said.
Because of this information, and other information collected as part of Curtis’ investigation into Vosseler, Curtis said he believes Parker was a victim from the start of their marriage.

“I think his ultimate goal was to find someone with a decent background and with a high intelligence who could bear his children,” Curtis said. “I think it was by design that he married Ruth for the simple reason of giving him children and that he was probably planning this all along.”

Parker, too, said that while she never thought of herself as a victim during their marriage, she realized on the day of the abduction that her husband had been planning the crime for a long time.

‘He took them because they’re his’

It was a Friday evening in October 1986 when Parker said she got a call from Vosseler saying he had taken the kids to visit some of this family and that he wanted to keep them there until Saturday. By this time, the couple had separated and were living in different homes, sharing custody of C.J. and William.

“I was unhappy about it because Saturday was my day off and I was looking forward to seeing my children,” Parker said.

Still, she relented and said she wanted the kids back by Saturday. On Saturday, however, Vosseler called again and said the kids were having fun and that they wanted to stay until Monday.

When Parker didn’t hear from Vosseler by Monday morning, she said she decided to go down to his realty business and give him a piece of her mind, assuming he would be back at work and that the kids were likely with a baby sitter.

When she arrived, however, the door was locked, and as she pounded on the door for someone to let her in, an employee of the company walked out with a box of office supplies and told her Vosseler had unexpectedly closed the company down Friday and told all employees that they no longer had a job.

“That’s the moment I knew for sure that something was wrong,” Parker said.

Parker then went to the family’s home, where Vosseler was still living, and found that all of her possessions were gone. Pictures of the boys and Charlie were also taken, Parker said. In fact, the missing posters later created used stills from a video taken by a neighbor due to the lack of photos of the children.

Parker discovered her name had been removed from their joint checking accounts and credit cards, and Vosseler had withdrawn thousands of dollars from accounts Parker didn’t even know existed.

Vosseler had even shut down Parker’s automatic payments from their checking account to her car loan, so that by the time of the abduction she was months behind on payments and her car was about to repossessed.

“I guess he thought if I was busy holding my own life together I couldn’t do much to find them,” Parker said. “He meticulously thought this out.”

Parker said she was panicked as she learned of the things her husband had done before leaving, realizing that he must have taken the kids without planning on bringing them back.

“Do I think he took them because he loves them? No,” she said. “He took them because they’re his, just like he took all of our other possessions; just like every nickel he ever made he knows where it went and he got the majority of it.”

Police and missing children organizations were involved in the abduction of the boys right away, but the initial investigations yielded no results.

“The reality of the times was that folks weren’t very sympathetic,” Parker said. “It took me five months and a New Hampshire state senator to get the FBI involved.”

By 1987, the FBI had a federal warrant out for Vosseler’s arrest.

And while the FBI, local investigators, private investigators and missing children organizations have been working to find Vosseler and the boys ever since, there has been no known contact with them by law enforcement.

The last 25 years

Despite this lack of contact with Vosseler since disappearing, there have been numerous sightings of the man, some more promising than others, Curtis said.

Curtis first became involved with the case in 1988, when his wife, who worked with Parker at the time, suggested he work on the investigation.

He spent much of the next few years speaking with Vosseler’s family and friends, sometimes traveling across the country to track down anyone who might know Vosseler’s whereabouts.

He also started conducting surveillance on members of his family, but said the interviews and surveillance were not successful.

A break in the case came in 1989, however, when Curtis said he got a call from an organization called Child Find, who received a tip that Vosseler was living in Stillwell, Okla. The organization said they got a tip from a woman claiming to be Vosseler’s girlfriend who had seen a missing poster of the children and Vosseler and was certain that her boyfriend was the man they were looking for.

The FBI was contacted, and agents went to the house nine days later — a delay that Curtis and Parker said they believe may have cost them finding the children.

When authorities arrived at Vosseler’s reported home in Stillwell, they found the house and car burned to the ground and no one in sight.

Curtis said investigators still don’t know how Vosseler was tipped off, but said that soon after the incident a note was found in a P.O. box rented to him that read, “The feds are coming.”

“This case has been riddled with weird things like that,” Curtis said. “How would he know that, unless he used eavesdropping or has connections?”

As the years went by, there were a number of other possible leads, Curtis said, but none of them proved to be Vosseler. The attention paid to the case, both by the FBI, local authorities, and Curtis himself also dwindled until very recently, Curtis said.

It was in 2006 when Curtis began thinking about the case again and Googled it to see if it had ever been resolved. After learning that Vosseler and the children, who would now be in their late 20s, were still missing, Curtis tracked down Parker and told her he wanted to start working on the case again.

