Thomas Sørensen – Olivers far raser mod Udenrigsministeriet i Danmark


June 10 , 2013

Source: ExtraBladet.dk

Den danske far i Oliver-sagen føler sig ignoreret af de danske myndigheder oven på dramatisk retssag i Østrig

Thomas Sørensen, der er far til den nu seksårige dreng Oliver, er dybt skuffet over det manglende engagement fra de danske myndigheder i sagen om forældremyndigheden over sin søn.

Thomas Sørensen Oliver

I torsdags blev han af retten i den østrigske by Graz idømt 12 måneders betinget fængsel for at have bortført Oliver.

Se også: Olivers far: Dommen er dybt uretfærdig

Det skete ifølge Thomas Sørensens talsmand, Janus Bang, efter en farceagtig retssag, hvor dommeren konstant afbrød danskerens forsvar.

– Den slags ting hører ikke hjemme i et moderne og civiliseret samfund. Jeg vil hellere i retten i Uganda, siger Janus Bang.

Se også: Olivers far får et års betinget fængsel

Den danske lejr er desuden meget skuffet over, at det danske udenrigsministerium intet har gjort for at bistå faderen, der hverken har fået tildelt tolk eller dækket retsomkostninger og rejseudgifter.

– Jeg spytter foran vores udenrigsministeriums hoveddør. At danske statsborgere bliver udsat for sådan noget i udlandet, og at vi så intet hjælp har at hente i Danmark. Det er skamfuldt, at man kan behandle en borger på denne måde, siger talsmanden.

Se også: Olivers far i retten: Sådan hentede jeg min søn

– Og specielt når det er danske dommere, der har truffet en afgørelse om, at Thomas’ søn skal bo i Danmark, så har en embedsmand bare øjeblikkeligt at rette ind.

Thomas Sørensens talsmand oplyser, at rasende østrigere spytter efter den danske far på gaderne, og at de nærmest måtte flygte til Italien.

Se også: Oliver-retssag aflyst: Far dukkede ikke op

Janus Bang fortæller desuden, at han forgæves har kontaktet udenrigsminister Villy Søvndal (SF) for at bede ham om at engagere sig.

– Når han har så travlt med alle disse piratgidsler og alt muligt andet, hvorfor kan han ikke koncentrere sig om to danske statsborgere – for Oliver er også dansker – og den beskyttelse, de modtager i udlandet? Det er helt ude i skoven.

Se også: Olivers mor får nej til Højesteret

Thomas Sørensen har af hensyn til sin søn valgt ikke at anke den østrigske domstols afgørelse.

Den danske far fortæller, at han via advokater, statsforvaltningen og Familiestyrelsen har forsøgt at få en form for mægling med Olivers mor, som også har fået tilbud om samvær med drengen og om at se ham halvdelen af tiden.

Se også: Olivers far: En julegave fra landsretten

Men moren har ifølge Thomas Sørensen nægtet at komme til Danmark.

Marion-Weilharter-Graz

Østre Landsret gav i april 2011 faren forældremyndigheden over drengen.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

Visit our website here: www.abpworld.com

profile pic.jpg

ABP World Group Risk Management

Contact us here: Mail

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

1-800-847-2315     US Toll free Number
0-808-189-0066    UK Toll Free Number
800-11-618              Norway Toll Free Number

Worldwide International Number: +31-208112223

24/7 Emergency Number: +47 40466526

Fall Oliver: Ein Jahr bedingt für Vater


Juni 6 , 2013

Source: Kurier.at

Das mit Spannung erwartete Urteil gegen Thomas Sörensen ist gefallen. Wegen schwerer Nötigung und Kindesentziehung wurde eine bedingte Freiheitsstrafe von einem Jahr verhängt. Der Däne berief dagegen. “Ich habe österreichisches Recht anzuwenden. Ob er es gut oder schlecht findet, ist unerheblich”, sagte Richter Günter Sprinzel, der sein Urteil auf das Obsorgerecht der Mutter in Graz stützt. “Ich hoffe für ihn, dass die Kraft seines Treibens Sorge um den Sohn war, und nicht das eigene Ego.” Sörensens erste Reaktion gegenüber dem KURIER: “Ich bin geschockt. Ich habe immer gedacht, dass ich nichts Falsches gemacht hätte.”

Marion Weilharter

Beide Eltern blieben einander nichts schuldig. Sie brachten dem Richter Videos, sie zeigten Fotos: Vom psychisch angeknacksten Buben, weil er der Mutter entzogen wurde. Vom unbeschwerten Kind in Dänemark, wie es mit dem Vater spielt, singt, kichert, mault, am Strand und im Garten spazieren geht. Diese Videos des Vaters sahen alle im Gerichtssaal. Der IT-Techniker spielte die Szenen ein.

Der Richter ließ ihn gewähren, weil das Schicksal des Fünfjährigen emotional so aufrührt. “Ich habe selbst zwei Kinder.” Dabei ging es Mittwoch nur um den dramatischen Vorfall am 3. April 2012 vor dem Kindergarten in Graz: Kindesmutter Marion Weilharter schilderte dem Gericht: “Ein Mann hat mich gegen mein Auto gedrückt und an den Oberarmen festgehalten. Ich würde ihn sofort wieder erkennen, ich sehe dieses Gesicht jede Nacht. Ich sehe Oliver, ich sehe Thomas Sörensen.” Der Helfer des Vaters bleibt unbekannt.

“Kind traumatisiert”

“Oliver wurde von seinem Vater von hinten gepackt, er konnte sich nicht bewegen.” Sie habe nur noch geschrien und versucht, zu ihrem Sohn zu kommen. Psychotherapeut Walter Hoffmann sagte für die Mutter aus. “Es steht völlig außer Zweifel, dass Oliver durch die gewaltsame Trennung von der Mutter schwer traumatisiert und zerrissen ist”. Der Zeuge hat das Kind aber nie gesehen.

Der Angeklagte fuhr mit einem freundlichen Schreiben von Olivers Kindergartenpädagogen auf. “Oliver ist sehr schnell in seine alten Beziehungen zurückgekehrt … Er ist ein offenes, positives, fröhliches, initiatives Kind.”

Der Strafrichter befragte die Eltern über das Wohl des Kindes: “Gibt es einen Weg aus dieser verfahrenen Situation?” Beide hatten keine schlüssigen Antworten. “Nach dem, was Sörensen gemacht hat, sehe ich keine Lösung”, sagte die Mutter. “Es ist nicht in meinem Interesse, dass Oliver nur mit einem Elternteil aufwächst. Aber die Mutter blockt Versuche ab”, konterte der Vater.

Marion-Weilharter-Graz

Zivilrechtlich wird in Dänemark noch in zweiter Instanz über den Rückführungsantrag der Mutter entschieden: Das ist dann wohl auch das Finale im Tauziehen um Olivers Zukunft. Es sei denn, der Europäische Gerichtshof für Menschenrechte sieht das anders.

Die Wiener Kinder- und Jugendanwältin Monika Pinterits plädiert für eine professionelle Unterstützung durch Mediatoren. Auch Besuchsrechtsregelungen seien machbar. “Ein Flug von Dänemark nach Österreich oder umgekehrt dauert nicht so lange.”

Chronologie der Ereignisse

Der Sorgerechtsstreit um Oliver dauert fast schon zwei Jahre. Heuer kurz vor Ostern hat er sich zugespitzt.

17. Juli 2010 Marion W. verlässt Dänemark und zieht mit Oliver nach Graz.

22. Oktober 2010 S. bekommt in Dänemark das Obsorgerecht.

18. April 2011 Der österreichische Oberste Gerichtshof verweigert S. die Anerkennung seiner Obsorge. In Österreich hat W. das Sorgerecht.

3. April 2012 Marion W. bringt Oliver in den Kindergarten in Graz-Eggenberg. Dort wartet bereits Thomas S. mit einem Begleiter: Sie schnappen Oliver und flüchten.

