What triggers the international parental abductions?

Source: squidoo.com

Abdutor Motives and Popular Assumption Regarding Family Abduction.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The experts list the following motives for the parental kidnapping:

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

• Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook
  

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

  Contact us here: Mail

  Join the Facebook Group: International Parental Child Abduction

  NOTE: We are always available 24/7

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

  UK Phone Number: 020 3239 0013 –

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

Christmas A Time of Parental Child Abduction Risk

Source: SOS Children’s Villages Canada

A European Union official has commented on the region’s work on international parental child abduction at the same time that security actors have warned parents to be vigilant about protecting their children over the holidays.

International child abduction is on an upward trend and the Christmas season is one of the higher-risk periods for parental abduction—particularly when it comes to multi-cultural relationships.

Yesterday, the European Union (EU) Commission Vice-President (Commissioner for Justice, Fundamental Rights and Citizenship), Viviane Reding, made a statement on the issue in Strasbourg.

“Preventing child abduction is an essential part of the EU’s policy to promote the rights of the child. I welcome the initiative of the European Parliament Mediator for international parental child abduction,” she said.

Within the EU, the International Law Association (ILA) Regulation mandates courts within EU member states to not refuse an order to return a child to his or her state of origin, if within the EU.

While the laws do not prevent or solve all cases of international parental child abduction, disputes between EU member states are solved more efficiently and swiftly, Ms. Reding noted.

Among the improvements made to the legal system is the removal of the exequatur rule.  This has allowed for a shorter time period in which courts may recognize and enforce judgments made by another state.

In international cases related to child custody and parental abduction, the Hague Convention applies. All EU member states are state parties to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and more countries are gradually signing on.

The Convention aims to protect children from the harmful impacts of abduction and retention by providing a protocol for international cooperation for their return to their country of origin.

According to a press release circulated by PR Web, the ABP World Group (which is an international leader in security matters related to child and adult abduction recovery) is warning parents worried that the other parent may illegally leave the country with their child to use new technology, such as GPS tracking devices, to protect their children.

Martin Waage, Managing Director of ABP World Group, stated, “With international child abductions happening at a record pace, ABP World Group urges parents to take every precaution to protect their children from this horrible fate.”

“Tragically, the number of global parental abductions occurring is an unknown due to failures by governments to keep accurate data,” he added.

However, using the situation in the United States as “microcosm” for the rest of the world, there could be as many as 125,000 children illegally abducted between now and 2020. In Canada, these numbers alone could reach 12,000-15,000, based on current reported cases with a modest 20 per cent growth factor, said Mr. Waage.

While Canada is also a signatory to the Hague Convention, though many countries in the Middle East and Asia are not.

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

Canadian Dad in Poland Trying for Return of Abducted Sons

Source: Fathers and Families

December 12th, 2011 by Robert Franklin, Esq.

The more we see of international child abduction by parents, the less effective the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction seems. 

The Convention is supposed to require signatory countries to return children to their non-abducting parent within 60 days of apprehension.  But the simple fact is that it seldom seems to work.

This may well be another example (Toronto Star, 12/10/11).

Stephen Watkins of Ontario lost his two sons – Alexander, 10 and Christopher, 7 – back in March of 2009.  They were abducted by their non-custodial mother, Edyta Watkins.  Stephen and Edyta were divorced and he had gained primary custody.

Stephen Watkins contends his ex-wife was suffering from post-partum depression and became abusive toward him six months after giving birth to their first child. After a court battle, a judge granted him custody of the children with his ex-wife having access to the boys on weekends.

Then, one Monday morning, his sons’ school called to say the boys hadn’t shown up for class.

A Canada-wide arrest warrant for abduction was issued for their mother, and her name appeared on the RCMP’s most wanted list. York Regional Police allege the mother and children drove into the U.S. and then flew to Germany.

After that, the trail went cold.

So, his first child is now 10 years old.  He was abducted by the mother at age eight.  Her emotional/psychological abuse of Stephen began six months after Alexander was born.

After over two years, he’s finally located them in his ex-wife’s native Poland.  He traveled to Warsaw and visited briefly with his two boys who looked much the same, but behaved very differently than before.

