Abducted and taken to Pakistan, UK girl to return home after 3 years


December 29, 2012

Source: Tribune.com.pk

A six-year-old girl, who was abducted by her father and taken to Pakistan three years ago, is expected to reunite with her mother today the Daily Mail reported.

Atiya Anjum-Wilkinson, who went missing in 2009 after she went to stay with her father, Razwan Ali Anjum, is expected to reach Manchester Airport around 5pm today to meet her mother.

Atiya_Anjum_Wilkinson

He took her to Lahore and told her mother that she would never see her daughter again.

Gemma Wilkinson, her mother, has been distraught ever since.

‘I pray she’s okay but we don’t have any proof that she’s okay and no proof she is even still alive,’ Gemma had said. ‘It’s been discussed that she could have been sold, but I don’t want to believe it. As far as I’m aware she hasn’t been with any family member so I can only assume she’s with strangers.’

‘To know that she’s safe, to know that she’s being looked after, to know where she is. A child doesn’t disappear, doesn’t evaporate. A child is put somewhere and people know – and that information needs to be talked about,’ added the mother.

Atiya was reportedly taken into protective custody after she was found in Pakistan this week and her father is in prison in the UK for not revealing her whereabouts.

Gemma separated from Anjum in 2008 due to his possessive and controlling nature, after which he vowed revenge and on her birthday, took her away saying he was taking her to Southport.

He claimed that she was with relatives there and returned to the UK without her, after which he said a man called ‘Khan’ had taken her to Iran. Atiya, however, was traced after police published a computer generated image of how she would look three years from when she was abducted.

Our 24/7 Emergency Phone will be open during Christmas.

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

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

Parental Child Abduction – Lesson 1


ABP World Group Child Recovery Services 


Imagine…

You are in the kitchen cooking dinner while your children are playing in your front yard. When you go outside to call them in, they are gone.

Imagine…

You drop off your child at school before work. When you arrive to pick her up in the afternoon you are told that someone else has already taken her.

Imagine…

You wait for your former spouse to return your son following a schedule weekend visit. When your child isn’t returned, you go to the other parent’s home only to discover that the apartment has been vacated.
The physiological response in each of these situations is the same. Your heart begins to pound and your adrenaline starts to surge through your veins as the realization dawns that your children are gone. In an instant your brain considers possible explanations, but they each defy logic. Your brain already knows what your heart is desperately trying to deny. Your children have been kidnapped.
There are few horrors that can rival the experience of having one’s child kidnapped. Movies and television shows sensationalize child abduction. The nightly news further distorts correct understanding of child abduction by only reporting on the most dramatic of cases, for example, the kidnapping of Elizabeth Smart. There exists, however, a less-glamorous form of child abduction which is perpetrated by the child’s own parent.
Parental Kidnappings
Each year there are more than 350,000 child abductions in America. The vast majority of these kidnappings are perpetrated by one of the child’s parents. The official term for this type of crime is “parental child abduction”, but it is also referred to as a “child kidnapping” or “child snatching”. Regardless of the terminology, the fact that the child is taken by the other parent does not diminish or negate the raw emotional trauma inflicted upon the other parent.

Parental kidnapping is the unlawful abduction of a child by one parent which deprives the other parent of their lawful custody of the child.  In divorce situations, the abductor may be the custodial or the non-custodial parent. This means that even if the abductor is the custodial parent or primary caregiver, if the abduction deprives the other parent of his or her court ordered visitation time then the custodial parent is guilty of parental child abduction.

The US Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention conducted an intensive and thorough research study on child abduction in America. The project is called the National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART). The section that focused specifically on children abducted by family members is called NISMART-2. This article extensively references the NISMART-2. The original study may be found at: http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org

Defining Parental Child Abduction

“For the purposes of NISMART-2, family abduction was defined as the taking or keeping of a child by a family member in violation of a custody order, a decree, or other legitimate custodial rights, where the taking or keeping involved some element of concealment, flight, or intent to deprive a lawful custodian indefinitely of custodial privileges.”
The NISMART-2 elaborates on the definition above by further defining the following terms:
  • Taking: Child was taken by a family member in violation of a custody order or decree or other legitimate custodial right.
  • Keeping: Child was not returned or given over by a family member in violation of a custody order or decree or other legitimate custodial right.
  • Concealment: Family member attempted to conceal the taking or whereabouts of the child with the intent to prevent return, contact or visitation.
  • Flight: Family member transported or had the intent to transport the child from the State for the purpose of making recovery more difficult.
  • Intent to deprive indefinitely: Family member indicated intent to prevent contact with the child on an indefinite basis or to affect custodial privileges indefinitely.

Conceptualizing the Problem

Of the 203,900 parental child abduction cases studied, 57% were labeled as “caretaker missing”, meaning that the victimized parent did not know where the child was for at least 1 hour, became alarmed and searched for the missing child. However, the NISMART-2 reveals:
“It is possible for a child to have been unlawfully removed from custody by a family member, but for that child’s whereabouts to be fully known. Thus, a child can be abducted but not necessarily missing.”
In fact, the study found that 43% of the children kidnapped were not thought of as “missing” by the victimized parent because the child’s whereabouts were known to the victim parent.
“Although the family abductions described in this study typically had certain disturbing elements such as attempts to prevent contact or alter custodial arrangements permanently, they did not generally involve the most serious sorts of features associated with the types of family abductions likely to be reported in the news. Actual concealment of the child occurred in a minority of episodes. Use of force, threats to harm the child and flight from the State were uncommon. In contrast to the image created by the word ‘abduction,’ most of the children abducted by a family member were already in the lawful custody of the perpetrator when the episode started. In addition, nearly half of the family abducted children were returned in 1 week or less.”
Even if the child is not considered missing, the abduction is still considered child abuse because of the damage that it inflicts upon the child. The NISMART-1 found that, “family abduction can result in psychological harm to the child” and the NISMART-2 states that “family abductions constitute an important peril in the lives of children it is important to remember that the potential harm to family abducted children exists whether or not they are classified as missing”.