4. April 2012 Gegen S. wird ein europaweiter Haftbefehl erlassen. Das Fluchtauto wird gefunden.

5. April 2012 S. stellt sich den dänischen Behörden.

8. April 2012 Oliver darf erstmals mit seiner Mutter telefonieren.

11. April 2012 W. beantragt die Rückführung ihres Sohnes bei Gericht.

18. Juni 2012 Der EU-Haftbefehl gegen S. wird aufgehoben.

4. Juli 2012 Die Staatsanwaltschaft Graz bringt den Strafantrag gegen den Dänen ein.

4. bis 6. September 2012 Prozess am Bezirksgericht Helsingör in Dänemark.

25. September 2012 Prozess gegen S. wegen schwerer Nötigung und Freiheitsentziehung in Graz.

 

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

profile pic.jpg

ABP World Group Risk Management

Contact us here: Mail

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

(646) 502-7443 United States

069 2547 2471 Germany

020 3239 0013 United Kingdom

01 442 9322 Ireland

031-753 83 77 Sweden

Kindesentziehung Graz – Fall Oliver: Vater vor Gericht erschienen


June 6, 2013

Source: Kurier.at

Däne ist in Graz wegen schwerer Nötigung und Freiheitsentziehung angeklagt.

Deutschland-kindentfuhrung

Der Vater des sechsjährigen Oliver ist am Donnerstag zu seinem Prozess im Grazer Straflandesgericht erschienen. Im Zusammenhang mit der Kindesentziehung im April 2012 hat die Staatsanwaltschaft den Dänen wegen schwerer Nötigung und Freiheitsentziehung angeklagt. Der Beschuldigte war bei beim vergangenen Termin vor zwei Monaten nicht erschienen, die Verhandlung musste damals vertagt werden.

Der 42-Jährige war bereits im September 2012 zu einem Jahr bedingter Haft verurteilt worden, das Oberlandesgericht gab der Berufung allerdings statt und verfügte, dass neu verhandelt werden muss. Beim ersten Verhandlungstermin der Neuauflage erschien der Däne dann nicht, also vertagte Richter Stefan Koller.

Vater: “Habe in Österreich Obsorge”

Der Vater von Oliver zeigte sich in der Verhandlung erneut davon überzeugt, dass er rechtmäßig gehandelt habe, als er den Sechsjährigen von Graz nach Dänemark brachte. Eine Zeugin schilderte den Vorfall vor einem Kindergarten allerdings weniger harmlos als der Angeklagte: Sie habe “laute, panische Schreie” einer Frau vernommen und dann ein Auto wegrasen gesehen.

Die Anwältin der Mutter fragte den Angeklagten ganz konkret, nachdem er zuvor eher ausweichend geantwortet hatte: “Wer hat die Obsorge in Österreich?” “Ich”, kam es ohne Zögern vom Beschuldigten. “Wie kommen Sie darauf?”, hakte die Anwältin, die schon unzählige Male erklärt hatte, dass ihre Mandantin das alleinige Sorgerecht in Österreich innehabe, nach. “Weil die dänische Entscheidung nach meiner Rückkehr mit Oliver erneut bestätigt wurde, ich habe auch das internationale Sorgerecht”, war der Däne überzeugt. Von diesem “internationalen Sorgerecht” wusste außer ihm allerdings niemand etwas.

Als Zeugin wurde eine Frau befragt, die den Vorfall vor dem Kindergarten im April vorigen Jahres mitbekommen hatte. Sie schilderte, dass sie zunächst eine “zornige, sich wehrende Kinderstimme” vernommen habe, anschließend hörte sie “laute, panische Schreie” einer Frau. Dann sah sie noch ein Auto derart schnell wegfahren, dass sie zunächst an einen Autounfall mit Fahrerflucht gedacht habe.

Ein Urteil sollte planmäßig noch am selben Tag erfolgen.

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

profile pic.jpg

ABP World Group Risk Management

Contact us here: Mail

NOTE: We are always available 24/7

(646) 502-7443 United States

069 2547 2471 Germany

020 3239 0013 United Kingdom

01 442 9322 Ireland

031-753 83 77 Sweden

Østrig har tilsyneladende ikke overholdt deres forpligtelser i en sag om børnebortfølgese, mener advokat.


Source: jk.dk og bt.dk

Sagen om den 40-årige danske mand, der tirsdag morgen bortførte sin femårige søn fra Østrig, vækker undren hos formanden for Danske Familieadvokater, Helle Larsen.

Da drengen er opvokset i Danmark, og de danske myndigheder har tilkendt faren forældremyndigheden, burde de østrigske myndigheder forlængst have sørget for, at drengen var kommet tilbage til Danmark, mener hun.

– Østrig har tilsyneladende valgt at se stort på de internationale konventioner. De burde have respekteret den danske afgørelse i sagen, siger hun til Ritzau.

Danmark bør støtte faderen

Tidligt tirsdag om morgenen mødte faderen og en anden mand op ved drengens børnehave. Mens makkeren holdt moderen tilbage, satte danskeren sin søn ind i en bil.

På trods af den dramatiske fremgangsmåde bør de danske myndigheder støtte faren, mener Helle Larsen.

– Danmark bør give den danske afgørelse i sagen forrang, og Familiestyrelsen bliver efter min vurdering nødt til at bakke faren op, siger hun.

Helle Larsen opfordrer samtidig regeringen til at gå ind i sagen.

– Politisk bør man rejse sagen over for Østrig for at finde ud af, hvad årsagen er til, at østrigerne ikke har villet overholde deres forpligtelser, siger hun.

Tilknytning til Danmark

Hvis de oplysninger, der er kommet frem i sagen holder stik, så er sagen ret klar, mener Helle Larsen.

– Sådan som jeg har forstået det, så har Østrig ikke overholdt deres andel af Europarådskonventionen og Haagkonventionen om børnebortførelser. Der er tale om et barn, som har haft størst tilknytning til Danmark, og som havde bopæl i Danmark, da moren besluttede at tage barnet med til Østrig.

– I sådan et tilfælde er det Danmark, der skal afgøre sagen, og hvis barnet bliver ført ud af landet til et andet land, så siger konventionen, at det andet land skal føre barnet tilbage til Danmark, siger Helle Larsen.

——————————————————-

Nu er bortførte Oliver i Danmark

– Thomas er tilbage i Danmark med Oliver. Og han går under jorden, indtil de danske myndigheder indleder dialog med Østrig for at få hævet den internationale arrestordre, der betyder, at han også kan blive anholdt på dansk grund af danske betjente, siger Janus Bang, talsmand for faren fra organisationen Borgersagen, til jp.dk.

Les også: Østrigsk politi: Han risikerer fængsel

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

Cabbie Eugene Pothy reunited with son stuck in international custody fight


Source: NY Daily News

Boy, 10, was living in Ivory Coast with relatives since 2003.

WHEN THE SON he had not seen for eight years stepped into the arrivals hall at Kennedy Airport, cabbie Eugene Pothy sobbed and gripped the railing.

He had waited so long for this moment — the end of a wrenching international custody battle — and when he finally hugged the boy, it seemed he might never let go.

As that first embrace ended, 10-year-old Philippe-Emmanuel looked up at a father he knew only from photographs, smiled shyly, and asked in French, “Why are you crying?“

“Just for you,“ Pothy said.

Pothy hadn’t seen Philippe-Emmanuel since the boy’s mother sent him to the Ivory Coast to visit her relatives in 2003. He never returned.

On Tuesday, the cabbie kept shaking his head in disbelief that the ordeal had a happy ending.

“Eight years. Eight years,” he said.

“This is all I have been hoping for for eight years. The day has come.”

Philippe-Emmanuel seemed taken aback by the outpouring.

With his dad translating for him, he said he felt “happy.”

“I recognize my dad from photos. From Facebook, I knew him,” he said.

Pothy, 46, who lives in East Orange, N.J., and works in the city, first told his story of losing his son to the Daily News last November.

After the boy did not return from Africa, Pothy failed for years to convince the child’s mother and her family that he should be raised in America.