“A lot more has happened because of [Curtis'] involvement,” Parker said. “As far as I’m concerned, he’s top drawer.”

Never stop looking

Around the same time Curtis became involved in the case again, Rochester police and the FBI were also increasing their attention to the case.

Rochester police Sgt. Anthony Deluca has been working with the FBI on the Vosseler case since about four years ago.

Deluca said Thursday it was a call from a missing children organization checking to see if C.J. and William Vosseler had ever been found that got him involved in the case.

After that call, Deluca said he began to look into the case, and ended up converting all of the files involved into the department’s new computer system, scanned in all the reports, and began to work with the FBI on the investigation again.

Deluca said his current role in the case is to simply look at it with new eyes, doing research and following up on old leads.

While he said this task is difficult, he has been trying to gain the case more publicity, even trying to get it featured on America’s Most Wanted.

“The more people revisit these cases, the easier it is to solve,” Deluca said.

Curtis is also working with the police and FBI, reacquainting himself with previous leads and, like Deluca, following up on any promising ones.

With more technology this time around, Curtis said he has been able to find some promising leads, saying that through the utilization of databases, he has found more family and other connections of Vosseler’s he didn’t know about when first investigating the abduction.

According to the FBI’s Supervisory Special Agent for New Hampshire Kieran Ramsey, the agency is also still actively investigating the case.

Agents have been pursuing new leads in the abduction as recently as this year, Ramsey said. And while he could not give many details on the investigation, he said recent leads have come out of the western and southeastern U.S.

Ramsey said the agency, like others involved, is focusing much of its time getting information about the crime and those involved out to the public, and said that solving abduction cases this old is not unheard of.

“Recently we’ve had some successful reunifications of children who were taken by an unlawful parent, and it’s largely because of continued publicity,” Ramsey said.

Curtis agreed, and said he believes there’s someone out there who knows where Vosseler is.

“I hope that if there are people who know anything, they’ll realize that this is a huge injustice and that they would share the information with the authorities,” Curtis said, saying that he’s confident Vosseler, and hopefully the boys, will be found.

For Parker, holding out hope is the only option, saying it’s the only thing that has kept her going the past 25 years.

Parker said she made a choice to hold herself together throughout this ordeal, a choice that was first made only days after her sons went missing and she was on the verge of losing her job due to absence.

“I went back to work and pasted a smile on my face by looking in the mirror and telling myself that I didn’t have a choice,” she said. “I couldn’t flip out, or go crazy and not come back … that was the first of many conversations I’ve had with myself about how you cannot give in to what you really want to feel.”

Parker said her biggest hope is that her sons are found. While she said she’d love to have a relationship with them one day, knowing that they are alive and well would be enough.

“I hope that they know I didn’t leave them and I hope that they know that I’m alive,” she said. “Do I believe there are happy endings in life? I sure do. Do I believe there’s justice? Yep. You can’t survive if you don’t have some hope.”

The FBI is offering a $25,000 reward for information leading to the location of Vosseler or his two sons.

Vosseler has an eye condition in his left eye that causes him to often turn his head to the right side, Parker said.

The FBI asks that anyone with relevant information call the Rochester Police Department at 603-330-7127 or the New Hampshire FBI office in Portsmouth at 603-431-4585.

Distributed by MCT Information Services

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

Leading experts believe that due to the rapid growth in multi-national marriages and relationships, the number of children born from parents of different countries will continue to expand.

Similar to all relationships, a significant portion of these marriages or partnerships will end in divorce. All too often, one of the separating parents of the child of the relationship will seek to abduct the child to a country other than where the child has lived. This is called ‘International Parental Child Abduction’, and though there are various civil remedies available to targeted parents who have had their child abducted, the challenges they face are grave, and include first and foremost, locating where the child is located.

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

An abducting parent views the child’s needs as secondary to the parental agenda which is to provoke, agitate, control, attack or psychologically torture the other parent.

It is generally accepted that children are emotionally impacted by divorce. Children of troubled abductor parents bear an even greater burden. “The needs of the troubled parent override the developmental needs of the child, with the result that the child becomes psychologically depleted and their own emotional and social progress is crippled”

 

In custody disputes and abductions, the extended support systems of the parents can become part of the dispute scenario, — leading to a type of “tribal warfare” (Johnston & Campbell, 1988). Believing primarily one side of the abduction story, — family, friends, and professionals may lose their objectivity. As a result, protective concerns expressed by the abandoned parent may be viewed as undue criticism, interference, and histrionics. Thus, the abandoned parent may be ineffectual in relieving the trauma imposed on an innocent child by the parental abduction.