Characteristics of Parental Abductions

Location and Season. 73% of parental abductions took place in the child’s own home or yard, or in the home or yard of a relative or friend. Children were removed from schools or day care centers in only 7% of the cases. In 63% of the cases, the children were already with the abductor in lawful circumstances immediately prior to the abduction.

Police Contact. In 40% of all cases, the aggrieved parent did not contact the police to report the abduction. The study found a number of reasons for this, but the majority of responses indicated that the parent did not believe that the police would intervene in the matter because the child’s whereabouts were known, they were in the care of a legal guardian, and it did not appear that the child was being harmed. The highest percentage of abductions took place during the summer.

Ages. 45% of abductors were in their 30’s. 44% of abducted children were younger than age 6.
Indicators of serious episodes. “The use of threats, physical force, or weapons was relatively uncommon in family abductions.” 17% were moved out of State with the intent to make recovery more difficult. 44% were concealed, at least temporarily, from the victimized parent-+. 76% included attempts to prevent contact. 82% included intent to permanently affect the custodial privileges of the aggrieved parent.

Conclusion

Parental child abduction is the unlawful kidnapping of a child by one parent which deprives the other parent of his or her lawful custodial rights. This kind of child snatching not only victimizes the other parent, but it is also a serious form of child abuse.
When the abducting parent chooses to go underground or flees the state or country, recovery of the child becomes exceptionally difficult – and sometimes impossible. Because of this, if you suspect that your child is at risk of abduction you must act now. There are steps you can take to reduce the risk of abduction, as well as actions designed to make the recovery of your child far more likely.

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 –

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

Parental Abduction: What You Should Do


Source: Steve Thompson

Every year, police reports are filed because one parent kidnaps their child from the other parent, usually because the abductor cannot get custody.

-If your child is a victim of parental abduction, your options are no doubt limited. Unless you have an idea where your child’s other parent might have run to, you are at the mercy of the police. However, there are a few things that you should definitely take care of as soon as possible.

First, you should know that parental abduction is against the law. If you have been given custody of your child by the courts — or if the child’s other parent has voluntarily relinquished custody — then he or she has no right to take your child without your permission. Usually, parental abductions occur in the middle of a custody dispute when one parent is certain that he or she will lose.

The next thing that you should consider is that it is often difficult to determine whether your child was abducted by his or her other parent or whether your child was the victim of an unrelated kidnapping. Don’t think that you should avoid calling the police because you’re afraid to get your ex-spouse in trouble; the police will consider all possibilities, and you don’t want to make the mistake of failing to report the abduction and then later discover that your child was the victim of a random crime.

You should also know that thousands of children go missing every year, whether from parental abductions, kidnappings, rapes, murders and runaways. The police are in a perpetual state of overload, which means that although your child’s parental abduction is a priority, the police cannot dedicate their days to the search. They have other crimes to investigate. With that said, you might want to consult a private investigator in the case of a parental abduction. He or she will have far more time to devote to the search, and although their powers of investigation are not as thorough as those of the police, P.I.’s are licensed by the state.

As far as you are concerned, your best bet is to start contacting people. Friends, family and acquaintances should all be alerted that a parental abduction has occurred. Contact the family and friends of the other parent to find out if he or she has been in contact with them, and let them know that it is illegal to harbor a fugitive. Get on the phone with the National Center for Mission and Exploited Children (800-843-5678) as well as any local organizations that help parents whose children have been abducted.

One major problem that you should consider is whether or not your child’s abductor may take him or her out of the country. Many perpetrators of parental abduction flee the country to avoid prosecution (and the removal of the child from their custody). Contact your local passport office (or the national office at 202-955-0231) to let them know that your child should not be allowed to get on a plane or be issued a passport. The police can likewise put a red flag on the abductor’s passport to keep him or her in the U.S.

And finally, you might want to resort to your local news media to help generate publicity. The televisions and radios can broadcast news briefs about the parental abduction of your child in the hopes that someone will report a sighting. Many children have been found over the years because the clerk at a drug store or the teller at a bank recognizes the child from his or her picture on the news and calls it in. While you can’t count on this happening, it’s certainly a possibility.

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

Ireland: Department handled up to 200 child abduction cases


Source: Irishtimes

INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL child abduction cases involving almost 200 children were dealt with by the Department of Justice last year.

The department’s central authority for child abduction received 142 new applications last year, some involving more than one child.

This is the highest level of new cases since the authority was established almost 20 years ago and is two more cases than 2010.

Almost two-thirds (89) of the new cases concerned children being taken from the State to other countries.

Over two-thirds of these cases involved children taken from the State to the UK; 39 to England and Wales; 12 to Scotland; and 10 to Northern Ireland.