Last spring, he contacted the State Department, which opened a case but told him it would be difficult for them to take action, because the Ivory Coast isn’t part of the Hague Convention on International Parental Child Abduction.

The agency also cautioned him against flying there to get the boy himself, if he could get a U.S. judge to sign a order, because foreign courts often do not recognize American custody rules.

The case took a promising turn when Pothy met with self-styled anti-abduction activist Peter Thomas Senese before a December hearing on the case in New Jersey Superior Court.

Pothy said Senese brokered an agreement with the boy’s mother, Judith Any-Grah, that stipulated his return.

Read: I Care Foundation helps create a miracle

The judge approved it and Any-Grah’s family overseas complied.

The boy will now live with Pothy, who already has residential custody of his 6-year-old sister, but his mom will have joint custody.

Any-Grah was also at the airport Tuesday, waiting to see the boy she had not seen in eight years, either.

She told The News that when she sent Philippe-Emmanuel to live with her sister in 2003, she was overwhelmed as a mom and college student.

“I asked her to raise him for me,” she said.

She claimed Pothy agreed it was best at the time. He says he expected his son to be gone only six months.

“Now, I can do my job,” he said. “I can be his dad.”

epearson@nydailynews.com

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

A Very Special Perspective Of Father’s Day: The Day The Storms Almost Took My Life


by Peter Thomas Senese on Sunday, June 19, 2011

In deciding to share a small section of my upcoming novel ‘Chasing The Cyclone’, it is my desire to provide a bit of my own personal insight on the importance of father’s in their children’s lives.

The brief excerpt below occurs in Wellington, New Zealand. The protagonist is in the eye of a severe and deadly cyclone.  He is desperately searching for his own son, who had been criminally internationally abducted.   

Chapter 14

The storm appeared to have just stopped, if only briefly, as my eyes gaze into the peculiar dark night. Curious and awake, I quickly put on an old pair of jeans and a black sweater, grab my cell phone and heavy coat, and then race out the door of my hotel room.

The distinct British Colonial city of Wellington is as silent as a prayer.  Except it seems like I’ve traveled back in time to the 1950’s and everything around me is painted in granular shades of black and white.

As I wander through the deserted deluged streets, I aimlessly drift toward the harbor until I arrive at Queens Wharf.  But for a few of the swaying streetlights that remain on – their lights all stuck on red, and the sound of the racing water running to the overflowing sewer drains, there is an eerie, almost mocking feeling about this little barren city tucked on the southern tip of the northern island.

I soon come to a creaking security gate that leads onto one of the container piers that line the harbor. Walking past it, I am surrounded by abandoned forklifts and trucks, containers and cranes, and scattered remnants of people who fled the storm that furiously rolled in from the Pacific.

I continue making my way onto the pier.

The cold wind cuts through my body, causing me to shiver. I’m not sure why I am compelled to walk all the way toward the dangerous edge, but I am. The menacing ocean’s grasp of me to come closer – to look into its black depths – is unbreakable.

I am scared, but I continue moving toward the ominous edge.

Looking down at the cresting waves as they surge threateningly to overtake the concrete pier, I wonder what is to become of my life. The swells are failing for the moment, but I know this storm is far from finished.

Looking toward what I believe is the Antarctic sky, I unexpectedly see a sliver of gray and a faint streak of violet try to slash through the ringing, mountainous thunderstorms of the cyclone’s foreboding eye-wall. The ray of light reminds me that after the chaos of the most destructive of storms, life will find its way.

A flicker of orange speckles the darkness before it suddenly disappears. I take a deep breath as my mind takes me back home, where I envision Alex sleeping content in his bed, his arms peacefully tucked underneath his head without a worry in the world.

Turning my eyes inward, and away from the vanishing light, I reach inside my jacket for my cell phone as the escalating howling wind pummels my body backward. I eye the ominous eye wall moving closer toward me as cold rain begins to slap my face.

Standing with frozen feet alone on this concrete island pier in the middle of nowhere, the storm brutally lashes out at me. I know the cyclone’s treacherous eye-wall is purposefully following me like a messenger from hell – tormenting my mind – waiting for just the right moment to unleash its full fury and rage. A lightning bolt suddenly illuminates the sky as I dial a number I have known for a long, long time.

Clutching the phone in my hand, I hear it ring once before it’s answered. “Dad?” I painfully scream into the howling storm converging on me.

Chasing The Cyclone , Peter Thomas Senese

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

Resolution Condemning Japan for International Child Abduction


111th CONGRESS, 2d Session, H. RES. 1326

Calling on the Government of Japan to immediately address the growing problem of abduction to and retention of United States citizen minor children in Japan, to work closely with the Government of the United States to return these children to their custodial parent or to the original jurisdiction for a custody determination in the United States, to provide left-behind parents immediate access to their children, and to adopt without delay the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

RESOLUTION

Calling on the Government of Japan to immediately address the growing problem of abduction to and retention of United States citizen minor children in Japan, to work closely with the Government of the United States to return these children to their custodial parent or to the original jurisdiction for a custody determination in the United States, to provide left-behind parents immediate access to their children, and to adopt without delay the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

Whereas Japan is an important partner with the United States and shares interests in the areas of economy, defense, the promotion of global peace and prosperity, and the mutual protection of the human rights of the two nations’ respective citizens in the increasingly integrated global society;

Whereas the Government of Japan acceded to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that states under Article 16 (1), `Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution’, and Article 16 (3), `The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State’;

Whereas the Government of Japan acceded in 1979 to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights that states `States Parties to the present Covenant shall take appropriate steps to ensure equality of rights and responsibilities of spouses as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. In the case of dissolution, provision shall be made for the necessary protection of any children [Article 23]’;

Whereas according to Japan’s National Institute of Population and Social Security Research, 44,701 marriages between a Japanese national and a foreigner were registered in Japan in 2006, and 17,102 divorces were registered in Japan in 2006 between a Japanese national and foreigner;

Whereas since 1994 the Office of Children’s Issues (OCI) at the United States Department of State had opened 194 cases involving 269 United States citizen minor children abducted to or wrongfully retained in Japan, and as of March 25, 2010, OCI had 85 open cases involving 121 United States citizen minor children abducted to or wrongfully retained in Japan;

Whereas since the signing of the Treaty of Peace with Japan (San Francisco Treaty) between the Allied Powers and the Government of Japan in 1951, the Japanese Government has never issued and enforced a legal decision to return a single abducted child to the United States;

Whereas Japan has not acceded to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Hague Convention), resulting in the continued absence of an immediate civil remedy that as a matter of urgency would enable the expedited return of abducted children to their custodial parent in the United States where appropriate, or otherwise immediately allow access to their United States parent;

Whereas the Government of Japan is the only G-7 country that has not acceded to the Hague Convention;

Whereas the Hague Convention would not apply to abductions occurring before the accession of Japan to the Hague Convention, requiring, therefore, that Japan create a separate parallel process to resolve the abductions of all United States citizen minor children who currently remain wrongfully removed to or retained in Japan, including the 121 United States citizen minor children who have been reported to the United States Department of State and who are being held in Japan against the wishes of their parent in the United States and, in many cases, in direct violation of a valid United States court order;

Whereas the Hague Convention provides enumerated defenses designed to provide protection to children alleged to be subjected to physical or psychological abuse in the left-behind country;

Whereas United States laws against domestic violence extend protection and redress to Japanese spouses;

Whereas there are numerous acknowledged cases, such as the Jade and Michael Elias case, of Japanese consulates located within the United States issuing or reissuing travel documents of dual-national minor children in violation of United States court orders restricting travel and in violation of United States Federal criminal parental kidnapping statutes;

Whereas there are numerous cases in which the actions of the Government of Japan evidence a disregard of United States law and jurisdiction, other cases show indifference to the United States and customary international jurisprudence in the area of family law, which overwhelmingly reflects the worldwide preference for the resolution of parenting disputes by negotiated joint custody;

Whereas Japan’s existing family law system does not recognize joint custody nor actively enforce parental access agreements for either its own nationals or foreigners, there is little hope for minor children to have contact with the noncustodial parent in violation of internationally recognized and protected rights;