Generally the abductor does not even speak of the abandoned parent and waits patiently for time to erase probing questions, like “When can we see mom (dad) again?”. “These children become hostages … it remains beyond their comprehension that a parent who really cares and loves them cannot discover their whereabouts” (Clawar & Rivlin, p. 115).

Impact of Parental Child Abduction

Children who have been psychologically violated and maltreated through the act of abduction, are more likely to exhibit a variety of psychological and social handicaps. These handicaps make them vulnerable to detrimental outside influences (Rand, 1997). Huntington (1982) lists some of the deleterious effects of parental child abduction on the child victim:

  1. Depression;
  2. Loss of community;
  3. Loss of stability, security, and trust;
  4. Excessive fearfulness, even of ordinary occurrences;
  5. Loneliness;
  6. Anger;
  7. Helplessness;
  8. Disruption in identity formation; and
  9. Fear of abandonment.

Many of these untoward effects can be subsumed under the problems relevant to Reactive Attachment Disorder, the diagnostic categories in the following section, and the sections on fear, of abandonment, learned helplessness, and guilt, that follow.

Reactive Attachment Disorder.

Attachment is the deep and enduring connection established between a child and caregiver in the first few years of life. It profoundly influences every component of the human condition, — mind, body, emotions, relationships, and values. Children lacking secure attachments with caregivers often become angry, oppositional, antisocial, and may grow up to be parents who are incapable of establishing this crucial foundation with their own children (Levy & Orlans, 1999).

Children who lack permanence in their lives often develop a “one-day-at-a-time” perspective of life, which effects appropriate development of the cognitive-behavioral chain — thoughts, feelings, actions, choices, and outcomes. “They think, ‘I’ve been moved so many times, I’ll just be moved again. So why should I care?’” (ACE, 1999).

Stringer (1999) and other experts on attachment disorder concur that the highest risk occurs during the first few years of life. This disorder is classified in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) as Reactive Attachment Disorder. According to Stringer, common causes of attachment problems are:

  1. Sudden or traumatic separation from primary caretaker
    (through death, illness hospitalization of caretaker, or removal of child);
  2. Physical, emotional, or sexual abuse;
  3. Neglect (of physical or emotional needs);
  4. Frequent moves and/or placements;
  5. Inconsistent or inadequate care at home or in day care
    (care must include holding, talking, nurturing, as well as meeting basic physical needs); and
  6. Chronic depression of primary caretaker.

It is evident that these causality factors would place at high risk children who are subjected to similar conditions in the circumstances of parental kidnapping.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook


 


Time is a very important factor if a child is missing. 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.

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

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Services

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook


Source: formez.eu

The project aims at realizing a “quick alert” system in the case of child abduction.
 
Actions:

  • Definition of the protocol to ensure that once the case of child abduction has been communicated to the police, the alert mechanism is promptly launched through a study of the procedures already in force in other EU countries, the analysis of the resources available to all Bodies involved and the evaluation of their competences.
  • Definition of a central authority at national level with the clear responsibility for directing and coordinating available techniques and human resources.
  • Management of a joint web portal including two main areas: a public area for memorizing the alarm information and an area limited to the bodies responsible for starting up the procedure on transmission via radio (TV / Radio / mobile telephone companies and others).
  • Coordination between all security forces and the competent authorities, the national network of the Public Administration, civil society and NGOs.
  • Judicial and security system which deals with child disappearance.
  • Definition of the Protocol and Bodies involved in the alert procedures.
  • Memoranda with media and Bodies involved in the communication phase.
  • Realization of the portal.
On 8 March 2011 in Rome the ceremony to undersign the Agreement as regards the establishment of an Italian “Child Abduction Alert” system will take place, which shall allow for the utmost diffusion, among the population, of the information useful for localizing abducted children in the very short term.
The event will open with the welcome address by the Vice Director General for Public Security – Central Head of the Criminal Police, Prefect Francesco Cirillo, and will continue with the presentation of the project by the Head of the Service for Police Force International Cooperation, Gen. B. Guardia di Finanza, Francesco Lisi. The event will be closed with a press conference to be held after the undersigning of the Agreement.
The Project funded by the European Commission, has been the result of a profitable partnership between Police Forces, institutions and private bodies, of which the Central Direction of the Italian Criminal Police has been the leading structure.

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Services

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook


Source: Lawdiva`s Blog

Two New Jersey law firms are fighting lawsuits brought by Peter Innes, the father of Victoria Innes who was abducted by her mother Marie Carrascosa and spirited off to Spain in 2005.

Innes and Carrascosa were married in 1999 in Spain but lived in the US. Victoria was born in 2000 and the marriage ended in 2004. Victoria held dual Spanish/American citizenship.