Eastern European countries accounted for more than a tenth of outgoing cases, most of these to Poland.

Children being taken to the State from the UK accounted for half of incoming abductions while Eastern European countries accounted for almost a third.

There were also 119 ongoing cases from previous years being dealt with by the department bringing the total to 261 applications.

Half of the incoming and outgoing abduction cases being dealt with were awaiting resolution.

Most of the cases were being dealt with under the Hague Convention with some under EU laws on child abduction.

The convention facilitates the return of children taken from one state to another against the wishes of a parent with custody rights.

Minister for Justice urged parents to take all steps to resolve differences. “Parental child abduction remains a constant problem. When family conflict occurs, it is important that estranged parents and spouses exhaust all their options to resolve differences and reach agreement in the best interests of the children involved,” he said.

Also read: 198 children here targeted in abductions

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

Jon Gulbrandsen / Norske ruiner i utvalg – Et kritisk søkelys på domstolene


Kilde: Jon Gulbrandsen / Bortført.no

Kanskje er Jon Gulbrandsens bok “Norske ruiner i utvalg” et tegn på at forlagene nå er i ferd med å innse behovet for et kritisk søkelys på domstolene? Gulbrandsen hevder at de mest notoriske lovbryterne her i landet er dommere. Dette har nok mange før ham fornemmet, uten at de har greid å sette ord på det, like elegant som Gulbrandsen har gjort.

Den kanskje sterkeste beretningen er forfatterens eget møte med det norske rettsvesenet, som overlot barna hans til en alvorlig sinnssyk mor og slik ødela en hel familie, etter alt å dømme av politiske årsaker.  En familie som før hendelsen besto av to suksessrike akademikere og to veltilpassede barn.  Det hører også med til historien at hele statsapparatet, fra rettsvesen, helsevesen, barnevern til NAV, fraskriver seg ethvert ansvar for en historie de selv har vært hovedaktører i.

I sin essaysamling “Norge mitt Norge” stilte Jens Bjørneboe spørsmålet: Har juristene sjel? Offentlig kritikk av dommerstanden døde ut omtrent samtidig som Bjørneboe døde i 1976, til tross for at det er mye å kritisere.

I Norge tas ikke rettssakene opp på lydbånd eller video. Man bruker heller ikke stenografer. Når en rettssak er over, så er det ingen som kan gå inn å sjekke hva vitnene fortalte. Hvorfor er det slik? Fritz Moen-saken er det eneste kjente tilfelle av dobbelt justismord i Europa. Er det tilfeldig at vi har en slik ekkel Europarekord?

Forfatterens egen historie burde alene være nok til å så tvil om den norske statsforfatningen, og da spesielt rettsvesenet, men forfatteren går videre, og sannsynliggjør at denne typen rettsavgjørelser langt fra er uvanlige, men tvert om danner normen i norsk rettspraksis. Syphilia Morgenstierne (alias Mari Toft), kommenterer bokens kapittel 2 med å si at forfatteren “har levert en helt sensasjonelt god og personlig og oppsiktsvekkende beretning, ikke fordi opplevelsen er enestående, men nettopp fordi den har generell gyldighet og samtidig er personlig skrevet og med intelligens og humor, og utrolig nok blottet for offerets selvmedlidenhet selv om det er uhyggelige ting han beskriver.”

Den samme opplevelsen sitter igjen etter å ha lest også de andre kapitlene i boken, enten det gjelder Norges høyst fortjente jumboplass innenfor skole, forskning og næringsliv, eller det gjelder kirkens tanketomme og selvtilfredse utlegginger av åndelige sannheter. Forfatteren plasserer ansvaret primært hos norske politikere, sekundært hos en del interessegrupper, men legger også noe av skylden på den norske folkesjelen.  Men han stopper ikke med dette; det foreslås konkrete og til tider konstitusjonelle løsninger, både i deler av kapittel 1 og i slutten av kapittel 4.

Boken anbefales varmt til alle som er samfunnsengasjerte, og spesielt til politikere og jurister, enn skjønt det sier seg selv at de to siste neppe vil stå først i bokkøen. Her er noen utdrag fra Norske ruiner i utvalg:

“Hydrodirektøren som takket nei til et forskningssamarbeid med Boeing hadde forresten et økenavn blant de ansatte; de kalte ham ‘Teller’n’, fordi alt han kom over, skulle telles.  Øyensynlig var han av den oppfatning at dersom et problem først kunne omgjøres til tall, så kunne det senere også løses ved hjelp av en kalkulator.  Oppfatningen synes å være rådende blant både økonomer og organ-isasjonsteoretikere, og i dag finnes disse overalt i samfunnet, til og med i militæret, hvor de ivrigste allerede har rukket å havne i historiebøkene.  Mest kjent er Robert McNamaras forsøk på å legge strategien for Vietnam-krigen med de samme metodene han hadde ledet Ford Motor Company.  “Etter alle målbare størrelser vinner vi denne krigen,” konkluderte han, etter å ha vært på lynvisitt i Sør-Vietnam med notatblokk og regnestav.

Denne noe underlige trosretningen kalles på engelsk for ‘New Public Management’, men på norsk er den kjent som ‘MRS’ eller ‘Mål og Resultat Styring’.  Hele den norske statsforvaltningen er underlagt dette systemet, og er i hovedsak forklaringen på suksessen til slike etater som NSB, Jernbaneverket, NAV og UDI.  Tidligere universitetsdirektør Hanne Harlem er også en av dem som bekjenner seg til tellemetoden, blant annet skulle hun telle seg frem til hvor godt Universitetet i Oslo fungerte ved hjelp av en 24-punkters liste over tellbare mål.  Her er tre av dem; 1) Studenter pr vitenskapelig årsverk pr år.  2) Antall omvisninger av skoleklasser og 3) Andel kvinner i faste vitenskapelige stillinger.   Resultatet vil sikkert etter hvert bli både flere kvinnelige ansatte og flere besøkende skoleklasser, men flere Nobelpriser blir det neppe.  Men det var vel heller ikke hensikten.  I alle fall flykter talentene gjerne til utlandet, slik Terje Lohndal gjorde, da han meldte overgang fra Universitetet i Oslo til University of Maryland.  Men UiOs rektor, Ole Petter Ottersen, beroliger med at “Vi kan ikke på død og liv holde på alle talenter” (Aftenposten, 28. januar 2010).

Heller ikke sykehus eller barnehager slipper unna disse menneskene; studenter og barn så vel som pasienter skal nå betraktes som ‘kunder’ og driften skal kvalitetssikres gjennom kursing i internfakturering, prosjektstyring og bestiller/utfører modeller.  Resultatet er blant annet at St. Hanshaugen i Oslo legger ned et SFO-tilbud for funksjonshemmede barn og at Helse Førde nedprioriterer ortopedipasienter fra eget fylke.  Sven Bue Berger og Jon Bolstad gir oss begrunnelsene: “Kundegrunnlaget er ikke godt nok” og “Pasienter fra eget fylke genererer mindre inntekter enn pasienter fra andre fylker“.  Igjen er det bokførerlogikken og revisorvisjonene som skal forme fremtiden vår, og ikke forstand, kreativitet eller hjertelag.

Likevel kan symptomene noen ganger til forveksling minne om det motsatte, som da UDI saboterte sin egen politiske ledelse og lot 200 irakere få bli i Norge.  Hjertelag?  Slett ikke – utvalget som gransket saken ga denne forklaringen: UDI hadde ikke hørt på politikerne sine, fordi de fulgte MRS-rutiner i stedet, blant annet ved at de hadde et “ensidig fokus på produksjon og saksavvikling” (Dagbladet, 27. januar 2007).

På den andre siden har domstolene helt på egen hånd utviklet et skrekkregime som bryter radikalt med alminnelige folks rettsfølelse, men når de i tillegg begår regulære lovbrudd, kan det være betimelig å spekulere over mulige motiver.  Tore Sandbergs henvisninger til skifteretten antyder økonomiske motiver, men dette er neppe tilfellet i privat- eller strafferettslige saker, så motivene må være flere.

Kvinnerettslige hensyn er en annen aktuell kandidat, kanskje spesielt i barnefordelingssaker, noe som også sannsynliggjør politiske motiver.  Dette styrkes av et forhold som påtales av statsviter og professor ved Universitetet i Bergen, Gunnar Grendstad, som gjennom et forskningsprosjekt har avdekket at Høyesterettsdommere som er utnevnt av Arbeiderpartiet, har en tendens til å dømme i favør av staten og å sette individuelle menneskelige hensyn til side.  Grendstad utdyper det på denne måten: “Høyesterett kan betraktes som et politisk organ når den i siste instans avgjør vinnere og tapere i kampen om ressurser og rettigheter i samfunnet.”   Stoltenberg II-regjeringens forsøk på å etterlikne norske redere for 21 milliarder kroner led nederlag i Høyesterett, men det er interessant å merke seg at de fem dommerne som stemte for regjeringens standpunkt, alle var utnevnt av Arbeiderpartiet (Aftenposten, 13. februar 2010).  I dette ligger politikernes kanskje aller største bedrag, nemlig forestillingen om at statsmakten er delt mellom Storting, Regjering og Domstoler, et bedrag så grovt at det faktisk er gjengitt i samtlige av skolens lærebøker, og får lov til å stå der.

Men hva da med de tilfellene hvor dommere begår overlagte justismord eller frikjenner like overlagte lovbrytere?  Kvinnepolitiske hensyn kan her bare forklare et fåtall av saker, slik som når fedre dømmes for overgrep mot barn på grunnlag av påstander fra mødre som vil skilles.

Med referanse til frikjenning av råkjørere, er det i eksempelet foran godtgjort at lovbryteren var millionær og tilhørte samfunnets øverste kretser.  I tillegg kommer de berømte stortingspensjonistene, hvor Kjell Magne Bondeviks sak blir henlagt, mens en kvinne fra Alta under identiske forhold blir dømt (Aftenposten, 10. mars 2009).  Med dette er kriteriene for kameraderi også på plass.  Alternativet er god gammeldags dumhet, men dette er vel det eneste seleksjonen av dommere kan garantere at det ikke er.  Kameraderi blir dermed den tredje kandidaten.

Men hvordan klarer dommere å idømme straff når den dømte verken er skyldig eller er motpart til verken kvinner eller kamerater?  Antakelig er noen av disse tilfellene et resultat av jussens noe særegne form for logikk, slik som i Tengs-saken, men både egne og andres observasjoner (eksempelvis sorenskriver Carl-Hugo Lunds rapport) indikerer at det også kan ligge et element av maktberuselse i hva de foretar seg.  Frekvensen av aggressive følelsesutbrudd hos dommere i retten er påtakelig og kan være en indikasjon på at rettssalene i stor grad brukes til å utøve dominans, og ikke til objektive avveiinger av argumenter, slik fru Justitia skal gjøre.  Fenomenet er alminnelig kjent, også utenfor landets grenser, og later til å være et karaktertrekk hos historiens mest beryktede dommere, slik som den fremtredende tyske juristen, dr. Roland Freisler.  Kandidat fire og fem blir dermed de noe ulne begrepene juss og maktberuselse, men la oss for enkelthets skyld kalle det jussrus.”

¤¤¤   ¤¤¤   ¤¤¤   ¤¤¤   ¤¤¤   ¤¤¤   ¤¤¤   ¤¤¤   ¤¤¤   ¤¤¤   ¤¤¤   ¤¤¤

Fra “Norske ruiner i utvalg” tilbake til Jens Bjørneboes spørsmål: Har juristene sjel?

Bjørneboe skriver: “Ja, de har sjel, men den er annerledes enn hos andre mennesker, i og med at juristers rettsbegrep ikke som hos vanlige folk er knyttet til moral, eller: “Rett-og-Rettferdighet”, men til helt underordnede, faglige detaljspørsmål. Det angår hele landet at visse strafferettslige reformerer er nødvendige, – bare unntatt én befolkningsgruppe: Nemlig juristene!”

Les også: De fleste, men hva med de andre
Norske ruiner i utvalg kan kjøpes hos Bokkilden.no og Notabene.no.

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

Legal eagles are all set to discuss ‘Spooner abduction loophole’


Source: Milton Keynes Citizen

SOME of the finest legal minds in the country are set to discuss the closure of a loophole in the law that could prevent other parents going through the same pain as a father whose children were taken to Zambia.

Ken Spooner, who is the subject of this newspaper’s Justice for Ken campaign, allowed his former partner Zanetta Nyendwa to take their two boys, Devlan and Carlan, on a holiday to the African country to see their grandmother.

But despite promising to return, Miss Nyendwa remained in Zambia with the children – leaving Mr Spooner to contest a drawn out legal battle to bring them home.

A change in the law could have meant he was able to bring Devlan and Caelan home much earlier.

Because Mr Spooner had given consent for the holiday the case is being treated as a civil dispute. If Miss Nyendwa had taken the children without that consent it would have been classed as a criminal case.

In December, MP for Milton Keynes North Mark Lancaster promised to look into the situation.

Now a number of top QCs are set to discuss the matter on behalf of international parental child abduction charity, Reunite.

The move follows the decision of the Australian government to criminalise wrongful retention.

If the lawyers believe Britain should follow suit, it could lead to a debate in the House of Commons.

Mr Lancaster has also received a reply from Justice Secretary Tom McNally to earlier questions in Parliament on the subject.

In his letter, Mr McNally said the Government has ‘no current plans to legislate further’ in the area of international child abduction, saying instead that the UK already participates in ‘meetings to review and enhance the operation of the 1980 Hague Convention’.

The Hague Convention is an agreement between signed-up countries which aims to ensure the return of an abducted child to their home country.

But Mr Spooner said: “If the main objective is to protect the best interests of the child, then there has to be a deterrent in place to prevent such actions from taking place.

“Unless there is a change to the law, abducting parents will continue to abuse the loophole, and this will become an even bigger problem.

“Perhaps the question should be put to the left behind parents, and see if there are any that would accept Mr McNally’s justification.”

Speaking in December, Mr Lancaster said: “I find it staggering that children can be abducted from a parent and the actions of the other parent are not classified as criminal.”

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

What Can We Do To Prevent Parental Child Abduction ?


Source: The Polly Klaas Foundation

When the kidnapper is a family member

For Parents… How to Protect Yourself and Your Child

  • Are you in the middle of a custody battle?
  • Do you argue with your child’s other parent about visitation?
  • Do you worry about your child when he or she is with the other parent?

If you answered YES to any of these, you and your child may be at risk of family abduction.

Family abduction happens when a family member, usually a parent, kidnaps and conceals a child for any length of time. It is a serious crime that happens to over 203,000 families a year. Life on the run for a child abducted by a family member offers many dangers: over half of family abductors have a history of violence, substance abuse, or a criminal record. In addition, children are often deprived of schooling and medical care, and learn to distrust the very authorities who could help them. The potential for harm is so great that many states prosecute family abduction as a felony.

Why do parents kidnap their own children?

According to family abduction experts, parents cite the following reasons for kidnapping their own children:

  • To force a reconciliation or continued interaction with the left-behind parent;
  • To spite or punish the other parent;
  • From fear of losing custody or visitation rights;
  • In rare cases, to protect the child from a parent who is perceived to molest, abuse, or neglect the child.

Are you at risk for family abduction?

A direct threat of abduction should always be taken seriously, but often the warning signs are more subtle. Here are the most common signs that your child may be in danger of being kidnapped by a parent or family member:

  • Your relationship with the other parent of your child is volatile and you argue often over visitation;
  • A parent has a history of threatening abduction or has actually abducted the child in the past;
  • A parent suspects or believes abuse has occurred and his/her friends and family support these concerns;
  • A parent is paranoid delusional or severely sociopathic;
  • A parent is a citizen of another country and is ending a mixed-culture marriage;
  • A parent feels alienated from the legal system and has family/social support in another community;
  • A parent has no strong ties to the child’s home state;
  • A parent has no job, is able to work anywhere or is not financially tied to the area;
  • A parent is engaged in planning activities such as quitting a job, selling a home, terminating a lease, closing a bank account or applying for passports, birth certificates or school and medical records.

If any of these warning signs are present in your family, we recommends following the steps described below.

Keeping your child safe — Tips to prevent family abduction

Most parents who fall victim to family abduction are not aware that something like this can happen to them. While most people think strangers are to blame in child kidnappings, national statistics reveal that abductions by family are much more common than by strangers.

Michael Smith, whose children were abducted by his ex-wife in December 1997, says, “While it is devastating to know that the risk of family abduction is much higher than stranger abductions, parents can take comfort in knowing that there are preventive measures they can take to reduce the risk of family abduction, precisely because they know who the potential abductor is.”

We recommend taking the following cautionary steps:

  1. Respect the other parent’s custody and visitation rights. Anger, frustration and desperation are leading causes of family abduction.
  2. Attempt to maintain a friendly relationship with your ex-spouse and his/her family. This may be difficult, but it can save you from experiencing the far greater trauma of family abduction. The family will be less willing to aid in an abduction if they have a relationship with you. If an abduction does occur, you will need the support of the kidnapper’s family to bring your child home safely.
  3. Consider counseling. As little as 10 hours of intervention can effectively reduce the likelihood of family abduction. Information on obtaining counseling or mediation services is available atwww.divorceinfo.com. Child Find of America (1-800-426-5678) offers a mediation hotline. Your local family court can also help you with referrals to counseling or mediation services.
  4. Begin the custody process immediately and get temporary custody of your child. You cannot prove your custody rights without a custody order.
  5. Include abduction and interference prevention measures in the custody order. The most common are:
    • Having both parents post bonds. If the child is abducted, the money helps the left-behind parent with costs of recovery. It also serves as a deterrent. Companies that provide such services include Accredited and Roche Surety. For more information on posting bonds, contact the Professional Bail Agents of the United States at www.pbus.com or 1-800-833-PBUS.
    • Providing detailed police procedures in case of abduction or custodial interference, and authorization for law enforcement to recover the child.
    • Imposing visitation restrictions, such as supervised visits. The Supervised Visitation Network can provide more information about supervised visitations.
    • Requiring that the parents passports be left at the county clerk’s office during visitations.
  6. Keep a certified copy of the custody order with you at home. Check with your family court that it is the most recent order.
  7. Record and document abduction threats. Report them to the family courts or your lawyer immediately.
  8. Ask the police or prosecutor to intervene. If a parent threatens to abduct a child, it can help to ask the local police or prosecutor to contact the parent and warn him/her of the criminal consequences.
  9. Notify schools, healthcare providers, day care centers and babysitters of custody orders. Certified copies of custody orders should be on file with the school office and given to teachers, day care providers, babysitters, dentists and pediatricians with instructions not to release your child to anyone else without your permission. You should ask to be contacted immediately if the non-custodial parent attempts to pick up your child without explicit authorization.
  10. Keep lists of identifying information about the other parent and your child, including Social Security numbers, current photographs, license plate numbers and bank and credit card account numbers.
  11. Keep a complete written description of your child, including hair and eye color, height, weight, date of birth, and identifying physical features. Take color photographs of your child every six months. A head and shoulder portrait is best. Consider getting your child fingerprinted. Contact your local police department to find out how this can be done in your area. You, not the police, should retain the prints. Or use the Child ID kit available from the Polly Klaas Foundation to fingerprint and document identification information about your child.
  12. File or register a certified copy of the custody order in the non-custodial parent’s state. This notifies the courts that a valid order has been made and must be enforced without modification. Contact your local family court for advice on how to do this.
  13. Obtain a passport for your child and notify the passport office that your child is not to leave the country without your written permission. Learn how to restrict your child’s passport through the U.S. Department of State at www.travel.state.gov.

To keep your children safe, it is ALSO important that you:

  • Keep the lines of communication open between you and your children.
  • Teach your children their full name(s) and your full name. Older children should be able to easily recite their full address, city, state and country, as well as telephone number with area code.
  • Practice using both a private phone and pay phone, with clear explanation of when to call home, and how to place long distance calls. You should also help them understand how and when to dial 9-1-1 and 0 for Operator, and that these calls are free, even from a pay phone.

AND MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL is something you can easily do every day:

  • Be sure that your child knows that you love him/her and if anything should ever separate you that you will do everything you can to be together again. For your child’s well-being, this should be conveyed without mentioning, or accusing, the other parent of being a potential threat.

The Polly Klaas Foundation has compassionate and professional case workers who can help you prevent family abduction and recover a child who has been abducted by a family member. If you have any reason to believe you and your child are in danger of family abduction, contact us immediately at 1-800-587-4357.

We strongly encourage you to share this information.

You can download this fact sheet and other educational materials at www.PollyKlaas.org, or request materials and Child ID kits for families by calling the Polly Klaas Foundation at 1-800-587-4357.

