vendredi 21 septembre 2012

Same Sex Unions and Marriages: The New Frontier of International Parental Child Abduction

Gay & Lesbian Unions:
An Increase In International Parental Child Abduction Cases


As same-sex partnerships, unions, and marriages become more commonly visible as an integral part of our society,  the I CARE Foundation has been contacted by numerous parents of these unions who have expressed concern surrounding their particular partnership’s failure and how the end of their relationship may impact the child or children of the relationship, particularly when one of the partnering parents desires to remove the other partnering parent from the child or children’s lives, and relocate to another state or country.
In another set of words, what I am referring to is 'Inter-State or International Parental Child Abduction'.

On occasions, the communication exchanges the I CAREFoundation receives include queries by a parent seeking insight concerning issues such as jurisdiction, parent-rights, mobility, relocation, and tragically – though not directly stated – legal defenses on interstate or international abduction should a parent be inclined to violate a court order pertaining to parental rights (I offer a heart-felt plea to those who are considering illegal removal of a child: I speak from experience as a chasing parent - please do not do this. The ramifications on your child will be severe).

Obviously, the challenges all children face during divorce or separation are harsh.  When one of the child’s parent’s attempts to break the child’s bond with their other parent, including relocating from one state to another, or in certain cases, relocating without permission to another country (this is abduction), the challenges and hardship that child faces grows exponentially.  Clearly, in all child custody cases, the longer the litigation takes the more strain that is placed on an innocent, defenseless child of a failed relationship.  Unfortunately, there exists a new frontier in family law: how local, federal, and international courts uphold the rights of children to both of their parents in failed gay and lesbian legal unions and marriages.  To say that a legal minefield exists, would be an understatement.

Tragically, in cases of high-conflict separation that include issues of jurisdiction and the upholding of a non-biological ‘birthing’ parent’s rights, the conflict can become extreme.  Everyone suffers. The child suffers. The former partners suffer. And from what I have seen, the pain and anguish for all is extraordinary.

In my capacity as the Founding Director of the not-for-profit International Child Abduction Research & Enlightenment Foundation (the “I CARE Foundation”), our foundation has seen and assisted numerous high-conflict families challenged by issues of both mobility and abduction.  Our activity includes conducting extensive research in the area of child custody and cross-border conflict, working to create (successfully) new laws and government policies directed to help protect children from cross-border conflict, and when possible, assisting in the reunification of internationally kidnapped children.

These cases are never easy. 

In reflection, when I think of the hardships involved in any case concerning mobility or child abduction regardless if we’re addressing a heterosexual or homosexual partnership, the reality is all parties involved face severe emotional, spiritual, and financial hardship no words could ever accurately express.

However, it appears that children caught in the cross-hairs of gay or lesbian partnership custody disputes where there are contested questions of mobility or risk of abduction, or an actual instance of abduction face potentially greater hardship than heterosexual partnerships because of the legal minefield of litigation their parents must navigate through due a wide range of legal issues, including but not limited to questions revolving around local, federal, and at times, international law (or lack of laws and policies) that is specific to same-sex unions.

So if you are a mother or father who is involved in a child custody dispute that originates from a same-sex union, remember that the longer the litigation goes on, the more your child will suffer because litigation of any kind does have a direct, ugly impact on the lives of all involved.  

Now, I do not have my head in the clouds and think that all separations will end amicably.  

However, sharing my birds-eye view of witnessing some of the most difficult, extreme high-conflict family disputes, many involving international litigation, I can undeniably attest that in all of these cases, it is the child who will always suffer no matter what any of the child’s parents thinks (obviously cases of abuse are the exception and should never be tolerated under any circumstance).

Recently, I have been following Erik Eckholm’s of the New York Times fascinating, yet heart-breaking coverage of the story of ten year old Isabella Miller-Jenkins. 

The young girl has two mothers and is the product of a same-sex union that took place in Vermont between Ms. Lisa Miller and Ms. Janet Jenkins in 2002. Isabella was conceived by Ms. Lisa Miller in 2002. The coupled separated in 2003. 

However, since 2009, the child has been living the life of a fugitive in impoverished Nicaragua with one of her mother’s, Ms. Lisa Miller, who under American law, is considered to be a fugitive and an abducting mother now wanted for international abduction.

Unfortunately for Ms. Jenkins, Nicaragua is not a signatory country of the Hague Convention on theCivil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and legal reach under international law appears to be limited.

According to Mr. Eckholm’s New York Times coverage, Ms. Miller no longer desired to allow Janet Jenkins any contact with their daughter Isabella. Since the former couple’s separation, Ms. Miller apparently violated Ms. Jenkin’s rights of custody on numerous occasions that were previously established under Vermont law and upheld in Virginia (where Ms. Miller relocated with Isabella). 

So three years ago, in another act to separate Isabella from Ms. Jenkins, Ms. Miller decided to flee the United States and relocate to Nicaragua without Ms. Jenkins knowledge or permission.

Like the vast majority of international parental child abductions, Ms. Miller had a great deal of help. 

You see, Ms. Miller sought and received the assistance of Mr. Kenneth Miller, the leader of the conservative Beachy Amish Mennonite Church of Stuarts Draft, Virginia.

Under the religious beliefs of the Amish Mennonite, gay and lesbian life is a sin, and apparently Ms. Miller embraced this idea during the child custody dispute she had with Ms. Jenkins.

So it appears that perhaps, and I say this with some reservation, that the possibility exists that Ms. Miller may have adapted a condemnation of her lesbian lifestyle she previously shared with Ms. Jenkins in order to defend against the criminal act of abduction and her desire to not obey a Vermont judges court orders regarding Ms. Jenkin’s access and co-parenting of Isabella once the couple separated prior to the abduction.

Of course, it is conceivable that Ms. Miller actually now believes that her anti-gay or lesbian lifestyle is correct and in accord with her new found Christian beliefs?

However, what is of interest is how religion or persecution for following your religious beliefs will inevitably be used to defend against the act of international parental child abduction by a taking parent.

Today, from what I understand, the child Isabella remains on the run, living a life of a fugitive in Nicaragua (or perhaps someplace else) with Lisa Miller, while the child’s other mother, Ms. Janet Jenkins, continues to seek legal remedy to have her rights of parenthood that were established under Vermont law, and upheld in Virginia enforced.  I would imagine Ms. Jenkins is also deeply concerned about how her daughter is holding up considering that she is being wrongfully detained by Ms. Miller.

According to numerous child psychologist, the Isabella could be seen as a prisoner of a fugitive parent who has been highly abused and neglected, as child abduction is considered child abuse.

Is Ms. Miller using religion and new-found religious beliefs as the basis for her to continue to flee, or could it be possible that Ms. Miller has actually rejected all things connected with a gay or lesbian lifestyle and actually believes living a same-sex lifestyle to be sinful?

Is Isabella safe, or is the life she has had to live for the past three years had a deep and troubling influence on her, and if so, can the impact be reversed or treated?

As for the Beachy Amish Mennonite Church leader Kenneth Miller, he was found guilty of abetting an international parental childkidnapping this past August and is facing up to three years in federal prison.  Mr. Miller’s sentencing date has not yet been determined.

As for the legal issues that present themselves in this case, it is going to be interesting to see if Ms. Miller will be able to remain outside of the United States and the reach of law established by its courts.  Of course it is also going to be interesting to see how a parent’s religion and sexual orientation will be viewed from country to country with respect to international parental child abduction cases.

For example, in cases where a child is abducted to a Hague signatory nation, will a parent who once lived a gay or lesbian lifestyle who had a child from a same-sex union seek protection for an act of abduction under Article 13 B of the Hague Convention by making a claim in a country they abduct their child to that they are unable to receive fair treatment under the laws of the child’s nation of original jurisdiction based upon religion and how their religious beliefs juxtaposes itself with their past or present sexual orientation.

Is the situation for Isabella and other children of abduction who will come after Isabella a mess?

You bet it is. All international parental child abductions are terrible.

Did Ms. Lisa Miller really reject her lesbian lifestyle or is she using her newly embraced Mennonite religious beliefs to push away Ms. Janet Jenkins from Isabella’s life?

I don’t think anyone really knows.

However, one thing cannot be dismissed in cases of international parental child abduction, and that is that in many of these cases, the taking parent carefully creates a plan of abduction that is well thought out, and typically involves the assistance of others. 

Lisa Miller’s abduction of Isabella was certainly well thought out and she was certainly aided as demonstrated by the conviction of Mr. Miller for aiding in Isabella’s abduction.

Again – it is a mess and one terrible tragedy for this innocent child – who remains on the run . . . perhaps in Nicaragua or perhaps someplace else.

Of course there is the argument presented by Ms. Lisa Miller and her supporters that she was acting to protect her daughter from a gay and lesbian lifestyle that she no longer participated in and rejected as sinful.

Not too long ago, one of my pals whom I have been very close friends with for all of my adult life recently separated from his partner.  Together, these two wonderful fathers, ‘Dad’ and ‘Papa’, raised one incredible little girl together who I am convinced will one day have a far-reaching and positive impact on our wonderful world.  Dad and Papa were the definition of two loving, dedicated, kind, nurturing, and caring parents.

Then something happened, and the relationship came to an end.

Did the relationship end because of some ungodly act by one of the men? No.

The relationship ended because their needs and expectations of one another and what they desired from life had changed.

Was there hurt and anger?

Of course, particularly by the father who did not want the relationship to end.

So, what did that upset father do?

He decided at first that since he had some legal leverage associated with the young daughter both fathers raised, that he was going to relocate to another state and severely limit the other father’s rights of custody on their daughter.

And in fact, that is exactly what happened.

Sadly, the relocation occurred without the other father knowing.

And as you may imagine, the situation became rather ugly. Then uglier.

Caught in the cross-hairs was their little daughter who I would often take to the Magnolia Bakery for a “perfect cupcake.”

And my heart broke for my little friend who was more interested in Dora The Explorer and Cinderella than the fighting that took place between her two fathers, who mind you – are both truly remarkable, amazing, loving individuals.

But these child custody cases – they sure know can make anyone look terrible.

I will never forget that while my two friends volleyed in a sea of nasty litigation (that cost them such an enormous amount of EVERYTHING), I had the opportunity of visiting the parent who had relocated with their daughter four months after the initial separation.

It was my first visit since their unexpected relocation.

As you may imagine there was a great deal of frustration that was vented by this particular father (similar to the other father). He shared his feelings about the failed relationship, what was best for his daughter, what was best for him, and the awful litigation that took place.

As we spent the late morning together, I sensed that my friend had a little sense of paranoia that perhaps I came to visit him in my capacity as a director of the I CARE Foundation. 

This was not the case, as I expressed that I came to visit because he too was my friend, and that I was concerned about the overall ugliness that was depleting so much from his daughter’s family’s life.

The key words being that both the young girl had a family: a ‘Dad’ and a ‘Papa’, and that no matter what would occur, both ‘Dad’ and ‘Papa’ were loved by their child, and that as this lovely child’s fathers, they had an incredible responsibility to stop their feuding and to truly act like the remarkable, compassionate, understanding, brave, courageous, and intelligent individuals they were.

Well, as there was a long history between us, one that included my friend knowing I am very direct, my words were accepted.

So too was my suggestion.

I asked my friend if he would excuse himself from the room (and make us lunch) so that I could talk to his daughter alone. I also suggested that he hear the truth of her heart, and asked him to listen in so he could hear my conversation.

And that is exactly what happened.

What was heard?

This little amazing girl just six years old shared that she missed both of her fathers and loved both of them very much.  Remarkably, she understood that parents get divorced sometimes. But she said that even when parents do not live together any more, they should be nice to one another. Real nice.  And she also said that she was taught that her family was different than other families. That her family was really special.  Super Special. Then she said that they weren’t acting really special.  Then she asked me why her ‘Dad’ and ‘Papa’ would lie to her and say that she was part of a special family, when they were so mean to one another?

Now let me say this. Her words about how special her family was resounded within like Quasimodo’s Notre Dame’ bells would cover Paris. 

Indeed her two fathers were both incredibly special individuals. As I saw and still see it, they were brave in saying to the world, “this is who I am” and living the life they each believed in. They were both caring and compassionate and active members of their micro and macro communities. They were successful. They had many friends. And they were incredible – no incredibly ridiculous – as in amazing – fathers.

And somehow these incredible parents, these incredible individuals . . . forgot how incredible they were.

Now as you can imagine, my friend who was in the kitchen hearing my conversation with his daughter realized what his daughter was saying: that it’s okay to not live with my other father, but remember, we’re still a very special family because the two of you are both very special, and the two of you – your my ‘Dad’ and my ‘Papa’, and you have to continue to be special because of me.

I must say, that later that afternoon, after his daughter decided to take a little nap, my friend said something to me that I think is truly remarkable.  And I wrote it down. 

This is what he said. “Sometimes it is easy to forget how special we are.  Raising a daughter as a gay couple requires being special – and holding ourselves more accountable to one another, even in separation for our child’s sake.”

Fast forward four months from the time of that conversation and a true, sound parenting plan was created and actually was working, and working well. Both fathers – my friends – were peacefully and civilly rebuilding the trust that was necessary so they could in fact continue to be the special persons they were.  The healing had begun . . . and in fact the healing really started as soon as the messy, ugly litigation stopped.  In fact, they live in the same town and in the same community (again).  They have embraced the wonderment of being fathers – their daughter’s ‘Dad’ and ‘Papa’.

And though my little friend does not live with both of her fathers at the same time, she is being raised by both of them, and she does see each of them equally, and regularly.

And thank God peace, friendship, and good parenting is prevailing.

As I write this, I can’t help but think how my two wonderful friends acted with great courage and bravery and love for their daughter and found a way – to act in their love of their daughter.

Before I go, I would like to simply say that the nasty  litigation that occurred between my two friends was not necessary.  And they will be the first ones to say this.

But sometimes, when in the midst of child custody cases, parents can get sucked into the vortex of the cyclone of litigation. 

When they do, it is easy to forget the good things you are litigating about: the love and rights of your child.

Breaking the magnetic pull of continuing to litigate is not an easy task. It takes courage. It takes fair play. It takes putting your ego in check. And it takes acting in fairness for your child.

And it may not be easy to do.

But it can be done.  And your child or children will be much better off if you do.

Of course this is not to say that working things out in order to co-parent is easy.  Each separation has its own challenges, and as I stated, it appears that child custody cases regarding mobility present an even harder burden onto the child.

I would like to add this: please remember that open and honest dialogue is always the best choice if your choice revolves around what is best for your child or children.

So in parting, I would like to share that all child custody cases concerning mobility and/or abduction cause extreme hardship on children of the relationship, and this is particularly true in same-sex partnerships in part due to the challenges in law all parties must face.  If at all possible, try to mediate your differences reasonably, fairly, and respectfully with one another, and remember . . . you do not have to be a biological birth-giver, regardless if you are gay or straight, to be one great, loving parent.

One last thing . . . Thanks B and Z for letting me share a part of your story. I am very proud of the two of you  . . . and so happy for your daughter.

dimanche 16 septembre 2012

Peter Thomas Senese Speaks At United Nations

The United Nations
On Friday, September 14th, 2012 I had the great privilege on behalf of the I CARE Foundation to participate in the U.S. Department of State's sponsored 'International Visitor Leadership Program' held at the United States Mission to the United Nations in conjunction with the United Nations to discuss the work and research the not-for-profit I CARE  Foundation has been conducting in the area of international parental child abduction prevention (IPCA).

U.S. Department of State

Unquestionably, the initiative by the U.S. Department of State to connect global government leaders with non-government organizations such as the I CARE Foundation to discuss the challenges and potential solutions of IPCA demonstrates a pro-active, solution oriented approach to combating child abduction and trafficking by private and public sector leaders.    

As the Founding Director of the I CARE Foundation, it is with deep pride to continue to see the I CARE Foundation recognized by our global leaders as a preeminent organization actively at the battle-front against the pandemic of international child abduction.  On a personal note, my participation in the International Visitor Leadership Program was deeply satisfying.  You see, six years ago, when I first found myself Chasing The Cyclone of international child abduction, I had made a promise to make a difference so other families would not have to race into the nightmare of abduction.  

Peter Thomas Senese

I am equally committed to that promise today as I was when I first made it six years ago. Along the way, we have created more than a few miracles

The I CARE Foundation

The I CARE Foundation's ongoing ground-breaking, critical research in the area of international parental child abduction has shed light onto many areas and issues associated with international child kidnapping.  Our legislative and policy modification initiatives have had a sizable positive impact on preventing abduciton.  Our dedication to assisting children of abduction has led to the rescue and reunification of many internationally abducted children while also successfully preventing the abduction of many other children.  And our public outreach to educate society, particularly potential targeted parents, has led to the prevention of numerous child kidnappings. Our commitment to build a national and global attorney network of highly qualified lawyers dedicated to assisting at-risk children of kidnapping continues to be highly received by the legal community, and perhaps most of all, our ability to make a difference for others continues to expand and reflect our deep commitment to helping others. 
International Visitor Leadership Program

The International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP) is the U.S. Department of State’s premier professional exchange program.  Launched in 1940, the IVLP is a professional exchange program that seeks to build mutual understanding between the U.S. and other nations through carefully designed short-term visits to the U.S. for current and emerging foreign leaders.  These visits reflect the International Visitors’ professional interests and 
support the foreign policy goals of the United States. 

International visitors are selected and nominated annually by American Foreign Service Officers at U.S. Embassies around the world. The U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs funds and administers the International Visitor Leadership Program (IVLP).
During our specific conference, discussion took place that evolved around the simple question 'How can we as a global society help stop the pandemic of international parental child abduction?' 
A few things stood out immediately.  This included:

1. Unquestionable realization that IPCA is a severe form of child abuse; and,
2. The vast majority of abductions are well schemed plans against a targeted parent; and,
3. Targeted children and parents of abduction face severe hardship; ,and, 
4. Abducting parents utilize the existing legal system to draw out court proceedings; and, 
5. The longer a court proceeding takes, the more difficult it is for a child to be returned; and, 
6. Litigation must focus on narrow focus of jurisdiction established by the Hague Convention; and,
7. IPCA is growing worldwide at an alarming rate; and,
8. IPCA causes severe emotional and financial devastation to all connected to it; and,
9. The economic cost of IPCA on the global market over the next decade will be many tens of billions of dollars.
10. New research and studies similiar to the I CARE Foundation's work must continue, and, utilizing the research findings to initiative new laws and government policies are critical to protecting children.

Chris Morris, Eugene Pothy & Peter Thomas Senese

As our conference unfolded, it was with awe that I listened to my friends Christopher Morris and Bryan Mooney, both parents who had children internationally abducted under the rules of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, discuss the severe challenges they have each faced respectively over the past two and three years trying to reunite with their children. 

As I listened to each of these dedicated, loving parents discuss portions of their cases (which I am very familiar with), I could not help but wonder if their children will ever really know how much their fathers love them.  It is my hope that these children of abduction do, because the love Chris and Bryan have for their children has led them to do whatever possible to reunite with their children. 

                                               Dedicated Parent Bryan Mooney and His Children

Both Chris and Bryan's stories of well-schemed child abduction by their childrens' other parent re-enforced the notion that it was necessary for judges to expedite international child abduction cases, and settle the issue of which country has the right of jurisdiction of a child.  
Chris and Bryan's point was made very clear when it was shared that collectively, they have spent over U.S. $300,000.00 between the two of them thus far trying to bring their abducted children home, and their protracted litigation is far from over. 

Critically, Chris and Bryan's conveyance that the spirit of the Hague Convention to be expedited was made to all. 

Eugene Pothy Reuniting With His Son After 9 Years

I was also very happy to hear my dear friend Eugene Pothy, who miraculously was reunited with his abducted child taken to the Ivory Coast and illegally detained for nearly 9 years, speak about the mental and spiritual hardship of abduction of children. Eugene's points of view reinforced Chris and Bryan's point of view that IPCA litigation must be expedited by the courts.

Fortunately, our conference was the right forum to share our view. And the message was heard.

Another very important issue that was discussed revolved around abduction prevention.  Specifically, it became clear that certain countries, for example, Turkey, have the ability of preventing abductions from occurring (736 total IPCA cases under the Hague over the past 10 years) by citizens who possess a right of Turkish citizenship because Turkish judges have the ability of preventing a high-risk child abducting parent from departing the country by all means of departure.  
In contrast, the United States only has the ability to stop a high-risk child abductor from departing the country if that individual is not a U.S. citizen. Thus, individuals who possess duel citizenship in the U.S. and who are determined to be high-risk parental child abductors have limited security screen to prevent them from illegally removing their child from the country.

As some of you may know, members of the I CARE Foundation's board of directors, including Carolyn Vlk and myself worked very hard to have the Department of State disseminate the Department of Homeland Securities' 'Prevent Departure Program' as a tool to be used to help prevent abduction. However, the problem with the Prevent Departure Program is that it only applies to non-U.S. citizens. Thus, the I CARE Foundation's efforts to modify the Prevent Departure Program to include a secure screening list for high-risk child abductors possessing a right of U.S. citizenship appear to be critical to protecting children.

Another I CARE Foundation measure that was discussed and warmly embraced was our initiatives to require all individuals entering into or departing the United States, regardless if they travel by land, sea, or air, to present a current and valid passport.
Overall, the day was very meaningful as a great deal of information was exchanged that inevitably will help protect defenseless children.  It was indeed a great privilege to have been asked by the United States Department of State to participate in such a highly esteemed program to a humbling experience to know that the I CARE Foundation's work is respected around the world.

There is no question that it was yet another day of progress to protect children from abduction.

As for the International Visitor Leadership Program, the IVLP has a luminary list of esteemed participants include:
Afghanistan: President Hamid Karzai (1987)
 Austria: President Heinz Fischer (1964)
 Belgium: Prime Minister Yves Leterme (2002)
 Bhutan: Prime Minister Lyonpo Jigme Yoser Thinley (1987)
 Brazil: President Dilma Rousseff (1992)
 Croatia: President Ivo Josipović (2002)
 Croatia: Prime Minister Zoran Milanovic (1996)
 Czech Republic: Prime Minister Petr Nečas (1994 and 1999)
 Denmark: Prime Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen (1989)
 Dominica: President Nicholas Joseph Orville Liverpool (1985)
 Finland: President Sauli Niinistö (1992)
 Finland: Prime Minister Jyrki Katainen (2003)
 France: Prime Minister François Fillon (1984)
 France: President Nicolas Sarkozy (1985)
 Georgia: President Mikheil Saakashvili (1997 and 1999)
 Germany: President Joachim Gauck (1993)
 Grenada: Prime Minister Tillman Thomas (1986)
 Guinea: President Alpha Condé (1962)
 India: President Pratibha Devisingh Patil (1968)
 Ireland: Prime Minister Enda Kenny (1989)
 Kenya: President Mwai Kibaki (1961 and 1999)
 Lithuania: President Dalia Grybauskaitė (1994)
 Macedonia: Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski (2000)
 Malawi: President Joyce Banda (1989)
 Malta: Prime Minister Lawrence Gonzi (1990)
 Mauritius: President Anerood Jugnauth (1981)
 Mauritius: Prime Minister Navinchandra Ramgoolam (1986)
 Mexico: President Felipe De Jesús Calderón Hinojosa (1992)
 Moldova: President Nicolae Timofti (2005)
 Montenegro: Prime Minister Igor Lukšić (1999)
 Mozambique: President Armando Emílio Guebuza (1987)
 Namibia: Prime Minister Nahas Gideon Angula (1996)
 Norway: Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg (1988)
 Poland: President Bronisław Komorowski (2006)
 Poland: Prime Minister Donald Franciszek Tusk (1993)
 Portugal: President Aníbal Cavaco Silva (1978)
 Slovakia: Prime Minister Robert Fico (1990)
 Slovenia: Prime Minister Borut Pahor (1991)
 Sri Lanka: President Mahinda Rajapakse (1989)
 St. Kitts and Nevis: Prime Minister Denzil Llewellyn Douglas (1990)
 St. Lucia: Prime Minister Stephenson King (1985)
 Sweden: Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt (2002)
 Taiwan: President Ma Ying-Jeou (1971 and 2003)
 Togo: President Faure Essozimna Gnassingbé (2001)
 Trinidad and Tobago: Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar (1998)
 Trinidad and Tobago: President George Maxwell Richards (1986)
 Turkey: President Abdullah Gül (1995)
 Zimbabwe: Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai (1989)
 Macedonia: President Gjorge Ivanov (1999)

In leaving the United States Mission to the United Nations, I left reaffirming once again my commitment to helping defenseless children of abduction and their targeted parents.

mardi 4 septembre 2012

Peter Thomas Senese's Chasing The Cyclone Official Website Gets New Look

I am very pleased to share that the official website for Chasing The Cyclone by Peter Thomas Senese has recently undergone a new configuration along the addition of significant new content.

It is my aspiration and goal to provide as much new and updated content concerning international parental child abduction as possible so targeted parents and stakeholders who advocate for them may have the best available information and resources that will enable them to protect children at risk of abduction.

I invite you to take the time to read through the official Chasing The Cyclone website. There you will find important information about abduction.  You will also read about more than a few miracles the not-for-profit I CARE Foundation I am the Founding Director of has created.

Thank you in advance for visiting The Official Website of Peter Thomas Senese's 'Chasing The Cyclone'.

Thank you!

Peter Thomas Senese