The short encounter was bittersweet.

“When I see my kids, they don’t call me daddy,” said Watkins. “They call me by my first name.” He accused his ex of brainwashing them.

Another article reports it this way (CTV, 12/10/11).

“They looked the same after two-and-a-half years,” Watkins told CTV News Saturday in an interview from Poland. “But they looked very stressed out and they seemed very angry…I can understand it would be very confusing for children.”

In short, the mother, who emotionally abused Watkins badly enough to lose custody and then abducted the children, seems now to be alienating them as well.

Canadian authorities issued an arrest warrant for Edyta Watkins when she first abducted the boys, but Canada and Poland have no extradition treaty, so her criminal wrongdoing will go unpunished as long as she remains in Poland.

That leaves the Hague Convention as Stephen’s only recourse to get his children back and away from their mother who appears to be willing to abuse anyone in her family in order to deprive her ex-husband of his children.  Mental health professionals long ago identified parental child abduction as child abuse, and so it seems here.  After only a few minutes with his boys, Watkins could tell their abduction, separation from him and possible alienation were causing the boys emotional/psychological harm.

But the more we see of the Hague Convention, the more frail a reed it appears on which to rely to protect children from exactly the type of abuse the Watkins boys have experienced.  The Watkins case is a perfect example of one in which the Polish court should immediately order the children returned to their father.  He’s the parent with primary custody and there’s evidence that the mother is less than fit.  Into the bargain, she obviously wants to deny the children a father.

So the case is a slam-dunk win for Stephen Watkins, right?  After all, his is exactly the type of case the Convention is supposed to address.

Not so fast.  In the first place, even if the court issues the right order this Thursday when it hears the case, it’s so far taken no action to prevent the mother from absconding with the children again.  You’d think that would be an obvious thing to do given the known facts of the case, but so far no order has been issued.

And when the court does hear the case, it can always decide that the children have gotten used to their new surroundings and it would therefore not be in their best interests to re-place them in their father’s care.  We’ve seen British courts do that more than once recently under circumstances that made clear that the words “best interests of the child” were just a proxy for pro-mother bias.

What’s to prevent that in the Watkins case?  Nothing that I can see.  Maybe that’s why the title of the CTV article says the children are “in legal limbo.”  Face it, the Convention is clear and Stephen Watkins’ rights are clear; so are his children’s.  The only “legal limbo” is whether the Polish court will enforce those rights.  Or will it fall back on the excuse that the boys have been in Poland for two of their 10 and 7 years and so, in some way, they need to remain there rather than returning to the country in which they’ve spent almost their entire lives?

You wouldn’t think a court could ignore all the obvious reasons to return the children to their father and to their home country, but we’ve seen it done too many times to hold out a lot of hope for Stephen Watkins and his boys.

We’ll see.  So far, the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction seems to be violated by judges almost as often as by parents.

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Services

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

Vi har fått ny blog på svensk

Sjekk ut vår nye blog i Sverige her: http://abpworldgroup.blogspot.com/

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Service

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

 

Fortier barnebortføring

Kjell Schevig, redaktør i Bortført.no

Les Bortført.no sin kronikk her: Kronikk

Statssekretær Astri Aas-Hansen i Justisdepartementet misliker min kritikk mot norske myndigheters håndtering av barnebortføringssaker. I Dagbladet 23. august skriver hun at jeg skaper unødig usikkerhet. Jeg er imidlertid bare en budbringer som formidler det foreldre med bortførte barn har opplevd. Aas-Hansen burde heller imøtegå innholdet i kritikken fremfor å vise til regjeringens mangeårige innsats, som bare har resultert i flere barnebortføringer.

Dette er jo hele poenget: Statistikken viser 30 bortføringer i 2009, og 29 bortføringer fra januar til og med juni 2010.  Da hjelper det lite å vise til Haag-konvensjonen, og at regjeringen prioriterer, tar problemene på alvor, oppretter nettsted og sender nye forslag ut til høring. Ei heller blir flere barn returnert. Aas-Hansen vil ikke legge vekt på fakta; hun forlanger i stedet å bli vurdert etter gode intensjoner og antall møter ekspertutvalget hennes holder.