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

45 Barn Bortført i 2011


Kilde: Bortført.no

Justisminister Grete Faremo fortalte til TV2 at: “intensivt arbeid mot bortføring av barn har ført til at det offisielle tallet på barnebortføringer gikk ned i fjor.”  Realiteten er at det ikke er noe nedgang å spore, om man ser mer enn ett år tilbake. Det eksisterer dessverre heller ikke noe “intensivt arbeid mot bortføringer” fordi regjeringen har unnlatt å ta viktige grep. Les mer her.



Det verste er at vi ikke kan stole på at Justisdepartementets tall stemmer, fordi de har oppgitt feil tall tidligere. I en sprørretimen i Stortinget 03.02.10 sa daværende justisminister Knut Storberget følgende: ”Det vi har sett siden 2006, er at antallet barnebortføringer fra Norge som vi har registrert, faktisk har sunket fra 57 til 28Les referatet her. Tallene Storberget preseneterte stemte imidlertid ikke.

Ingen ante da at Storberget brukte manipulert statistikk for å villede Stortinget. Vi la fram detaljerte opplysninger om bortføringer som ikke var å finne i statistikken. Justisdepartementet svarte skriftlig til Stortinget 03.03.10 hvor de forklarte seg slik: ”Nettsiden http://www.bortført.no, som justisministeren redegjorde for i samme spørretime, sier imidlertid at det har vært en dramatisk økning i antall bortføringer, og at Justisdepartementet driver talljuks slik at statistikken ser bedre ut enn det den egentlig er. En del av problemet er at politiet i enkelte tilfeller ikke vil ta imot anmeldelser mot bortfører, eller at de ikke har gode registreringsordninger slik at alle tilfeller som kommer til politiet, fanges opp.”

Politiet fikk skylden

Justisdepartementet slapp unna med talljukset  i 2010 ved å skylde på politiet. Unnskyldningen var imidlertid nokså tåpelig, siden alle de unnlatte bortføringene var rapportert direkte til Justisdepartementet. I 2009 var det helt vanlig at politiet ikke mottok anmeldinger, fordi det ikke er straffbart for foreldre med daglig omsorg å bortføre barn. Les mer her. Politiet har blitt flinkere til å motta anmeldelser, men man er ikke avhengig av en politianmeldelse for å kreve barn returnert i henhold til Haagkonvensjonen.

Disse sakene kunne ikke skjules i departementets skuffer i evighet, derfor dukket bortføringene opp igjen i statistikken for 2010, som således ble et rekordår med hele 64 bortføringer.

Vi kjenner ikke til bortføringer som er utelatt i statistikken for 2011. Vi føler vi oss likevel ikke trygge fordi vi vet at Justisdepartementet er villige til å bruke løgn som virkemiddel for å lede søkelyset vekk fra barnebortføringssakene.

For å få en oversikt oversikt må man se på utviklingen over tid, og da vil man finne ut at antallet barnebortføringer, både fra og til Norge, øker stødig. Se nyhetssendingen fra TV2 her.

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

Parental Abduction to Japan: Few options for left-behind parents even if Hague OK’d


Source: The Japan times

Without retroactive effect, treaty will leave past abductions in limbo

Abduction anger: Rep. Christopher Smith (center) is surrounded by relatives of American children abducted to Japan during a September 2010 news conference in Washington calling for swift passage of a resolution on child abduction to the country. 

In July 2003, Paul Toland arrived to an empty home at the U.S. Navy’s family housing facility in Yokosuka, Kanagawa Prefecture. Gone were his Japanese wife and baby daughter. What was left was a note: “Contact my lawyers.”

Since then, Toland, a navy commander, has been fighting to get his daughter back — and he’s not alone. Hundreds of other fathers from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, France and other countries are also fighting the same battle.

“Hundreds of children have been abducted and none have ever been returned (from Japan),” Toland, now based in Maryland, said in a phone interview earlier this year. “It’s frustrating — you know that you are in a losing battle.”

For years, Japan was the object of international criticism for not joining the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction that prevents cross-border parental kidnapping.

But in May, the government announced its decision to begin preparations for signing the treaty, which would make it the last country among the Group of Eight industrial powers to join the international convention.

Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda in October said he would submit the legislation to the Diet when it opens in early 2012.

But for the international community, signing the treaty is only a step in the right direction. A larger problem for many is that the Hague Convention is not effective retroactively — meaning that even if Japan joins the pact, it won’t help parents like Toland.

“Signing the Hague is just a very small step — there is so much else that needs to be done,” Toland said. “The true test will be how many children do they actually return and how well will they work with us fathers in the existing cases.”

U.S. President Barack Obama has reportedly urged Noda to take measures to ensure current cases get dealt with. But Noda has been evasive on that point.

“As indicated, the treaty is not effective retroactively . . . and we are in the middle of making preparations to sign the Hague Treaty, as well as discussing what kind of appropriate measures can be taken for past cases,” Noda said during an interview in October with The Japan Times and several other media outlets.

The recent case in Wisconsin, where Moises Garcia was reunited with his daughter, who had been abducted by his Japanese ex-wife, marked the first time an American child was returned to the United States. But observers believe this was an exceptional case since the child was returned after the mother was arrested in Hawaii on child abduction charges.

Frustrated with Japan’s foot-dragging, Toland and about 100 other left-behind parents in 2010 formed Bring Abducted Children Home (BAC Home), a group specifically focused on children taken to Japan by former spouses. This group has lobbied the U.S. government to put pressure on Japan to deal with the problem. Members have been holding quarterly meetings with top government officials and politicians to get updates and discuss the issue.