Whereas there exists no due process within the Japanese family court system for the redress of such disputes, and the existing system has no recognized process to enforce a custody or parental access order from outside of Japan or within it, without the voluntary cooperation of the abducting parent or guardian;

Whereas the Government of Japan has repeatedly claimed to foreign governments that parental child abduction is not considered a crime in Japan despite the fact that Article 3 of the Japanese Penal Code does indeed make it a crime for a Japanese citizen to abduct a child and move the child across national borders, even if the child is moved to Japan;

Whereas the Government of Japan has refused to prosecute an abducting parent or relative criminally when that parent or relative abducts the child into Japan;

Whereas according to the United States Department of State’s April 2008 Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, abducted children are at risk of serious emotional and psychological problems and have been found to experience anxiety, eating problems, nightmares, mood swings, sleep disturbances, aggressive behavior, resentment, guilt, and fearfulness, and as adults may struggle with identity issues, their own personal relationships, and parenting;

Whereas left-behind parents may encounter substantial psychological, emotional, and financial problems, and many may not have the financial resources to pursue civil or criminal remedies for the return of their children in foreign courts or political systems;

Whereas Erika Toland was abducted in 2003 from Negishi United States Navy Family housing in Yokohama to Tokyo, Japan, by her now deceased mother and is being held by her Japanese maternal grandmother, while being denied access to her father since 2004;

Whereas Melissa Braden was covertly abducted from her home in 2006 by her mother to Japan in violation of previous Los Angeles Superior Court orders giving both parents access to the child and prohibiting international travel (travel to Japan) with the child by either parent and has since been denied any contact with her father;

Whereas Kai Hachiya was abducted in 2006 to Japan by his father, who had been found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have physically and mentally abused Kai’s mother who had been awarded sole custody in the State of Hawaii, and as a result, Kai has had limited contact with his mother;

Whereas Isaac and Rebecca Savoie were abducted in 2009 to Japan by their mother in violation of a Tennessee State court order of joint custody and Tennessee statutes, and have been denied any access or communication with their father, despite their father having been awarded sole custody of them by a United States court;

Whereas Karina Garcia was abducted to Japan in 2008 by her mother, who was ordered by the United States courts to return Karina to the care of her sole custodian father in the United States, but the order to return of the child has not been granted even though the sole custody order had been recognized by the Osaka High Court;

Whereas United States citizen minor children who have been abducted to Japan are being deprived of their United States heritage;

Whereas, on October 16, 2009, the Ambassadors to Japan of Australia, Canada, France, Italy, New Zealand, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States, all parties to the Hague Convention, called upon Japan to accede to the Hague Convention and meanwhile to identify and implement measures to enable parents who are separated from their children to establish contact with them and to visit them;

Whereas, on January 30, 2010, the Ambassadors to Japan of Australia, France, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States, the Charges d’Affaires ad interim of Canada and Spain, and the Deputy Head of Mission of Italy, called on Japan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, submitted their concerns over the increase in international parental abduction cases involving Japan and affecting their nationals, and again urged Japan to sign the Hague Convention;

Whereas the Governments of the United States and the French Republic have recently established bilateral commissions with Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs to share information on and seek resolution of outstanding Japanese parental child abduction cases;

Whereas the bilateral commission is limited by the fact that it does not currently include Japan’s Ministry of Justice, which has jurisdiction over family law;

Whereas Japan’s Justice Minister Keiko Chiba said upon her appointment that she is determined to show that Japan `is very proactive’ in adopting international protocols and conventions that are the `international standard’; and

Whereas it is critical for the Governments of the United States and Japan to work together to prevent future incidents of international parental child abduction to Japan, which damages children, families, and Japan’s national image with the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That–

(1) the House of Representatives–

(A) condemns the abduction and retention of all minor children being held in Japan away from their United States parents in violation of their human rights and United States and international law;

(B) calls on the Government of Japan to immediately facilitate the resolution of all abduction cases, to recognize United States court orders governing persons subject to jurisdiction in a United States court, and to make immediately possible access and communication for all children with their left-behind parents;

(C) calls on the Government of Japan to include Japan’s Ministry of Justice in work with the Government of the United States to facilitate the identification and location of all United States minor citizen children alleged to have been wrongfully removed to or retained in Japan and for the immediate establishment of a protocol for the resolution of existing cases of abduction, interference with parental access to children, and violations of United States court orders;

(D) calls on the Government of Japan to establish immediately a protocol and timetable to amend its Civil Code to allow for enforceable rights of parental access and communication between minor children and their divorced or separated parents including parents who are not Japanese citizens;

(E) calls on the Government of Japan to review and amend its consular procedures to ensure that travel documents for minor children are not issued in violation of United States court orders;

(F) calls on Japan to accede to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction without delay and to promptly establish judicial and enforcement procedures to facilitate credibly the immediate return of children to their habitual residence and to establish protocols for the organization of rights of international parental access; and

(G) calls on the President of the United States and the Secretary of State to seek immediately to identify credibly all United States citizen minor children who have been wrongfully removed to and who are retained currently in Japan and to raise the issue of abduction and wrongful retention of those United States citizen minor children in Japan with Japanese officials and domestic and international press; and

(2) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that the United States should–

(A) recognize the issue of child abduction to and retention of United States citizen minor children in Japan as a central foreign policy issue of paramount importance to the United States within the context of its bilateral relationship with Japan;

(B) work with the Government of Japan to enact consular procedures and legal agreements to prevent parental abduction to and retention of United States citizen minor children in Japan;

(C) encourage the Government of Japan to adopt the policy of not issuing duplicate passports when a United States judge has restricted a child’s travel or ordered the surrender of passports and to otherwise require notarized signatures from both parents before issuing a passport to a child;
(D) review its advisory services made available to United States citizens from the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and other government agencies to ensure that effective and timely assistance is given to United States citizens in preventing the incidence of wrongful retention or removal of minor children and acting to obtain the expeditious return of their children from Japan;
(E) review its advisory services made available to members of the United States Armed Forces, particularly those stationed in Japan by the Department of Defense and the United States Armed Forces, to ensure that effective and timely assistance is given to them, including providing legal assistance in preventing the incidence of wrongful retention or removal of minor children and acting to obtain the expeditious return of their dependent children from Japan at the conclusion of their tour of duty in Japan;
(F) call upon the Secretary of Defense to include the issues of child abduction and the protection of members of the United States Armed Forces and their families stationed abroad in any current or future status of forces agreement;
(G) call upon the Secretary of State to enact immediately a Memorandum of Understanding with the Government of Japan to establish a bilateral protocol with procedures to address immediately any parental child abduction or access issue reported to the United States Department of State; and

(H) urge the Department of State to include international child abduction and Japan’s actions regarding abductions as a human rights violation under its Country Reports on Human Rights Practices.

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Service

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

Japan: The Black Hole of International Parental Child Abduction


 

Chasing Parents from all over the United States who have their children criminally abducted and detained in Japan have joined together under the banner of ‘Bring Abducted Children Home’ (www.bachome.org/events.htm) , in an effort to raise the public’s awareness on the growing cruelty directed at defenseless, innocent U.S. children-citizens victimized by the act of international parental child abduction. The group, which consists of nearly 50 Chasing Parents and their supporters have descended on Washington, D.C. to meet with lawmakers and government officials in order to press for the return of their children, while also intending several formal protests and awareness campaigns in order to educate the scores of visitors celebrating Japan’s culture.

The timing of their rally could not be better: this week, Washington celebrates the Cherry Blossom Festival, where over a million visitors are expected to visit the nation’s Capitol. One of these visitors expected to visit is Japan’s Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama.

Japan has never returned a child that has been internationally parentally kidnapped and illegally detained in their country in accordance to the laws of the child’s nation of habitual residency. According to various reports, it is estimated that there are over 1,300 children who had been criminally abducted from a foreign country and presently criminally detained in Japan. In addition, in the last decade alone there were 167 child abduction cases in Japan reported to the State Department involving 230 children. This, despite an assortment of U.S. court orders and demands for these children to be returned home.