I tillegg har Regjeringsadvokat Ida Thue på oppdrag av Barne- og likestillingsdepartementet aktivt forhindret innsyn i statistikken over barnebortføringer (Oslo Tingrett 22.09.09). Årsaken er at NAV Utland påviselig bedriver kjønnsdiskriminering i slike saker: Fedre må betale bidrag til kvinner i utlandet, mens mødre slipper.  Regjeringens egentlige motiver synes dermed å være at offentligheten ikke skal vite. For hvordan kan myndighetene leve med at de selv bryter et kjønnsnøytralt bidragslovverk?

I Dagbladet 14. juli fortalte Aas-Hansen at politiet skal ta imot alle anmeldelser ved barnebortføring.  Likevel blir foreldre stadig avvist fordi politiet regner barnebortføring som et privatrettslig anliggende, men dette betyr bare at departementet har unnlatt å gi politiet klare instrukser – kanskje med overlegg?

Det er underlig at Astri Aas-Hansen synes det er ”alvorlig” og at det ”skaper unødig usikkerhet” å fortelle om disse forholdene.  Selv synes jeg det er mer alvorlig å fortie det.

Haagkonvensjonen, virker den?

Av: Kjell Schevig,  Bortført.no

Hvor mange bortførte barn er returnert til Norge som følge av Haagkonvensjonen? Justisdepartementet nekter å svare på spørsmålet. Men departementet har en liste med 24 advokater med særlig kompetanse på barnebortføring, så vi spurte like godt alle advokatene. (Advokaten på bildet er ikke en av de 24 ekspertene).

De 24 advokatene har til sammen en suksessrate på – 6 saker – der barn er returnert til Norge som følge av konvensjonsavgjørelser. Når vi vet at om lag 350 barn er bortført siden 2000, så er ikke seks vinnersaker mye å juble over. Så hvorfor mener justisminister Knut Storberget at konvensjonen er norske myndigheters viktigste redskap i kampen mot barnebortføring?

Når man, som som far eller mor, har sittet i en utenlandsk domstol og observert dommeren himle med øynene og le av Haagkonvensjonen, er det vanskelig å forstå norske byråkraters kjærlige forhold til  konvensjonen.

Hvorfor har Justisdepartementet lagt sin elsk på en konvensjon som ikke virker? Har justisdepartementets saksbehandlere noen gang vært tilsdede i en konvensjonssak i utlandet?

I tillegg til de seks sakene hvor barn er tilbakeført, finnes det 3 saker hvor domstolen har avgjort at barna skal returneres – uten at barna har blitt returnert. Noen land spekulerer nemlig i et dobbelspill hvor man på papiret følger konvensjonen, samtidig som politiet nedprioriterer tilbakesendingen.

Svært ulik erfaringsbakgrunn

På departementenes nettside spesifiseres det at de 24 utvalgte advokatene har “særlig kompetanse på og kjennskap til barnebortføring.” En håndfull av disse advokatene har ført mange saker og har således særlig kompetanse, noen har moderat praktisk erfaring, mens 9 av advokatene har liten eller ingen erfaring med barnebortføringssaker. Det Justisdepartementet har valgt å kalle særlig kompetanse er i realiteten et heldagsseminar om barnebortføring.

Her er advokatene med erfaring: Ole A. Rasmussen, Elisabet Brodtkorb, Maria Amundsen, Morten Engesbak, Elisabet Grøndal, Marius Sandvig, Hanne Bredal, Kristine Schilling, Sigurd Rønningen, Ellen Sraum, Kjersti Gjellesvik, Kristine Hånes, Roe Lauvås, Harald hetland og Janet Riise.

Det finnes tilfeller der advokatene har lyktes med å få returnere barn til Norge ved forliksavtaler. Men forlikene kan ikke uten videre godskrives Haagkonvensjonen, fordi forliksavtaler er også oppnådd i land som ikke er tilsluttet konvensjonen.

Ved bortføring til utlandet, vil den norske advokaten bare kunne opptre som en støttespiller. Advokater må nemlig være autorisert i henhold til det aktuelle lands prosessregler. Om barnet for eksempel befinner seg i Frankrike, så må en fransk advokat prosedere saken, og den norske advokaten er således bare en støttespiller.

Advokatene på listen hatt større suksess med å sende barn ut av Norge, enn de har hatt med å returnere barn til Norge. Dette skyldes muligens at våre domstoler har større respekt for internasjonale konvensjoner enn det man opplever i andre land. Det er typisk norsk å være snillest i klassen.  Advokatenes erfaringer med Haagkonvensjonen er likevel nyttig, uansett om de har fulgt i rettsprosesser i utlandet eller ført saker i Norge.

Les hele saken her: Bortført.no

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Service

Visit our web site at: www.abpworld.com

Justisdepartementet lot barnebortfører slippe unna

Guttene Timothy og Joachim, ble bortført fra Norge til Slovakia av sin mor i 1995. Både norsk og slovakisk rett kom fram til at barnas far, Tommy Hoholm var best skikket til å ha daglig omsorg for de to sønnene.

I februar 2009 reiste guttenes mor alene på ferie til sin søster i London. Moren ble tatt i forvaring av britisk politi for barnebortføring. Da Norge har en utleveringsavtale med England kunne man nå forvente et gjennombrudd i saken, men Justisdepartementet lot være å reagere. Hvorfor? Kjersti Berg Sand, førstekonsulent i Justisdepartementet, har skrevet en masteroppgave i rettsvitenskap, hvor det avsløres hvorfor moren slapp unna. 

Les mer: Justisdepartementet lot barnebortfører slippe unna

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Service

Visit our web site at: www.abpworld.com

Profiles of Parents At Risk for Abducting Their Children

“You’ll never see your child again!” When
are these words an idle threat spoken in
anger and frustration and when are they
a warning that a parent intends to abduct
his or her child, depriving the child and
the other parent of future contact?

By: U.S. Department of Justice
Office of Justice Programs
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Profile 1: When There Has Been a Prior threat of or Actual Abduction
When a parent has made credible threats to abduct a child
or has a history of hiding the child, withholding visitation, or
snatching the child from the other parent, there is great distrust
between the parents and a heightened risk of further
custody violation. This risk profile is usually combined with
one or more of the other profiles. In these cases, the underlying
psychological and social dynamics that motivate the
abduction need to be understood and addressed. When other
risk factors are present, one or more of the following are general
indicators of an imminent threat of flight with the child:
-The parent is unemployed, homeless, and without emotional
or financial ties to the area.
– The parent has divulged plans to abduct the child and has
the resources or the support of extended family and/or
friends and underground dissident networks needed to
survive in hiding.
– The parent has liquidated assets, made maximum withdrawals
of funds against credit cards, or borrowed money
from other sources.

Profile 2: When a Parent Suspects or Believes
Abuse Has Occurred and Friends and Family
Members Support These Concerns
Many parents abduct their child because they believe that the
other parent is abusing, molesting, or neglecting the child.
These abducting parents feel that the authorities have not
taken them seriously or properly investigated the allegations.
Repeated allegations increase the hostility and distrust
between the parents. Parents who have the fixed belief
that abuse has occurred—and will continue to occur—then
“rescue” the child, often with the help of supporters who concur
with their beliefs, justify their actions, and often help with
the abduction and concealment. Supporters might include
family members, friends, or underground networks (usually
women) that help “protective” parents (usually women) obtain
new identities and find safe locations.
In a large number of cases, the child has been previously
exposed to neglectful, endangering, or violent environments
(e.g., domestic violence or substance abuse). In
these cases, the courts and child protective services may
have failed to protect the child and the concerned parent or
family member. They may have trivialized the allegations,
dismissing them as invalid or the product of a contentious
divorce. Often, however, the allegation of sexual abuse by a
father or stepfather that motivates a mother to abduct her
child is unsubstantiated. In these cases, the abduction can
psychologically harm the child and the other parent, possibly
leaving their relationship in serious need of repair.

Profile 3: When a Parent Is Paranoid Delusional
Although only a small percentage of parents fit this profile,
these parents present the greatest risk of physical harm or
death to the child, regardless of whether an abduction occurs.
Parents who fit the paranoid profile hold markedly irrational
or psychotic delusions that the other parent will definitely
harm them and/or the child. Believing themselves to
be betrayed and exploited by their former partner, these
parents urgently take what they consider to be necessary
measures to protect themselves and the child.
Psychotic parents do not perceive the child as a separate
person. Rather, they perceive the child as part of
themselves—that is, as a victim (in which case they take
unilateral measures to rescue the child)—or they perceive
the child as part of the hated other parent (in which case
they may precipitously abandon or even kill the child). Marital
separation and/or the instigation of the custody dispute
generally triggers an acute phase of danger for these psychotic
individuals. The result can be not only parental abduction,
but also murder and suicide.

Profile 4: When a Parent Is Severely Sociopathic
Sociopathic parents are characterized by a long history of
flagrant violations of the law and contempt for any authority—
including that of the legal system. Their relationships withother people are self-serving, exploitive, and highly manipulative.
These people are also likely to hold exaggerated
beliefs about their own superiority and entitlement
and are highly gratified by their ability to exert power and
control over others. As with paranoid and delusional parents,
sociopathic parents are unable to perceive their children
as having separate needs or rights. Consequently,
they often use their children as instruments of revenge or
punishment or as trophies in their fight with the former
partner. Sociopathic parents have no qualms about continuing
coercive, controlling, and abusive behavior or abducting
their child, nor do they believe that they should be
punished for their actions. Like paranoia, a diagnosis of
severe sociopathy is rare.

Profile 5: When a Parent Who Is a Citizen of
Another Country Ends a Mixed-Culture Marriage
Parents who are citizens of another country (or who have
dual citizenship with the United States) and have strong
ties to their extended family in their country of origin have
long been recognized as potential abductors. The risk of
abduction is especially acute at the time of parental separation
and divorce, when these parents may feel cast adrift
from their mixed-culture marriage and may need to return
to their ethnic or religious roots to find emotional support
and reconstitute a shaken self-identity. Often in reaction to
being rendered helpless or feeling rejected and discarded
by the former spouse, such parents may try to take unilateral
action by returning with the child to their family of origin.
This is a way of insisting that the abducting parent’s
cultural identity be given preeminent status in the child’s
upbringing.

Profile 6: When Parents Feel Alienated From the
Legal System and Have Family/Social Support
in Another Community
Many subgroups of potential abductors feel alienated from
the judicial system. Listed below are five such subgroups.

1. Parents who are indigent and poorly educated
lack knowledge about custody and abduction laws and cannot
afford the legal representation or psychological counseling that
would help them resolve their disputes. Those parents who
have extended family or other social, emotional, and economic
support in another geographical community may be at risk for
abducting their children.
Subgroup

2. Many parents cannot afford and are unaware of
the need to access the court system. In addition, those who
have had prior negative experiences with civil or criminal
courts do not expect family courts to be responsive to their
values or their plight.
Subgroup

3. Parents who belong to certain ethnic, religious,
or cultural groups may hold views about childrearing that
are contrary to the prevailing custody laws that emphasize
gender neutrality and the rights of both parents. These
parents instead turn to their own social networks for support
and use informal self-help measures rather than the courts
in disputes over the children.
Subgroup

4. A mother who has a transient, unmarried relationship
with her child’s father often views the child as her
property, and her extended family supports this belief. Many
of the women in this subgroup assume they have sole custody
of their child and are genuinely surprised when they are
informed that the father—by law in California and most other
States—has joint rights to the child.
Subgroup

5. Parents who are victims of domestic violence
are at risk of abducting their child, especially when the courts
and community have failed to take the necessary steps to protect
them from abuse or to hold the abuser accountable. Joint
custody, mediated agreements, and visitation orders often
leave victims vulnerable to ongoing violence, despite separation
from the abuser. When such victims abduct their child, the
violent partners may successfully obscure the facts about the
abuse and activate the abduction laws to regain control of their
victims.

