Trinidad and Tobago Acceds to Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects on International Child Abduction

The Republic of Trinadad and Tobago will no longer tolerate international child abduction as it has now formally acceded into signatory status with the United States with resepct to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Parental Child Abduction. 

“Although international child abduction is not a new problem, the incidence of such abductions continues to grow with the ease of international travel, the increase in bi-cultural marriages and the rise in the divorce rate. International child abductions have serious consequences for both the child and the left-behind parent,” began an official statement issued by the Trinadad and Tobago government. “The child is removed, not only from contact with the other parent, but also from his or her home environment and transplanted to a culture with which he or she may have had no prior ties. International abductors move the child to another State with a different legal system, social structure, culture and, often, language. These differences, plus the physical distance generally involved, can make locating, recovering and returning internationally abducted children complex and problematic.”

The statement said that in keeping with the measures outlined in the convention, the 'Civil Child Abduction Authority' has since been established to act as the country's Central Authority in order  “to deal with all matters relating to the civil aspects of international child abduction between Trinidad and Tobago and contracting territories”.

The announcement was made following talks between Trinadad and Tobago Prime Minister Kamla Persad-Bissessar and US Vice-President Joe Biden at the Diplomatic Centre, St Ann’s.

The accession, which makes Trinadad and Tobago to become the 69th nation to be accepted by the United States would have happened sooner as the United States expressed interest in partnering with Trinidad and Tobago. However, discussions only began in November 2011 when the head of the central authority was appointed.

According to the International Child Abduction Act, 2008, a Central Authority known as the Civil Child Abduction Authority, was established in the Ministry of the Attorney General to deal with all matters relating to the civil aspects of international child abduction between Trinidad and Tobago and other countries.

Under this authority to date, Trinidad and Tobago has partnered with 48 member states. The accession was confirmed in Cabinet note No. 121 dated May 21, 2013.

In commenting on the accession, Attorney General Anand Ramlogan said, "It is a signal of the continued strengthening of diplomatic relations between the two nations," and continued by emphasized the importance of “protecting the most vulnerable sect within our two societies—children."

The United States Central Authority continues to provide input to the Governments of Japan, Morocco, Russia, Singapore, and Thailand, as each country has drafted implementing legislation for Convention ratification or accession.

United States Central Authority officials have also met with foreign officials from the following countries to discuss IPCA and progress towards joining the Convention including Egypt, Ghana, India, Japan, Jordan, Nicaragua, the Philippines, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and South Korea.

Julie Rosen of the I CARE Foundation commented, "The foundation's attorneys have worked closely with counsel in T and T as well as Anand Ramlogan's office, in providing practical advice on the challenges of international abduction in a way that assists targeted children while also remaining true to the spirit of the procedures required from a Central Authority. This is a big step forward for our friends in the Republic of Trinadad and Tobago, as well as children living in the Caribbean."

Peter Thomas Senese: The I CARE Foundation's First Year

It has been a little over a year that the I CARE Foundation began our formal operations working toward trying to dramatically reduce the number of children who are fallen victims of the crimes of international parental child abduction or child trafficking.

The I CARE Foundation has had success on many levels, including reuniting numerous internationally kidnapped children with their parents while also preventing an even greater number of abductions from occurring.   Due to the nature and sensitivity of many of the cases we are involved in, we are mindful not to discuss any role we play or our involvement even after a child is returned because children of abduction, sadly, are considered high-risk targets for an attempted second abduction. 

Nevertheless, I know I speak on behalf of the I CARE Foundation's entire board of directors when I say that we always keep in mind the wonderful words shared with us by many of the parents who we have assisted.  Their words of thanks and appreciation move us deeply while reminding each of us how important our work is.

But our work protecting children is not simply found in successfully assisting the many dozens of families we have over this past year.  And before I go any further, I will be the first to say that reuniting children of abduction or preventing a child's international abduction is not easy: the laws are not helpful, the scheming parents seem to have a hidden playbook on how to abduct, countries often do not uphold international law, and the financial costs of recovery or prevention is incredible: thus, there are times when despite our capabilities, our efforts may not result in a recovery or prevention of abduction.

Fortunately, there have been many successes, while remaining committed to those we seek to help.

However, our primary mission is to conduct research in the area of international parental child abduciton and child trafficking, publish and widely disperse our findings, and then use our data to help drive new policies and laws that will help protect children.  Considering the I CARE Foundation is a non-profit organization fueled by the financing made available by our board of directors, it is encouraging at this point just how far we have come in a year.

You know, one person's voice really can make a difference.  And humbly, it was during the time that I was 'Chasing The Cyclone' of international parental child abduction that I thought one day I would use my skills and capability as a best-selling author to help other parents and children facing a world of abduction that does not make any sense: the world of international parental child abduction. Fortunately, I had a starting point that would allow me to set the wheels of advocacy in motion because I had a platform to stand on: you see, it took a great deal of everything, but I was able to reuntie with my child despite unthinkable hardships and challenges, and in doing so, I also learned a great deal about child abduction. 

Using my skills as a writer, I then wrote the deeply personal fiction novel 'Chasing The Cyclone' that was overwhelmingly inspired by my life's experiences that book critics have praised.  I am very proud of 'Chasing The Cyclone' because, as it has been properly stated in the press, it is a book that creates miracles. 

Now you might be asking yourself how does a book create miracles?  To begin, the knowledge shared with other targeted parents has helped many reunite with their children or helped them protect their kids. 

In addition, I have donated 100% of all of my various books proceeds and ancillary income to the I CARE Foundation, including 100% of my revenue generated from all e-book sales of 'Chasing The Cyclone' (hardcover will be released in early 2013: 4.8 Star Rating: 40+ Reviews) to the I CARE Foundation.  Fortunately, I have been blessed to be able to make several important donations to the foundation that has unquestionably rescued and protected many children.

As for the I CARE Foundation, some of our successes include but are not limited to:

1. Reuniting numerous abducted children with their families.

2. Assisting in the prevention of the international kidnapping of many targeted children.

3. Conducting and publishing important research in the area of child abduction.

4. Using our research findings to either drive or initiate new laws and policies geared to protect children and their families.

5. Creating a nation-wide attorney network of lawyers capable of assisting families in crisis due to actual or potential abduction.

6. Launching a successful campaign seekign attorneys to join the U.S. Department of State's Hague Convention Attorney Network.

There are no words that I could ever use to explain the heart-felt joy I feel knowing that so many children have been assisted because of the I CARE Foundation's work.   Nor could there ever been words that could mirror the hurt I feel when I come to learn of a parent and child's suffering due to abduction.  It is what drives all of us to make a difference.

In little over a year, the I CARE Foundation's accomplishments have had a positive social impact.  It was an honor to participate in the United States Department of State's International Visitor Leadership Program at the United Nations.  It was an honor to accept a magnificent American Flag that was flown over the United States Capitol in my honor, and I sure am looking forward to traveling the the Hague and visiting the Peace Palace in the early part of 2013.

When I look out at the number of lives the I CARE Foundation has knowingly touched, and consider the number of individuals we will have a positive impact for that we will never know or meet, the writer inside of me smiles because I know without my desire to write 'Chasing The Cyclone' the I would not have sought to create the foundation.  Clearly, the power of books and writing are alive and well.  And I am thrilled to know that the foundation's operations, board of directors, advisory board, and international reach and presence will be expanding in 2013.

On a personal note, and outside of the joy I feel knowing of the children we have helped, it has been richly rewarding to develop friendships with some truly remarkable, loving parents who it is my honor to call 'friend'.

In the spirit of friendship, I know that 2013 is really going to the the Year of the Child.

On a final note, please remember, Christmas is Child Abduction Season.  Educate yourself so that you and your family can have a Happy Christmas.  And as for me: I will continue to stand up to kidnappers of children . . .

Peter Thomas Senese

Founding Director

I CARE Foundation

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

Gay & Lesbian Unions:

An Increase In International Parental Child Abduction Cases

  By

Peter Thomas Senese

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?

Who really knows?

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.

How To Prevent An International Parental Child Abduction From Occurring. Insight on the Prevent Departure Program

Over the course of the past few years, I have assisted other targeted parents and their children who are at risk of being criminally abducted overseas. One of the most useful tools to prevent an international parental child abduction from occurring on U.S. soil is the 'Prevent Departure Program' (PDP). The details of the program are contained herein.

Presently, I am involved in assisting several parents and their children who are at risk of abduction whereas the PDP program is ideal prevention tool for their children.

Here are a few potential abduction cases which I am assisting with, and the risk factors that are associated with each situation. As you will come to understand, the key to preventing a child's abduction truly is in the hands of the courts and their ability to consider risk factors associated with an abduction. However, having a court order all to often can mean very little because the United States has limited exit controls, and in certain cases, a person who has intent to abduct may be able to get around laws that may prevent that person from departing.

Case #1:
Parent 1 is a U.S. citizen and has custody of the child of the marriage. Parent 2 is a non-U.S. citizen who presently has a court order to remove the child of their marriage from the United States and travel to Parent 2's hometown in Europe for 6 weeks. The problem is Parent 2 has no means of purchasing a return ticket to the U.S., does not have employment in the U.S., and does not have a home to go to upon returning to the U.S. In granting Parent 2 the right to leave with the child of the marriage, we must scrutinize whether the court weighed the risk factors properly before issuing an order for Parent 2 to travel overseas with the child. In this case, there is no capacity for Parent 2 to return, no strong attachment within the U.S. to return.

To make matters worse for Parent 1, Parent 2 recently made a police complaint against Parent 1 and that person's significant other. Parent 1 countered that complaint by filing a similiar complaint and also making a second complaint for false police charges. I bring this up because Parent 2's actions demonstrate part of a carefully orchestrated agenda seen in many other cases: laying the foundation for an Article 13 abduction defense under the Hague Convention. For those of you who are not aware of what this is, under the Hague Convention an abducting parent may be permitted by the international courts to remain in the 'arriving country' that they abducted to if they are able to demonstrate to the court that returning the child would not be in the child's best interest. 'The best interest of the child' can take the form of many things, one of them being that the child and the child's abducting parent were at grave risk from the other parent. Now, does abuse really exist in some cases where a person is truly in fear of their life? You bet it does. And when this occurs, and the legal system systematically fails an abused and at risk person, I believe a person should follow the laws of good parenting and survival. However, all too often we have seen the false and manipulative use of Article 13 by an abductor in order to mislead the courts so to have a judge sanction their misbehavior. In the case that I am dealing with, Parent 1 has never had any previous complaints made. Nevertheless, the line in the sand has been created by Parent 2.

Unfortunately for most targeted parents once a child is illegally removed or detained, the heavy cost and financial burden to fight a Hague case are substantial. And even if a targeted parent wins their Hague case, there is this thing called 'an appeal'. The point being every person can appeal their case, causing long delays that very well may wear down the targeted parent's desire to bring their child home.

Obviously it is critical for the courts to prevent an abduction from occurring at all costs. In this case, Parent 2 has no capacity to return, no reasonable prospects to sustainability upon return, and has now begun a clever strategy that could raise flags under Article 13. Clearly, the probability of Parent 2 returning are low while the risks of a criminal abduction are high (Click here for more information on international parental child abduction risk factors).

Case #2.
In this case Parent 1 has custody of two children, while Parent 2 has access. Parent 2 is from a Non-Hague country (kingdom) located in the Middle East. Parent 2 has made abduction threats to Parent 1 in the past. Parent 2 is presently in flight training school in the United States. Parent 2's father also oversees the entire operations, including security for the national airline of Parent 2's country of origin.

When Parent 2's family travels into the U.S. due to government business connected to that nation's royal family, there are limited entry and departure controls due to diplomatic conditions. This includes arriving and departing at private airport terminals and being able to have access to their fleet of jets while grounded the same way any person has access to their private aircraft located at a private airport: you simply walk through the FBO's doors and out onto the tarmac.

In this case, Parent 2 has made previous threats that Parent 1 will never see the children of the marriage again. So, Parent 1 sought supervised visitation of the children for Parent 2 in order to ensure that Parent 2 would not take the children of the marriage and get onto a private foreign government jet and depart to the Middle East (because of that happens, a return of a child, particularly from this kingdom is unlikely). Obviously Parent 2 has the means and capability of an abduction. In this case, risk factors are so grave because of the potential ability of Parent 2 to bypass exit departure controls. (Click here to read what to do when an abduction is in progress).


International Parental Child Abduction (IPCA) has become a global epidemic best exemplified in an assortment of distinct government reports including the most recent 2010 United States Department of State’s Hague Compliance Report prepared for Congress, as well as various non-government reports including the findings published in ‘Crisis In America: International Parental Child Abduction’ Carolyn Vlk and I prepared.


Statistically, the number of international child abductions originating from the United States is alarming. This number, similar to other nations throughout the world, is growing.


According to the most recent Compliance Report issued by the Department of State (2010 Compliance Report measures statistics created during Fiscal Year 2009), there were 1,135 reported cases of parental child abduction in 2009 representing 1,621 children. The number of new outgoing cases has almost doubled since Fiscal Year 2006, from 642 reported cased to now 1,135 reported cases. It is anticipated that the number of reported cases will continue to escalate substantially.


However, many individuals consider these statistics to be inaccurate because they do not reflect the anticipated large unreported immigration population that has migrated to the United States. There are also substantial numbers of international child abductions associated with undocumented migratory parents living in the US with their legally born American child-citizens.


Additionally, historical precedent indicates there exists parents who are left behind in the wake of their child’s international parental abduction who purposefully do not file a child abduction report due to their belief that their chance of recovering their parentally abducted child is slim and that the costs involved in recovery are substantial. Additionally, foreign government’s courts typically favor the abducting parent as a civil order issued by the United States is rarely honored by a foreign nation, particularly if that abducting parent is a national of the country where the child was illegally taken to. There is not question that the crime of international parental child abduction is a well-orchestrated cruel crime against both the child and the Chasing Parent left behind.


Critical to protecting our targeted children and their targeted parent from the nightmare that awaits them if a child successfully is removed from our nation’s borders exists federal and in certain states, abduction prevention laws.Tragically, many states still have not implemented prevention laws. This needs to change immediately.However, in states where there are laws in place and courts have issued orders in order to prevent a parental child abduction from occurring, there are too many loop holes that, if planned carefully, will allow certain individuals the opportunity to abduct a child and flee to another country. This is particularly true if the parent intending to abduct their US citizen child is a non-US - national and that person still holds citizenship to another nation.


This report was created to share certain information about the United State’s Prevent Departure Program, (PDP) and how this particular program may be utilized to assist certain at-risk US citizen children from the horrible fate of international parental child abduction.


Perhaps the best way to discuss the Prevent Departure Program is to discuss a typical scenario where the PDP may be useful.


Case Study


Lets begin by suggesting Parent A is a citizen of another country but lives in the United States with Parent B. Parent B is a United States citizen. Parent A need not be married to Parent B.


During the course of A and B’s relationship, a child is born in the United States. When this occurs, the child is automatically a United States Citizen by birth.


In all likelihood, the child also will retain automatic citizenship to the nation that Parent A is a national of.


Let us assume both parents enjoy a right of custody to the child either through marriage, or, in cases where there is no marriage, either by state statue or by court orders.


During the course of time, Parent A decides to end the relationship and desires to return to their nation of origin with the child.


Now, Parent B, having great concern that Parent A intends to take the child and flee the United States and go to another country, obtains court orders forbidding Parent A from taking the child out of the country. The court orders for Parent A to turn over to the court the child’s US passport if one has been issued, and further directs the child’s name to be registered with the Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program, thus essentially removing the potential abducting parent from being able to remove the child from the United States using an American passport issued in the child’s name.


In addition, Parent B successfully requests that the court notify the embassy of the country Parent A is a citizen of, whereas, the court informs the embassy that a child custody dispute is alive and well in the jurisdiction of the child’s country of habitual residency, and the court requests for that foreign embassy not to issue a passport in the child’s name, thus securing the inability of the child from departing until the court proceedings are finalized.


Problem solved? No


In many circumstances, a pending departure is already well planned before the targeted parent becomes aware of it. Parent A may already have in their possession a passport issued by their nation of origin for the child. If this is the case, it is very difficult for the US court to seize the foreign passport of the child, particularly if it is not known whether a passport has been issued in the child’s name.


If a passport has not been issued in the child’s name, then in all likelihood, Parent A will attempt to obtain one regardless if the child’s passport application requires Parent B’s signature or not. In fact, certain countries do not require the signature of the mother of a child, only the father.


In addition, each nation obtains a sovereign right to oversee their own citizens, and since the child may be considered a citizen of the country of Parent A too, the embassy is not required or obligated to follow the U.S. court’s orders. They have every right and may issue a passport in the child’s name despite requests not to do so. And make no mistake about this, in more cases than not, particularly if Parent A is very persuasive when communicating with someone from their own embassy, they will successfully obtain the passport.


If Parent A has possession of a non-US passport for their child, they very well may be able to physically leave the country with the child and illegally abduct the child. What is perhaps even more troubling is the fact that Parent B has no way or right to know if a passport was issued from the native country of Parent A in the name of the child.


A disaster waiting to happen? You bet it is.


But there is hope for those parents who find themselves in a scenario where Parent A is not an American citizen living in the United States with their child and, Parent A possess a foreign passport for the child of the relationship.


Since 2003, United States citizens have had available a very effective international child abduction prevention tool called ‘The Prevent Departure Program’. Unfortunately, many parents at risk of having their child internationally abducted are not aware that this incredibly useful tool is available to them.


In the aftermath of 911, the Department of Homeland Security’s ‘Prevent Departure Program’ was created to stop non-U.S. citizens from departing the country. The program applies to non-US citizens physically located in America considered individuals at risk of child abduction. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) oversees this program and it is monitored 24 hours a day.


What the ‘Prevent Departure Program’ does is provide immediate information to the transportation industry, including all air, land, and sea channels a single point of contact at Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and provides a comprehensive database of individuals the United States believes may immediately depart to a foreign country.


The program only applies to aliens, and is not available to stop U.S. citizens or dual U.S./foreign citizens from leaving the country.


Under Section 215 of the ‘Immigration and Nationality Act’ (8 U.S.C. 1185) and it’s implementing regulations (8 CFR Part 215 and 22 CFR Part 46), it authorizes departure-control officers to prevent an alien’s departure from the United States if the alien’s departure would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States. These regulations include would-be abductions of U.S. citizens in accordance to court orders originating from the child’s court of habitual residency.


If the abductor and child are identified, they will be denied boarding. In order to detain them after boarding is denied, there must be a court order prohibiting the child’s removal or providing for the child’s pick-up, or a warrant for the abductor.


In order for an at risk parent to participate in the program, all of the following must be demonstrated:


1. Subject may NOT be a US citizen; and,


2. The nomination must include a law enforcement agency contact with 24/7 coverage; and,


3. There must be a court order showing which parent has been awarded custody or shows that the Subject is restrained from removing his/her minor child from certain counties, the state or the U.S.; and,


4. The Subject must be in the US; and,


5. There must be some likelihood that the Subject will attempt to depart in the immediate future.


With respect to the established guidelines listed above, note that in order to request the listing of the other parent, that person must be an alien of the United States. The program does not apply to US citizens at risk of leaving the country.


The second mandate states a request to place an individual’s name on the Prevent Departure Program must include support by a law enforcement agency or from the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues, which has the authority of requesting for the Department of Homeland Security to list a suspected child abductor on the ‘Prevent Departure Program’.


The third criteria: possessing a custodial order, is essential. Regardless if the other parent has joint custody or rights of visitation, critically, you must make sure that there are injunction orders in place prohibiting the child from being removed from the jurisdiction of habitual residency. Unfortunately, many international parental child abductions are well planned out in advance of the actual abduction, and the targeted parent has no idea that an abduction is in progress until it is too late. This is why it is essential for parents in partnership with non-nationals to be fully aware of the warning signs associated with a potential international child abduction.


The fourth criteria states the obvious: in order to prevent an alien-parent suspected of abducting a child on U.S. soil, that parent must be on U.S. soil.


The fifth criteria requests that the applying parent demonstrate that the alien-parent has demonstrated the likelihood of abducting the child across international borders in the immediate future. Remember – you need to document and record as much evidence as possible.


For many parents who face the risk of having their child abducted and removed across international borders, the nightmare that both targeted parent and victimized child face is unbearable.


The Prevent Departure Program is not for everyone and should not be abused; however, in situations where an abduction threat is real and the targeting parent intent on abducting a child is a non-US citizen possessing the capacity to breach court orders and abduct a child of a relationship, the Prevent Departure Program may be a useful tool.

If you believe your child is at risk, it is critical that you prepare your child on what to do if they are taken (Click here to view how to prepare your child).


For more information on the ‘Prevent Departure Program’, please visit the U.S. Department of State’s website or contact the Office of Children’s Issues directly at 888.407.4747 or 202.501.4444.


If you are interested in understanding the terrifying aspects and difficulties associated with international parental child abduction, I invite you to read 'Chasing The Cyclone' (Click here to read the reviews).

To read Chapter 1 of 'Chasing The Cyclone' please Click Here.

For more information on the growig epidemic of international parental child abduction, please Click Here.


For more information on best-selling author Peter Thomas Senese, please Click Here. or to read more about Peter Thomas Senese's books, please Click Here.

For more information on child abduction and child slavery risks associated with the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, please Click Here.

To read more essays and articles on international parental child abduction, please Click Here.