Zero abducted children returned from Japan equates to this country becoming known as the ‘Black Hole of Abduction’, and a ‘Safe Harbor’ for parental child kidnappers.

Sadly, most American citizens and for that matter, most citizens of developed and progressive-leaning countries have no idea that Japan is a safe-harbor for child abductors, none of whom face prosecution or extradition in Japan. And why would the public not know this? Isn’t Japan one of the United States’ strongest strategic partners and allies? On the surface, the answer to this question is ‘yes’. But how can a strategic partner allow for criminally abducted children to remain in their country and under the guidance and care no less, of the abducting parent?

Culturally, Japan’s courts allow for only one parent to have access and custody of a child during divorce proceedings. Tragically for the child and the child not selected to be with their own child by the court, contact and communication is frowned upon and not approved. This approach is far different than the West, where research and common sense demonstrate that a child is best served by knowing the love of both parents.

For example, the case of Navy Commander Paul Toland and his daughter Erika’s plight provides one microcosm that there is more to Japan’s refusal to comply than what is commonly referred to as ‘cultural differences in law’. In Commander Toland’s case, his daughter Erika was abducted by the child’s US Citizen mother while he was assigned in Japan on military duty. Shortly after, the mother died, and the grandmother took possession of Erika where she remains until this day, held captive in a country that has never returned a child. The US State Department tried to intervene and asked to visit Erika to check on her welfare and well-being, but the grandmother denied their request. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs asked to visit Erika to check on her welfare and well-being, but again, the grandmother denied their request. In the Japanese system, where no enforcement mechanisms exist and compliance is completely voluntary, all any government agency can say is “We’re sorry, we tried.” Nobody can offer any remedies or solutions, because none exist. Commander Toland, who is Erika’s sole legal custodian under Maryland State Law, remains with absolutely no access to his daughter. Erika has been gone now for nearly seven years. Her father Paul loves her with all of his heart.

Commander Toland commented, “I never dreamed that serving my country overseas in one of our allied nations would result in the loss of my only child. Japan is supposedly an ally of the United States, so why does the United States continue to tolerate this behavior from Japan? How can a nation that we call an ally be guilty of such despicable human rights violations and get away with it? Our children are all we have, and every civilized society has the responsibility to ensure that their most vulnerable citizens, their children, have the opportunity to know and love their parents..”

In another case that cuts through the chatter of cultural issues is the case of Captain William Lake. In Captain Lake’s case, his former spouse, who is not a Japanese citizen, abducted his daughter Mary Victoria to Japan despite an array of court orders. The abducting parent has no national ties to Japan; however, for nearly five years Japan has provided a safe harbor for the abducting parent despite having no connection to Japan. Mary Victoria will be 13 this Sunday. Her father William loves her greatly.

Christopher Savoie, who drew international media attention to the Japanese government’s complicity with child kidnappers when he was wrongfully detained by Japanese police last year while attempting to retrieve his two kidnapped children stated, “I am glad that the tide is turning and that this extremely shameful aspect of Japanese culture is being exposed for what it is. People are starting to realize all of the previously closely guarded dirty secrets of Japanese society such as the popularity and legality in Japan of child pornography, legal “consensual” sex with 13 year-old children, cover-ups about killer vehicles, the ruthless killing of dolphins and the most disgusting secret of all– that Japan officially and shamelessly supports and even assists in the kidnapping of innocent kids from countries that are supposedly their ‘allies’.”

Read more here: http://bignews.biz/?id=858756&pg=3&keys=Child-Japan-abduction-Parental

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Service

 

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

International Parental Child Abduction: A Silent Epidemic of Kidnapping


Written By: Peter Thomas Senese and Carolyn Ann Vlk

It is believed that United States children-citizens are being criminally abducted, illegally removed overseas, and wrongfully detained in foreign countries in shocking and seemingly advancing and unprecedented numbers. This despite U.S. court orders prohibiting their removal and/or demanding for their immediate return.

Remarkably, the necessary data required to accurately measure the total number of international parental child abductions (IPCA) does not exist due to the inability to measure what is believed to be a large number of ‘unreported’ cases, which is discussed in this report later on. Therefore due to the inability to measure ‘unreported’ cases, much of what has been previously reported in government and reputable organizations’ studies or statements should be considered as speculation due in part to the inability to measure ‘unreported’ cases, as well as forecasted numbers derived from immeasurable and highly questionable determining methodologies. The only measureable statistics are the number of cases reported to law enforcement and to The Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues (OCI).

The content of this report includes statistics from the most current published annual report   dated April of 2009 and titled the Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The 2010 annual compliance report is expected to be delivered to Congress in the coming days and will be publically available in the near future; however, we anticipate that the current trends previously seen with respect to the increase in international parental child abductions will remain.

Carolyn Ann Vlk, the writer of Florida’s Child Abduction Prevention Act, explains, ”In response to a mandate of the 1984 Missing Children Act, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJPD) publishes periodic studies titled the National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART). The NISMART publications are meant to identify the numbers of children who are reported missing and the number of children recovered in a particular year. These bulletins consist of comprehensive studies with an emphasis on examining trends in the incidence of missing children.”

The NISMART I study (utilizing data from 1988 and published in 1990) reported that there were an estimated 354,100 family abductions annually. In order to derive data for that study in regards to the number of children that are victims of a family abduction each year a household telephone survey was conducted. The survey included a total of 10,367 interviews with adult caretakers. The Population Estimates Program of the Population Division U.S. Census Bureau estimated the U.S. population at 244,498,982 in 1988. To clarify, a sampling of telephone interviews from 0.0000413% of the U.S. population was utilized to provide the statistical data that is widely accepted as being an accurate accounting of the numbers of annual family abductions.

The NISMART – 2 study, which utilized data from 1999 and was published in 2002, reported that there were 203,900 family abductions annually. This study also utilized a household telephone survey and completed interviews with 16,111 adult caretakers. Additionally, this study surveyed 5,015 youth ages 10-18 who lived in the sample households. During the study year the estimated U.S. population was 272,690,813, thus reflecting completed interviews of 0.000059% of the U.S. adult population.  Once again, a small fraction of the U.S. population was interviewed as the only method of determining the annual numbers of family abductions. Critically, and troublesome is the fact that the NISMART studies did not derive any of the data relating to family abductions from law enforcement or other governmental agencies. Data was entirely compiled from random computer-assisted telephone interviewing methodology. Neither study conducted a second survey.

Now consider that an assortment of generally accepted reports or statements from leading authorities including The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). On April 22, 2002 NCMEC stated in a press release the following, “In an effort to educate the public and to provide more services to victims, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children has released a new publication entitled Family Abduction: Prevention and Response and has recently formed a group for adults who were victims of family abduction as children.  A commonly misunderstood and complex issue, best estimates indicate that there are 354,000 domestic and 16,000 international family abductions per year.”

We are unable to ascertain where NCMEC determined their 16,000 international child abductions per year. What we do know is that according to the Department of State, in several of their published statements, that there were approximately 16,000 international parental child abductions over a two-decade long period. What these inconsistencies demonstrate is a lack of data. Unknown is whether the NCMEC statement included an estimate of ‘unreported’ cases or perhaps was an error as the same ‘16,000’ yearly number is identical to the Department of State’s ’16,000’ two decade number.

Peter Thomas Senese is the author of the upcoming book titled ‘Chasing The Cyclone’ which critics have praised as an extraordinary story on international parental child abduction, love, and parenting. He stated, “Criminal parental cross-border abduction appears to be increasing in the United States and abroad at significant rates despite the fact that there is not enough accurate data required to establish growth trends in cross-border abductions. The rise of abduction in our country as well as that seen in other nations indicates that we have a global pandemic on our hands. And as more children from different nations are stolen and not returned, including our own children, citizens will inevitably voice their growing anger over the fact that their nation’s children-citizens have been abducted.  The stealing of children across international borders can, and very well will inevitably create grave challenges for all nations who sit at the world’s political and economic tables.”

This report will unequivocally demonstrate that new, carefully constructed research initiated by our government is immediately needed, and that the number of international parental child abductions is increasing despite efforts to stop this terrible act directed at our children-citizens.

Indisputable, are the actual number of ‘reported’ abduction cases. Estimating the incalculable total number of ‘unreported’ cases is difficult to assess. Despite this inability to concisely determine the total number of cases each year, it appears America and our nation’s children-citizens are plagued by a dangerous criminal epidemic known as ‘International Parental Child Abduction’ that is silently sweeping through our nation. At risk are tens if not hundreds of thousands of our defenseless children who are targeted for abduction each year.

In April of 2009, the annual Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction was released.  In that publication, Janice L. Jacobs, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs writes, “Unfortunately, current trends reflect a steady increase in the number of international parental child abduction cases and highlight the urgency of redoubling efforts to promote compliance with Convention obligations and encourage additional nations to join the Convention.” She also writes, “Very few options exist for parents and children who are victims of parental child abduction.”

This fact is evidenced by the statistical data contained within the 2009 report. Utilizing data that was collected during the period from October 1, 2007 through September 30, 2008 the report reflects that of the 1,082 new cases were reported involving 1,615 children. During the study year the U.S. was only successful in the return of 361 children. However, it is important to note that as time passes, it becomes substantially more difficult to recover an abducted child.

Peter Thomas Senese commented, “The anticipated number of international abductions used as a benchmark and often referred to is inconclusive because the published data does not take into consideration ‘unreported’ cases of international child abduction, population growth, increases in multi-cultural marriages, immigration migration increases to the United States, and economic difficulties many families are facing, which inevitably leads to a break-up of the family unit. More concerning is how the widely distributed and cited surveys used what I believe to be an inadequate number of telephone interviews and appear not to include any law enforcement records. In my view, we as a nation have a serious problem on our hands.”

Carolyn Ann Vlk stated, “Admittedly, something is seriously amiss in our ability to accurately estimate the number of children victimized by the crime of child abduction. In my opinion, utilizing only a random telephone survey, to determine the number of affected children is a process flawed by numerous, serious methodological problems. Additionally, the cooperation and compliance rate in obtaining the return of our citizen children who have been criminally internationally abducted must be drastically improved. The recovery of only 361 of these children during an entire fiscal year is not and should not be acceptable”.

Unfortunately, many internationally abducted children are never returned because their abductions are not reported to authorities. The likelihood is that the vast majority of these types of cases never end with a child’s return. It would be reasonable to conclude that if a targeted parent did not report their child’s abduction, then in all likelihood, that U.S. child-citizen will not be returned to the United States. Due to the number of ‘unreported’ international abduction cases, it is difficult to determine a reasonable return-rate percentage. We recognize the difficulty in attempting to accurately estimate the ‘unreported’ case numbers and believe that it is probable that the number of returns of ‘unreported’ cases is extremely low and essentially immeasurable.

Reasons for ‘unreported’ cases include the financial inability of a Chasing Parent to take legal action since they are responsible to pay for all costs associated with their child’s recovery – even though a child’s international abduction violates state and federal laws such as the International Parental Kidnapping Crimes Act (IPKCA). Furthermore, many parents experience a sense of hopelessness that any recovery efforts will be futile since there are great difficulties associated with bringing a child home, including the possibility of first trying to determine where your child is. Also, the fact is that many nations are not a party of or do not uphold the Hague Convention. Furthermore, there exist substantial prejudices in foreign courts.

The NISMART I study reported that there were a total of 354,000 parental child abductions annually. The NISMART II study stated the total number of parental child abductions decreased to approximately 203,900 children. The truth of the matter is that we really do not know how accurate any of the data is or how large of a problem we actually have on our hands. What we do know is that hundreds of thousands of children are targeted for parental abduction each year, and out of this group, tens of thousands of these instances include planned international parental abductions.

According to leading experts who specialize in international parental child abduction, conclusive and unilateral opinion and fact demonstrates that parental child abduction of a targeted child is a cruel, criminal, and severe form of abuse and mistreatment regardless if the child is with one of their (abducting) parents. This includes the illegal act of international abduction, whereas, the child is unexpectedly uprooted from their home, their community, their immediate and extended family, and their country. Sadly, severe short and long-term psychological problems are prevalent for many abduction victims who survive their kidnapping experience. It is commonplace for a child to be emotionally sabotaged, whereas, the abducting parent will try to remove all bonds and attachments the child has with the other parent, thus, removing the child’s right to know the love of the other parent, and keep in tact their own identity. Too many children simply never come home and in certain cases a child’s abduction overseas has led to the death of the abducted child.

A leader in the field of parental child abduction issues, Dr. Dorothy Huntington wrote an article titled Parental Kidnapping: A New Form of Child Abuse. Huntington contends that from the point of view of the child, “child stealing is child abuse.” According to Huntington, “in child stealing the children are used as both objects and weapons in the struggle between the parents which leads to the brutalization of the children psychologically, specifically destroying their sense of trust in the world around them.”

“Because of the harmful effects on children, parental kidnapping has been characterized as a form of “child abuse” reports Patricia Hoff, Legal Director for the Parental Abduction Training and Dissemination Project, American Bar Association on Children and the Law. Hoff explains, “Abducted children suffer emotionally and sometimes physically at the hands of abductor-parents. Many children are told the other parent is dead or no longer loves them. Uprooted from family and friends, abducted children often are given new names by their abductor-parents and instructed not to reveal their real names or where they lived before.” (Hoff, 1997)

Consider that today in Japan, there are approximately 230 American children-citizens who were illegally abducted from United States soil to Japan by one of their parents in violation of U.S. court orders. To date, and for what is believed to be nearly fifty years, Japan – America’s strong ally – has never returned 1 American child who was parentally kidnapped and illegally detained in accordance to United States law.  And tragically, the vast majority of the chasing parents left-behind in the wake of their child’s abduction are not permitted to have contact with their child.

“I’m the only living parent to my daughter Erika,” said U.S. Navy Commander Paul Toland, whose daughter Erika was abducted to Japan seven years ago, “my wife died and my daughter was subsequently kidnapped by her grandmother, yet I have absolutely no access to her. Both the State Department and the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs have asked to visit my daughter to check on her welfare, but the abductor said no. In the Japanese system, where no enforcement mechanisms exist and compliance is completely voluntary, all any government agency can say to me is ‘We’re sorry, we tried’. Nobody can offer any remedies or solutions, because none exist.”

At the time of Commander Toland’s child’s abduction, OCI did not include his case as an officially reported case since at the time, Commander Paul Toland, father of Ericka, was on active duty serving his country, and military personal cases were not counted as ‘reported’ cases. This has recently changed.

Welcome to the absurd world of international parental child abduction. The bizarreness of Commander Toland and his daughter’s dire odyssey into the world of the incomprehensible is the norm experienced by many chasing parents and their children, not the oddity.

There are abundant reasons why it is very difficult to have an illegally stolen child returned despite the United States being a signatory of The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. They include, but are not limited to the following:

1.     Lack of action in reporting a child’s abduction by a targeted parent left behind; and,

2.     Many nations do not comply with or uphold the spirit of the convention (ex, Brazil, Mexico, Germany); and,

3.     Many countries have not signed the convention (ex. Japan, China, Russia, and many countries located in the Middle East); and,

4.     Chasing Parents may not have an idea what country their child was taken to; and,

5.     Chasing Parents are responsible to carry the enormous financial burden associated with their child’s recovery. Many simply do not have the substantial resources needed; and,

6.     Many Chasing Parents do not have the knowledge necessary to navigate the difficult and complex legal system of international law, nor do they often know who to turn to and what to do; and,

7.     Nationalistic prejudices of court systems located in the ‘inbound’ country, whereas, a court may try to protect the abducting parent if that parent is a citizen of the country where they abducted the child to; and,

8.     Cultural differences; and,

9.     A Chasing Parent’s fear to attempt to recover their child due to threats from the abducting parent or individuals associated with the abducting parent; and,

10.  Lack of cooperation from law enforcement; and,

11.  Limited power of the Office of Children’s Issues to intervene on behalf of a U.S. citizen.

According to statements issued by the Department of State, reported cases of international parental child abduction increased by 40% from 2007 to 2009, which appears to be similar to what other Hague Convention signatory nations have experienced. This represents a mean increase of 20% per year. The report for 2009 to 2010 will be issued on April 28th, 2010; however, the expected percentage increase in abductions is anticipated to be equivalent to, if not higher than the increases demonstrated during 2007-2009.