Read the entire report here: http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/185026.pdf

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Service

Visit our website at: www.abpworld.com

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

 

Antallet bortførte barn underrapporteres

I Aftenpostens reportasje 29. desember som omhandler barnebortføring, ble ABP World Group Ltd. etter vår mening feilaktig fremstilt.

Realiteten er at vi hjelper foreldre i henhold til norsk lov. Vårt personell har erfaring fra politi eller militære tjenester, og arbeider etter strenge etiske regler.

Mange foreldre henvender seg til oss da de føler seg sviktet og overlatt til seg selv av norske myndigheter. Ofte starter problemene allerede når de skal forsøke å anmelde bortføringen hos politiet. Dette er grunnen til at det eksisterer et behov for firma som ABP World Group.

Internasjonale avtaler

Våre arbeidsmetoder starter alltid på det diplomatiske plan, og ofte i samarbeid med utenriksstasjoner og lokale myndigheter. Dette er helt nødvendig da alle land og regioner har sine egne fremgangsmåter når det gjelder rettsprosesser og respekt for internasjonale avtaler og konvensjoner. Vårt nettverk kan i mange tilfeller opprette kontakt med de riktige beslutningstagere og myndighetspersoner. Dette gjør at vi lettere kan komme frem til en løsning.

Vi har ved svært få tilfeller sendt inn operatører for å hente ut barnet fysisk, og kun der alle forsøk på en diplomatisk løsning har sviktet. Operasjonen utføres da alltid med hensyn til barnets ve og vel.

Vi har mange flere barnebortføringssaker enn det som kommer frem i mediene, og i justisdepartementets statistikk. Det mistenkes at justisdepartementet underrapporterer og manipulerer statistikken over bortførte barn.

Settes til side

Vi har dessverre til gode å se barnebortføringssaker bli løst ved bruk av lange rettsprosesser og dyre advokater. Det hender dessverre altfor ofte at domstolen i kidnappers hjemland setter den eksisterende internasjonalt gjeldende dommen fra barnets hjemland til side, ikke respekterer Interpol etterlysninger eller Haagkonvensjonen. Dette medfører ofte at forelderen sitter tilbake med svært dårlig økonomi. De ender da i mange tilfeller opp med å måtte resignere i kampen om sitt barn.

Warning of child abduction to sharia law states

Source:The Irish Times, Dublin

FORMER MEP Mary Banotti has called on the Government to monitor the number of reported child abduction cases involving sharia law countries which have not signed international conventions on the issue.

Figures published by the Department of Justice last week showed that a record 141 transnational child abduction cases were dealt with by the authorities last year.

The department said 141 cases involving 183 children were received by the Central Authority for Child Abduction in 2008, an increase of 42 cases on 2007 and the highest annual total since the unit was established in 1991.

However, Ms Banotti, who is president of Irish Centre for Parentally Abducted Children, said it was very difficult to retrieve children who were abducted by one parent to a state that had not signed the Hague conventions on child abduction. Cases involving countries governed by sharia law were particularly difficult to resolve.

“I think there should be a record kept of all children removed to sharia law countries,” she said.

Ms Banotti pointed to a case in which an Irish woman, originally from a north African state, was reunited in January with her four children six years after her husband took them back to their country of origin without her consent. Because the African state had not signed the Hague conventions, the woman had no legal avenue to pursue in order to retrieve her children, who were aged between two and seven when they were taken in 2002.

She was eventually reunited with them in January after her husband was arrested by gardaí on his return to Ireland.

Ms Banotti said the latest child abduction figures corroborated her organisation’s view that the problem remained significant. The centre received reports of seven abductions in the past week.

A major shift in trends in recent years was that, whereas women until recently made up the vast majority of those reporting abduction, today at least half of reports came from men.

While the overwhelming majority of transnational abduction cases investigated here once involved the United States and the UK, recent immigration patterns are reflected in the variety of central and eastern European countries that have appeared on the department’s list in recent years.

In 2008, a total of 33 cases related to states that joined the EU since 2004, including Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Hungary, the Czech Republic and Romania.

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Service

Visit our web site at: www.abpworld.com