U.S. Rep. Chris Smith stressed in an email interview with The Japan Times that the U.S. would continue to make sure that all current cases are settled.

Signing the treaty “is not enough. We must have resolution of the current cases,” Smith said. “Congress will not let up until current cases are resolved. We cannot and will not forget our children.”

Smith, a Republican, has been at the forefront of cases involving international child abductions. In 2009, he played a key role in successfully bringing back a boy who had been abducted to Brazil by his mother from his American father.

To ensure the compliance of the Hague Convention by member states, Smith in May sponsored the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act of 2011, which is being deliberated in the House of Representatives. The bill includes 18 types of action that can be taken by the U.S. president against uncooperative countries, ranging from public condemnation and the cancellation of official visits to economic sanctions.

“Allowing abduction without consequence only encourages abduction — tearing apart families and wounding the hearts and minds of children. Abductors should not be rewarded,” Smith said.

The lawmaker also suggested that Japan and the U.S. sign a “memorandum of understanding” to address the current cases that would not be covered if Japan ratified the treaty.

According to a Foreign Ministry official in Tokyo, this sort of bilateral agreement has been made between some member states and Islamic countries that are not party to the Hague Convention. However, the official was not aware of any discussions in Japan to establish such an agreement with the U.S.

“If asked what we can do about current cases, all I can say is that (the left-behind parent) should use the current domestic law and file a lawsuit to the family court to see or have that child again,” the official explained.

In the past seven months, Japan has been focused on drafting the bill necessary to be submitted together with the ratification to the Diet. The legislation would map out the details of the new “central authority” in the Foreign Ministry, which would oversee treaty-related cases as well as list the circumstances in which Japan can reject the return of the child.

Even if the bill is submitted to the Diet next year as planned, its fate remains murky. Public opinion over this issue is divided and some members of the ruling Democratic Party of Japan are opposed to it, as well. The Japan Federation of Bar Associations has proposed that a three year moratorium be imposed before Japan’s ratification takes effect for preparations and to seek better public understanding.

The Japanese government, however, wants the treaty to take effect “within a practical time frame as soon as possible,” the Foreign Ministry official said. “The longer we wait, the more people will go through difficult times.”

But time is not on the side of left-behind parents.

Toland’s daughter, taken when she was just 9 months old, is now 9 years old. Four years after the abduction, Toland’s wife committed suicide, but instead of giving him — the sole living parent — legal guardianship, the mother of his late wife was granted custody.

Since his wife took their daughter in 2003, he has only seen his child three times: twice in a videotaped courthouse playroom with the grandmother and a courthouse employee while his wife and her lawyers watched through a one-way mirror and once when he was able to catch her on the street just long enough to give her a Christmas present.

And after the devastating March 11 earthquake and tsunami, Toland flew to Japan to see his only daughter and make sure she was OK. Instead, his former mother-in-law completely shut him out, refusing to let him even see his daughter, Toland said.

While his daughter remains thousands of kilometers away in Japan, Toland said he hopes that the U.S. government and Congress will continue to put pressure on Japan to make sure that it keeps its promise.

“If you have your own child stripped away from you, your human rights are violated,” Toland said. “It’s not a personal issue to us, it’s a human rights issue. Every parent has the right to their child and every child has the right to know and love both 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 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

Courts should punish parental abduction


Source: TheGlobeAndMail

The abduction of children by their mother or father is a serious crime deserving of serious consequences, and of a strong denunciation by the courts.

But the courts do not usually like to send first offenders to jail, especially when they are “otherwise of good character” and not a danger to reoffend. Many abducting parents receive conditional discharges. It is difficult to see why being a first-time offender should reduce a sentence, when the offence goes on for months or years.

That is what happened in September in R. v. Melville, an Ontario case involving a five-year-old taken by his mother from Toronto to Florida for 12 years, in violation of a court order. The judge in the abduction case did not believe there were extenuating circumstances of abuse. “In a system that is meant to focus on the best interests of the child, the child can be reduced to a weapon used by warring parents to bludgeon each other,” wrote Mr. Justice Todd Ducharme of the Ontario Superior Court, stressing the seriousness of the crime. But the Crown asked only for six months in prison, and that is what Judge Ducharme gave the mother.

It is also what happened in November in R. v. Neundorf, also in Ontario, in which a mother and her new husband took her two sons, in violation of a court order, to Singapore, without advising the boys’ father. It was seven months before she returned. In that case, the trial judge sentenced her to a year under house arrest; being a first offender worked in the mother’s favour. After she had served that term, the Court of Appeal granted her an absolute discharge, clearing her of a criminal record. Perhaps that was fair in the circumstances, but it is difficult to understand part of that court’s rationale – that the mother had experienced the hardship of not being able to see her boys for more than a year, as a result of her arrest and changes to the custody terms. Wasn’t that her fault?

In a B.C. case from 2008, R. v. Gill, a mother received a conditional discharge after fleeing an abusive situation and taking her two children home to India – for 10 years. Again, perhaps fair in the circumstances; but the message of deterrence, and of the need to respect court processes, was lost.

Each parental abduction turns on its facts, of course, and it would be foolish to urge that all abductors be tossed in jail, regardless of the circumstances. The maximum sentence is 10 years in jail, reflecting Parliament’s view of the seriousness of parental abduction. Parental abduction is a form of child abuse, and the courts should treat it that way.

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