What is not known is whether the increase in ‘reported’ cases to the Department of State’s OCI is due to greater public awareness and proactivity amongst targeted parents, an actual increase in the number of international abductions, the extensive outreach made by OCI to let targeted parents know that OCI exists and can assist a Chasing Parent, or all of the above.

Peter Thomas Senese, who turned to OCI during his child’s abduction commented, “There never is a day that goes by that I am not appreciative and thankful for the assistance that was extended to me and my family by the Office of Children’s Issues during the time I was chasing the cyclones of international parental child abduction.  Unquestionably, it was through the assistance of some of the extraordinary, caring and concerned individuals from OCI who intervened on behalf of my child’s case that today my son lives a happy, peaceful, and secure existence. OCI had a giant impact on my case, and for the rest of my life, I will be forever thankful to some of that organization.”

The increase in reported cases by the Department of State only demonstrates abduction cases that are actually ‘reported’. Unfortunately, it is believed that many abduction cases are not reported due to multiple reasons. This includes fear from immigrant aliens living in the United States with either documented or undocumented status that they may be deported if they file a Hague Application with OCI seeking for the return of their abducted child. In these cases, OCI will always accept a request for assistance regardless if the parent is here legally or not since The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction does not say anything about citizenship status. And it has been OCI’s policy to never report an undocumented alien to the U.S. Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Now consider the data contained in the most current Hague Compliance report indicating that the mean growth rate experienced between 2007-2009 was approximately 40% (an average of 20%).  If the rate continues at a mean of 20% over the next ten years and we factor in the 2009 reported case numbers, this forecasts that our nation will have at least 9,647 of our children-citizens criminally abducted overseas in the year 2020, and from 2008 through 2020, 52,466 of our nation’s children will have been internationally abducted.

Our position is that due to the existence of what we believe to be a significant and substantial number of ‘unreported’ cases combined with population growth and increases in documented and undocumented immigration migration, the rate of children abducted internationally will continue to rise at a rate of at least, if not substantially greater than 20% annually unless significant abduction prevention steps are immediately implemented.

Combining the projected increases of ‘reported’ cases with the immeasurable ‘unreported’ cases that is apparent and real based upon immigration migration and economic factors, it is reasonable to state that America and our children are facing a serious problem.

The absurdity of this all is so terrifying that you might be inclined and desirous to dismiss it, particularly when we consider the immeasurable number of cases presently classified as ‘unreported’ that may shift to the ‘reported’ category due to public awareness combined with OCI’s outreach efforts.

It is important to note that none of these figures include the large number of children who have previously been internationally abducted and presently remain illegally detained overseas.

Studies have demonstrated that an unprecedented number of abductions have occurred where one parent took unilateral action to deprive the other parent of contact with their child.  The majority of abducting parents will typically use the child as a tool to cause the targeted parent great pain and suffering.

Understandably, family abductions occur at a higher rate during times of heightened stress such as separation or divorce and often involve custody issues and visitation problems.  The sad fact is that a large number of marriages, estimated to be between 40% and 50%, in the U.S. end in divorce.

One of the many considerations that factor into the increase in total abductions indicates that economic difficulties in the United States and elsewhere are a measurable factor in the number of increases in separations and divorces. This added stress can lead to a parental cross-border abduction, particularly since we live in a global society, and the number of international relationships has increased dramatically.

While all children can be potential targets of a family abduction, the likelihood increases when that child has a parent with ties to a foreign country. According to the Juvenile and Family Court Journal Vol. 48, No. 2 titled Jurisdiction In Child Custody and Abduction Cases, “Parents who are citizens of another country (or who have dual citizenship with the U.S.) and also have strong ties to their extended family in their country of origin have long been recognized as abduction risks.” This increase in cultural diversity within the U.S. population has created challenges for our existing laws. Many U.S. born children-citizens fall victim to parental abduction when a parents’ union ends.

Across the U.S., states are struggling to address their archaic and outdated laws, and establish additional precautions to better protect their child-citizen population. Unquestionably, it is critical that child abduction prevention laws are passed in each state and upheld by the judiciary and law enforcement. Failure to do so will likely lead to the looming disaster that is already upon us.

Peter Thomas Senese stated, “As a nation, the United States must fight back this sweeping plague by passing child abduction prevention laws and by increasing our judiciary’s level of competency in overseeing and enforcing laws associated with these complex cases of potential or actual international parental child abductions.  Critical to judges and lawmakers’ ability to protect our children is the need for immediate research on this subject. The present available information is archaic, and more than likely inaccurate particularly due to the inability to measure ‘unreported’ cases. The community of child abduction prevention advocates has pointed this out for some time now. What we also need is for the creation and enforcement of well thought out and researched laws along with the upholding of the intent, spirit, and law of the international treaties such as The Hague Convention so we can protect our children and put an end to the spread of this malignant pandemic that has reached our shores.

Florida state representative Darryl Rouson is the lawmaker who championed and sponsored Florida’s landmark Child Abduction Prevention Act (HB 787). The bill was unanimously approved in the Senate and House of Representatives last week and is highly anticipated to become law within the coming days. Representative Rouson commented, “It is critical for each state to implement laws that will protect the rights of our children-citizens who may face parental child abduction. The misconception that when one parent steals a child from the other parent, that the child is safe, is undeniably inaccurate. It is through prevention laws such as Florida’s Child Abduction Prevention Act that we will be able to prevent this serious crime against our nation’s children from occurring.”

Carolyn Ann Vlk, the child abduction prevention advocate, commented, “Early on in my research on this critical issue I recognized the urgent need for preventative legislation. Thankfully, Florida’s legislative body wholeheartedly agreed as evidenced by the unanimous votes. I am thrilled for the added measure of safety this new law will have in protecting the children of my great state. However, I will not be satisfied until all states have child abduction prevention legislation enacted.”

One of the great concerns is the determining the actual number of annual child abductions. In the 2009 report approximately 1,082 outgoing cases were reported to OCI. However, we must also consider the number of cases that are unreported. This leads to several obvious questions including how accurate is the data that was compiled in the NISMART publications. Particularly when we consider the study was generated, concluded, and widely disseminated based upon completed adult surveys of approximately 10,367 households in 1988 and 16,111 in 1999. We must also ask ourselves why there appears to be a large number of unreported abduction cases? And why is the data so old and outdated, and how could our government allow for this to happen? Budget constraints aside, we’re talking about out nation’s children, aren’t we? Undeniably, we need to know what the real numbers are. And finally, what can OCI do to further assist targeted parents and their children who have not reported their cases?

In order to answer these questions, we must first look at the shift in our country’s population, and heavily weigh who we are – as a nation of immigrants.

A report compiled by the renowned Washington based Pew Hispanic Center reports that most immigrant groups are comprised of young families.  The likelihood that a child will be born while the parents are present in the U.S. is high.  Prior to 2007, data collected on parents of children under 18 only identified one parent, and a second parent could only be identified if they were married to the first parent.  Currently, a second parent identifier is considered whether or not the parents are married to each other. The new data more accurately reflects the number of children living in the U.S. with at least one foreign born parent.

In 2008 that meant that 22% of all children in the United States had at least one foreign-born parent. In fact, consider the following statistics compiled by the Center for Immigration Studies in its March 2007 analysis. Immigrants and their U.S. born children under age 18, as a share of population: California – 37.9%, Los Angles County – 50%, New York State – 27.9%, New York City – 46.7% and Florida  – 27.9%.

It must be noted that although 31.3% of all immigrants originate from Mexico, other countries have significant entry numbers as well.  Included in the March 2007 Current Population Survey (CPS) were statistics indicating that 17.6% of all immigrants were from East/Southeast Asia, 12.5% from Europe, 5.5% from South Asia, 3.5% from the Middle East, and Canada at 1.9%.

Traditionally, states such as California, New York, Florida, Texas, Illinois and Arizona have had large numbers of immigrants in their population. What is surprising is the trends in migration toward new centers of immigrant growth. The CPS prepared an analysis of states with statistically significant growth in immigrant population between 2000 and 2007. Most notably, Wyoming, which experienced a percentage increase of 180%, Tennessee at 160%, Georgia at 152.1%, and Alabama at 143.6%. The impact of unprecedented increases in immigrant migration is likely to create multiple challenges as states struggle to keep pace with their newest segment of population and their children.

“As a nation of immigrants, it is important to note that as our nation’s population increases due to immigrant migration, so too does the likelihood of increased cross-border child abduction,” Peter Thomas Senese added.

Additionally, it has been well established that illegal aliens do not respond to surveys such as the US Census or the CPS. Because the U.S. government does not have accurate records of arrival and departures for individuals present illegally in the country, their numbers must be estimated, as there is no hard data to draw from. However, indirect means for establishing these figures are used, and they must be viewed with a considerable amount of uncertainty. In 2007 CPS, it was estimated that of the approximately 37.9 million immigrants present in the U.S., nearly 1 in 3 immigrants were present illegally.

It is important to note this segment of our population when discussing child abduction because when a child is born in the U.S. that child automatically is a U.S. citizen. While the available data gives us fairly accurate figures regarding the number of children born in the U.S. as well as those immigrants who are present legally, a number is impossible to compile accurately in relation to the unauthorized resident population.

In regards to children born to illegal immigrants, in the five-year period from 2003 to 2008, that number rose from 2.7 million to 4 million.  The report published by the Pew Hispanic Centers reported that nationally the children of illegal immigrants now comprise 1 in 15 elementary and secondary students in the U.S.  Additionally, in Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada and Texas more than 1 in every 10 students in those states are the children of illegal immigrants.

Carolyn Ann Vlk, the writer of Florida’s Child Abduction Prevention Act stated, “The ability of state governments to prevent the abduction of children by family members could be drastically improved by comprehensive legislation.  While aiming to protect all children, special consideration must be given to those children who may be at increased risk simply by virtue of their parentage. According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census, the resident population of the U.S. projected up to April 22, 2010 estimated that one international migrant enters the U.S. every 36 seconds. International travel has become commonplace and as more cross-cultural relationships develop children are born.  A number of these relationships will end and may result in an increased risk of international abduction of the child. Attempting to retrieve a child who has been abducted and possibly hidden internationally is a near impossibility as a multitude of problems surface in cases such as these.  Unfortunately, studies have proved 4 of 5 Americans drastically underestimate the threat of a family abduction.  Statistically, it is a sobering thought when you become aware of the vast numbers of children that are criminally abducted each year.  Preventative laws are a necessity as an immediate remedy to this unconscionable crime.”

David Bokel of Lynchburg, Virginia was a targeted parent of international parental child abduction. On December 24th, 2003 his young daughter was parentally abducted and planned to be criminally removed from the country. Fortunately, Mr. Bokel was able to find and safely bring home his child. He commented, “International parental abduction, a form of child abuse, is seriously on the rise.  The laws in our country realistically permit an abducting parent who intends to carry out their planned kidnapping to essentially do so.  There are very few laws in place that prevent child abduction, and those that are in place are not enforced.  Immigrants who kidnap children should be removed from the country.  My daughter’s abductor, after receiving a two-year federal prison sentence for her crimes, received her green card so she can legally stay in the United States.”

The Office of Children’s Issues at the Department of State was established to assist parents whose children have been unlawfully removed from the country.  The OCI assists the remaining parent and strives to protect those children who have been victimized in these types of cases.  Considering thousands of child custody cases are fought across national borders each year, the assistance of the OCI can be invaluable. Litigating custody, especially across international borders where conflicting orders may exist can be difficult if not impossible.  The OCI aims to assist in these cases by enhancing an understanding of the many complex laws, both domestic and international that may be applicable to a particular case.

However, OCI has significant limitations, including the fact that they cannot represent your abducted child in a foreign court. OCI does provide a list of lawyers in foreign countries who at times have worked pro bono on abduction cases. However, there are no obligations by any of these lawyers to take a case, and it is up to each Chasing Parent to work out all arrangements. The reality is that ‘pro bono’ sounds like a nice idea, but it is an unrealistic expectation.

Immediate suggestions that could allow the dedicated staff at OCI to be more helpful include the following:

1. Creating and distributing useful, concise information for chasing parents, law enforcement, and court personnel regarding all areas of IPCA. The use of digital media combined and supported by printed content is critical.

2. The development of an independent website outside of the Department of State’s website. This website must be easy to navigate, include audio and digital feeds, and must be accessible to individuals in various languages.

3. OCI must actively support advocates and lawmakers who are seeking to pass child abduction prevention laws. Support by OCI in this area can increase the visibility of the issues of child abduction while also increasing lawmaker and judiciary awareness.

4. Dissemination of information on the Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program.

5. Dissemination of information on the ‘Prevent Departure Program’, and dedicated resources established to assist lawyers and Chasing Parents seeking assistance under this program.

6. Increases in outreach toward documented and un-documented aliens about OCI, and the rights of their U.S. child-citizen.

7. Increase in personnel to support the tremendous workload of the OCI staff.

Peter Thomas Senese, who produced and narrated the important documentary film on international parental child abduction titled, Chasing Parents: Racing Into the Storms of International Parental Child Abduction added, “One child criminally abducted and illegally detained overseas is one child too many. However, we are not referring to one child. We are referring to hundreds of thousands of our nation’s child-citizens who are at risk of abduction.

“Unfortunately, due to outdated data and research, we really do not know how large of a problem we have on our hands, but I suspect it is much greater than we know or want to accept. One thing that is common amongst the vast majority of Chasing Parents is that none of us expected to have our child or children stolen. It realistically can happen to a very large portion of our population. I hope that all concerned citizens will contact their Senators and Representatives and urge them to support and sign the International Child Abduction Prevention Act known in Washington as HR3240. This bill is critical. And I want to repeat that most targeted parents who had their child criminally abducted never saw it coming. Due to the demographic composition of our nation, few parents and their children are immune to this threatening plague.”

Carolyn Ann Vlk concluded early on in my child abduction prevention advocacy I was asked, “Where is the public outcry?”  My response at that time was that if you are a parent attempting to prevent your child from a criminal abduction you are focused on that issue.  If tragically your child has already been abducted, then you are devastated and grieving.  I am happy to report that through my volunteerism in this area, I have had the great honor of getting to know some extraordinary parents.  The days of quiet acceptance of this crime are over.  Parents are uniting together all over the U.S. to ensure that their voices are finally heard and demanding that their children no longer be marginalized and that they be protected.  Preventative laws can and will help curb the unacceptable numbers of abductions from occurring. My heart breaks for those children who remain criminally detained in foreign nations and their grieving and left behind families.  It is my greatest hope that through bringing this hideous crime to the forefront of the public’s attention that it will someday be possible to reunite these children and their families.”

Speaking on the crisis of IPCA, author Peter Thomas Senese said, “With limited accurate data, an uneducated judiciary, an uninformed public, difficulties in passing child abduction prevention legislation, non-compliance of international treaties, and heavy financial burdens placed on Chasing Parents desperately trying to protect their kidnapped children, this really is the world turned upside-down, and it is going to get much worse for our children and their parents unless dramatic steps in all areas are immediately implemented.”

Published by: ABP World Group International Child Recovery Service

Visit our web site at: www.abpworld.com

Follow our updates on Twitter and Facebook

 

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