Ms. Carrascosa, a Spanish national and a lawyer in Spain, ignored the parties’ parenting agreement that Victoria remain in the US and brought Victoria to her maternal grandparents in Spain. Ms. Carrascosa later returned to New Jersey. Mr. Innes then obtained a court order from a New Jersey judge who ordered her to return the abducted child to New Jersey. Mr. Innes was also granted custody of Victoria by the US court.

Ms. Carrascosa went into hiding for a time but eventually was tried for contempt of a court order and interfering with custody and sentenced to 14 years in prison.

Yes, you read that right! In British Columbia abducting parents get a mild slap on the wrist. I can only remember a small handful of cases where any incarceration was ordered, which can only speak to the degree of seriousness our courts ascribe to this heinous offence.

Meanwhile, back in Spain, the Spanish court awarded Ms. Carrascosa custody of her daughter and refused to order Victoria’s return to America. Judges from Spain and New Jersey met at the Hague Court in Holland to try to resolve this now high-profile international dispute, but to no avail.

So why have the lawyers been sued? Ms. Carrascosa’s first lawyer was ordered by the court to hold Victoria’s passport to impede her ability to travel with her mother. When Ms. Carrascosa discharged her first lawyer, she couriered the passport to the new lawyer, who apparently had no idea that the passport was not to be given to her client.

Mr. Innes determined that when his wife absconded with their daughter, they left using Victoria’s passport.

The lawyers are, of course, blaming each other for the debacle and a trial is scheduled for 2010.

I can understand why Peter Innes is taking these actions against his wife’s lawyers. If Ms. Carrascosa travelled with her daughter’s passport in hand, someone has to be held accountable. In my experience, the only way Mr. Innes will see his child again is if Ms. Carrascosa finds jail unpleasant enough.

Lawdiva aka Georgialee Lang

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Services

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook


THEIR marriage had become marred by arguments, but when his wife wanted to travel overseas after her grandmother died, Dimitrios Laskos did not object.

Neither did he oppose her taking their 11-month-old son Panagiotis to her native Poland for a few weeks. But when she did not return for his first birthday, Mr Laskos became concerned. Two years later, he is still waiting.

This week, a Polish court is to decide whether Panagiotis, an Australian citizen, should be returned to Sydney.

Since he was taken by his mother, Panagiotis has been renamed Piotr and been baptised a Catholic even though the couple had agreed on a Greek-Orthodox baptism. Mr Laskos has only seen him for a few minutes. ”For Greeks always the first son of the family is very important,” he explains.

Imagine the outrage, says Mr Laskos, if a Greek or Lebanese father abducted his child and changed his name and religion. ”Always the fathers are the victims. They give too much power to the woman in this country. Why don’t they make [it] a crime, this situation?”

Under the Hague Convention on child abduction, which Australia and Poland have signed, the removal of a child is wrong if it breaches custody orders or parenting was exercised jointly. But it is no crime in Australia to remove your child where no orders exist.

When the convention was drawn up in 1980, 70 per cent of child abductions were committed by fathers, said Waldemar Drexler, the lawyer for Mr Laskos’s wife, Malgorzata Muchowska.

Now 87 per cent of abducted children are taken by mothers, says the federal Attorney-General’s Department, which helps parents enforce the convention. A spokesman said there was no plan to make child abduction a crime.

In the first 11 months of this year 88 children were abducted from Australia, and 77 were taken from their usual residence to Australia.

Mr Drexler, who thinks the convention is outdated, says: ”The mothers are taking the children overseas to the country where they lived before. We can’t say the child suffers harm because the child is more in touch with the mother who spends much more time with the child.”

The battle over Panagiotis has been nasty with both sides accusing each other of lying to the Polish court. Mr Laskos says his wife made false accusations that he had mistreated her. He says his only criminal record is for driving matters.

Mr Drexler says Mr Laskos has lied in court about owning a property, and has been forced to admit it belonged to his aunt. ”My client says the child’s father does not have any resources to support the child,” he said. ”It’s not fair for her to take a child from a good environment … the family [in Poland] is well-to-do … then to bring him back to Australia where everything is foreign to him, language, culture, father. He won’t recognise anything.”

But a family centre in Catholic Poland concluded after a psychological assessment: ”A solution favourable for the child would be the mother’s return with him to Australia.”

Mr Laskos says he would financially support his wife and child if they returned. Then they could sort out divorce and custody arrangements ”here in Australia where we started our lives together”.

”Slowly, slowly I want him to get to know me. After six to seven years I will take him full time. He does not know English. He does not know Greek,” Mr Laskos says.

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Services

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook