Peter Thomas Senese - U.S. Outbound International Child Abduction Rate Drops By 12.23% In 2013, 38.06% Decline Since 2009

The United States reported cases of outbound international parental child abduction declined by 12.23%  according to statistics supplied to the United States Congress by the United States Department of State.  The drop in the abduction rate marks the fourth consecutive year the number of American children victimized by international child abduction has declined. During fiscal years 2009 through 2013 the total abduction rate has declined by 38.06%. The reported drop in American child kidnappings is an anomaly in comparison to the existing worldwide growth of international parental child abduction cases that is nothing short of a pandemic.

On behalf of my I CARE Foundation colleagues and the families around the world we have assisted, I would personally like to acknowledge all individuals who have worked to protect children from abduction. I would also like to acknowledge the remarkable efforts and leadership in the area of governmental advocacy displayed by the United States Department of State's Office of Childrens Issues, who, over the past three years in particular have made great strides in protecting American children from abduction. There is a reason why American children are being protected, and it begins with the Office of Childrens Issues.

Additionally, the effort to protect children includes the many stakeholders, including other non-government organizations and their respective teams who have worked tirelessly to protect children and targeted families. It has only been through a collective effort by all advocates that the mountain of abduction here in the United States continues to be pushed back.

Finally, I would like to acknowledge all my colleagues at the I CARE Foundation around the world for the tireless efforts that have been put forth over the years since we actively began working to protect children from kidnapping. It is not coincidental that since we began our work to protect children from abduction that there has been a four-year consecutive decline equating to a 38.06% reduction in the United States international child abduction rate.

We acknowledge the 12.23% decline in the outbound abduction rate of American children that took place in 2013. However, truth is that this is not enough. Far from it. Additionally, there is a pandemic occurring worldwide that is destroying innocence. And it must be stopped.

There is work to be done.

Peter Thomas Senese

On Behalf Of The I CARE Foundation

THE I CARE FOUNDATION

Report on International Parental Child Abduction 

In The United States Of America

“International Parental Child Abduction Today – 2014”

Written By

Peter Thomas Senese

Issued On May 23rd, 2014

United States Reported Outbound Child Abduction Rate Drops By 12.23 %

The 2013 reported number of outbound cases and actual number of reported child victims of international parental child abduction originating from the United States has significantly declined during 2013. Remarkably, this is the fourth consecutive year in a row (reporting years 2009-2013) that the United States international parental child abduction outbound rate has declined. According to the 2014 Department of State’s Hague Compliance Report to Congress, there was a 12.23% decline in the actual number of reported child victims of international parental kidnapping representing a reduction of 140 children. In addition, there was a 12.14% decline in the number of reported cases of abduction representing a caseload decline of 97 cases. The decline in the reported cases and number of child victims being removed from the United States is an anomaly: worldwide the vast majority of countries reporting incidents of international parental child abduction as defined by the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention continues to surge at pandemic rates, with the average annual child abduction growth rate forecasted at over 20% per year. 

Despite the significant decline in the reported outbound decline in the abduction rate of American children originating from the United States, we caution that international parental child abduction (herein referred to as ‘IPCA’) remains a severe, highly abusive, and potentially deadly crime that targets thousands of American children and hundreds of thousands of children around the world each year. The fact remains that IPCA is a highly abusive criminal act against a child that places the child in great physical and emotional danger, and could jeopardize the child’s life.

In the United States and abroad our reality remains child-citizens continue to be criminally kidnapped, illegally removed overseas, and wrongfully detained in foreign countries in shocking numbers by their non-custodial parent.

The significance in the 12.23% decline in individual cases of IPCA during 2013 should not be minimized, nor should the remarkable 38.06% reported decline in the number of reported individual outbound cases originating from the United States over the past four reporting years (2009-2013). In fact, statistically these are remarkable gains and exemplify the tremendous leadership and dedication first and foremost demonstrated by the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice combined with a collective array of child abduction prevention stakeholders who have had a significant impact not only raising awareness amongst potentially targeted families of abduction, but who have created or helped create new laws, policies, or protocols capable of stopping international parental child abduction.

The fact the United States IPCA rate continues to decline despite heavily contradicting global trends found in other nations combined with increases in the population, including growth amongst the immigration migration sector, clearly indicates the immense efforts put forth by stakeholders working to stop child abduction is working. Nevertheless, there is a great deal that can and must be done to better protect at-risk children while also increasing efforts to reunite abducted children.

On a sober note, we acknowledge that fewer child victims of IPCA come home to their country of original jurisdiction and the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention process is taking longer than in previous years. Neither the failure to return children or the long delay times related to litigation are country specific: these are internal issues for every country and are not specific challenges faced solely by American citizens, but by all left behind parents. Thus, we re-emphasize our belief that the most efficient way to protect a child from IPCA is to prevent their abduction from occurring.

A look at the previous years statistics tells a compelling child abduction prevention effort taking place in the United States of America.

 

Specifically, during 2013 there were a total of 702 reported cases of international parental child abduction representing 1004 children. Previously, during 2012 there were 799 reported international parental child abduction cases filed with the United States Central Authority representing a total of 1,144 children. In 2011 there were a total of 941 reported international parental child abduction cases filed with the United States Central Authority, representing a total of 1,367 children. In 2010 there were 1022 reported cases of international parental child abduction representing 1,492 children. And in 2009 there were 1,135 cases of international parental child abduction representing 1,621 children.

When considering previous extensive growth in the United States reported outbound cases of IPCA coupled with the reality that cross-border child abduction continues to surge worldwide, the decline in the outbound abduction rate of American children is noteworthy.

In fact, the reported number of individual child victims of IPCA declined in 2010 by 8% (1,492 child victims from 1,621 child victims reported in 2009), 8.49% in 2011 (1,367 children), to a landmark decline of 16.3% in 2012 (1,144 children), followed by a 12.23% drop in 2013 (1,004 child victims).

These statistical declines become more apparent when viewing the years collectively. For example, there was a 38.06% decline in the reported outbound IPCA rate over the five-year period of 2009 through 2013. During this five-year period, the number of reported child victims of IPCA declined from 1,621 in 2009 to 1,004 child victims in 2013.  This represents a differential gain of 617 children who were protected from IPCA during 2013 in comparison to 2009. In addition, for the same reporting period there was a 38.15% decline in the number of reported family cases of IPCA (Note: a family case may consist of one or more children) representing a remarkable drop of 433 reported cases over the five-year period.

   

A comparative chart below provides further insight on the efforts to protect American children from IPCA taking place in the United States.

To put into perspective the significance in the reported 2013 decline in the reported cases of international parental child abduction and the fourth consecutive significant reduction in the cross-border kidnapping rate, it is important to note that previous to the 2009 fiscal year reported numbers, the international parental child abduction rate grew on average by nearly 20% per year the previous decade. In addition, the United States witnessed a yearly increase in population of approximately 2,400,000 people during 2008 – 2013, with an estimated 1,000,000 of these individuals newly arrived immigrants. We take exceptional note to the ongoing increases in the American immigration population due to the fact that many individuals who parentally abduct (referred to as a ‘Taking Parent’) were born and previously raised in a foreign country but relocated to the United States.

It is important to note that the unreported cases of international parental child abduction remain a very troubling area not just in the United States, but worldwide. However, we believe that outreach efforts by the United States Department of State, The I CARE Foundation, and the National Center For Missing & Exploited Children are in fact reaching communities who previously would not turn for assistance under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. And though there is no specific way to determine the unreported cases of IPCA, we believe there has been an increased awareness amongst communities who may previously may not have sought assistance to 1) become more aware of IPCA warning signs, 2) IPCA prevention measures, and 3) to turn to the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues for assistance. 

It is our belief that the previously less proactive communities who may have traditionally believed that they were unable to protect against IPCA have begun to mobilize and become more proactive in protecting their children.

It is our assessment that due to the mobilization of parents who may have previously been less active to prevent IPCA, that it is conceivable that the overall reported outbound rate of IPCA (when considering both reported and unreported cases) may have dropped more than the 12.23% reported rate of abduction.

While there is much to be pleased about regarding the significant decline in reported outbound American IPCA rate, the reality is that many children who are internationally abducted do not come home, and the statistical trend of available data clearly demonstrates that the number of children worldwide being returned to their country of original jurisdiction continues to decline.

The following chart provides insight on the growing rate of child abduction to the United States.

COUNTRY COMPARISIONS: The United States, The United Kingdom, and Canada 

To understand the significance of the United States four consecutive year decline in the reported outbound IPCA rate, it is useful to compare the reported American data with statistical information provided by other nations. We note that global IPCA reporting amongst signatory nations and non-signatory countries to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention remains beyond dismal.

Canada IPCA Rate Grows By 40% Since 2009

In April, 2014, Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs reported there has been a 40-per-cent increase in the number of international parental child abductions since 2009. Most of those cases involve countries such as the United States, Mexico and those of the European Union that have signed an international treaty called the Hague Convention, which aims to help resolve such emotionally charged incidents. However, there are also a “significant” number involving such countries as Lebanon, India, Pakistan and China, which have not signed up to the Hague Convention, making already complicated cases even more difficult.

In November, 2013 Canada created the Vulnerable Children's Consular Unit under the Department of Foreign Affairs in recognition of their growing internal IPCA problem and in an attempt to assist targeted families from the grave ordeal of international child kidnapping.

Canada’s Senate’s Human Rights Committee is also studying the Hague Convention in the hopes of providing recommendations to make it work better. Senior leadership from the Hague Conference are expected to visit Canada and provide insight with Canada’s policymakers in the near future.

United Kingdom IPCA Rate Grows By 88%

The United Kingdom continues to face a growing problem of IPCA, though, similar to Canada, specific hard data has not been publicly reported.  However, according to public statements made by the Foreign Office’s Child Abduction Section in December, 2012, reported outbound cases of IPCA has grown by 88% over the past ten years.

This number appears extraordinarily low when considering that public statements by the Foreign Office's Child Abduction Section state that the unit fielded an average of four calls per day to its specialist advice line, more than half of which were new cases during 2011 alone. The Foreign Office also stated the statistics do not represent the total number of IPCA cases because many cases go unreported.

EXTREME DIFFICULTIES IN RECOVERING AN ABDUCTED CHILD

There are abundant reasons why it is very difficult for child-victims of IPCA to be returned to their country of original jurisdiction. They include, but are not limited to the following:

1.  Amongst signatory countries to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention, litigation proceedings and tactics by the Taking Parent and their counsel often deploy techniques to circumvent Article 1 (Expeditious Return Provision), while over-utilizing Article 13 b (Best Interest Provision). This is not a U.S. problem but a global issue all left-behind parents face. In addition, courts and the judiciary overseeing IPCA proceedings have taken a rather long-arm approach to Article 12 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.  The end result, as reported by a 2011 Hague Special Commission is that the average litigation period needed to make a determination has increased to 338 days as compared to 188 days; and,
2. The reality is that attorneys familiar with Hague law often litigate before untrained judges who are not keenly aware of the spirit and intent of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.  Trained attorney-specialist familiar with the protocols of the child abduction treaty have successfully implemented litigation techniques created to extend or delay the court proceedings outside of the spirit of Article 1 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.  In implementing calculated strategies before judges not familiar with the treaty or who may not intend to follow the rules established under the treaty, Taking Parents have been remarkably successful in being able to not only remain in the inbound country they have relocated to, but in many circumstances, limit the rights of the child to have contact with the other parent. This phenomenon appears to occur equally amongst men and women; and,
3. Judges are often not trained on how to deal with IPCA cases nor are they familiar with the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention.  Because of a lack of training and education amongst the judiciary, many children around the world simply are not returned and the intent of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention is being marginalized. As an example of the problems best exemplified by an untrained judiciary, the United States has over 10,000 family court judges able to hear an IPCA case. The vast majority of these judges have no or extremely limited experience dealing with Hague matters. The average litigation period for cases being heard in the United States is 338 days. In comparison, in the United Kingdom there are 17 judges who handle Hague cases.  The average litigation period for cases heard in the United Kingdom has been reported at 49 days; and,
4. Many nations do not comply with or uphold the spirit of the convention (ex, Brazil, Mexico, Germany); and,
5. Many countries have not signed the convention (China, India, Saudi Arabia etc); and,
6. Chasing Parents may not have an idea what country their child was taken to; and,
7. 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,
8. 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,
9. 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.

WHAT'S WORKING?

There are many reasons why the reported United States outbound rate of IPCA is declining.  Collectively, the primary reason is that efforts by government agencies and non-government agencies have increased efforts to not only raise awareness amongst potential targeted parents of IPCA, but educational outreach directed toward key stakeholders such as the judiciary, attorneys, law enforcement, and policymakers has made a major difference. The following are some important reasons why outbound cases IPCA is declining in the United States, while inbound cases are rising.

1. There is an increased social awareness of IPCA, including awareness of warning signs and how to act in the event of a potential threat; and,
2. Targeted parents at risk of having a child abducted have become more proactive in protecting their children; and,
3. The Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues has become an exemplary child abduction prevention advocacy program under the guidelines available to all Central Authorities under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. Increased personal, extensive information via the Internet, and public outreach along with the ability to implement and take control of an assortment of abduction prevention programs such as the Passport Issuance Alert Program have been extremely beneficial.
4. Inter-agency cooperation amongst the Department of State and other agencies such as the Department of Homeland Security have been extremely impactful. An example of this type of cooperation is found in the Prevent Departure Program.
5. There is a strong core of NGO activism that has helped raise awareness of IPCA and provided outreach that government agencies are unable to.
6. Courts and judges presiding over abduction prevention cases are acting with increased prudence when determining whether a child is a target of IPCA, including determining if a child should be allowed to travel, an assortment of passport-related issues, etc.; and,
7. The I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form has become a globally effective tool in preventing a child’s wrongful detention abroad while also protecting against the wrongful use of Article 12 and Article 13 b; and,
8. There is increased cooperation amongst law enforcement to assist targeted parents of abduction; and,
9. United States lawmakers and policy administrators are taking a proactive stance against IPCA and this stand is having a trickle down effect amongst other stakeholders including judges, law enforcement, and child therapist, etc.
10. The social media blogosphere of parent-bloggers has increased awareness of IPCA.

PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION IS A SEVERE FORM OF CHILD ABUSE

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.

In June, 2013 the United States Department of Justice issued a report stating that children who are victims of parental child abduction face increased abuse, including severe physical and emotional abuse at the hands of their parent abductor.

We strongly point that filicide - parental child murder - is a real threat to all children of abduction.

In addition, 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.”

We recall the words of Ms. Patricia Hoff who currently oversees the United States Department of State's Hague Attorney Network, who previously stated, “Because of the harmful effects on children, parental kidnapping has been characterized as a form of “child abuse” while the acting Legal Director for the Parental Abduction Training and Dissemination Project, American Bar Association on Children and the Law. Ms. Hoff also had stated, “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.”

The I CARE Foundation agrees completely with the sentiments shared above.

REASONS WHY ONE PARENT CRIMINALLY ABDUCTS A CHILD

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. Their intent is simple: to make the other parent suffer as much as possible by depriving that targeted parent with the love and connection to their own child. Nearly every published study on this subject has concluded that an abducting parent has significant, and typically, long-term psychological problems and may in fact be a danger to their child.

We take the time to acknowledge that in certain cases of parental child abduction, a parent claims to have no other choice but to flee the other parent due to serious, grave, and ongoing forms of abuse. We acknowledge that in many abduction defenses found under Article 13 of The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, an abducting parent will often claim mental, emotional, and physical abuse by the other parent as part of their defense to sanction their criminal behavior of abduction. However, we must also acknowledge that domestic violence is a very real, measurable, and in many cases, an ongoing crime that has limited law enforcement safety controls. We acknowledge that there are parents who must flee for their and their child’s safety due to failures by law enforcement and courts to protect their safety, combined with an habitual abuser who aims to cause grave hurt to the targeted parent.

In addition, and 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.

IMMIGRATION MIGRATION AND ITS AFFECT ON CHILD ABDUCTION CASES

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.

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.

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.

SUMMARY

IPCA remains a serious problem worldwide. The challenges of parental child abduction prevention and reunification have no border.  As an organization dedicated to preventing IPCA, we take note of the decline in the 2013 IPCA rate and acknowledge that since the leadership of the I CARE Foundation began extensive advocacy to combat IPCA, the overall outbound rate of IPCA against American children has declined by over 38%. In our efforts to raise awareness of IPCA amongst families worldwide, combined with our efforts associated with utilization of the Prevent Departure Program, the global use of the groundbreaking I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form, and our work to create and implement numerous state laws created to protect children, we believe that there is substantial positive change on the horizon.

The I CARE Foundation’s role in fighting IPCA has been measurable. We would also like to acknowledge that as far as working to protect children from abduction all advocates are in this together.

There remains a great deal of work to do.

The Crazy World Of Abduction: Standing Strong Against Child Kidnappers

International Parental Child Abduction is a dark world filled with a great deal of pain and suffering. It is unquestionably a world that, for many targeted parents of abduction, not only makes little sense, but it is a world where trust is replaced with mistrust, where belief is replaced with skepticism, and where love is replaced with deep hurt.

But make no mistake: the love of a parent who is willing to chase the cyclone of abduction is stronger than the strongest tsunami. And not only have I felt this love myself during the time I was Chasing The Cyclone, but I have witnessed first-hand other parents do everything they can in the best interest of their child.

Now for those of you who do not know how parental child abductors typically attempt to have an international court sanction their illicit act of kidnapping, the way this is done under the rules of the Hague Convention is to slander, defame, and outright attempt to vilify their target before the courts. Claims of child abuse, molestation, incredible drug and alchohol use, etc., are commonplace, occurring in near every abduction defense. Of note, these claims are made by both men and women abductors equally against their targets.

There is no question that abduction litigation is complicated. In part this is due to various laws and cultural norms in countries associated to the litigation.

During the years I have worked to assist other parents, I have met few parents who have withstood the incredible challenges in attempting to reunite with their child than my friend Steven.  I am proud to stand with him as he works diligently to reunite with his daughter while hopefully reforming laws and policies that have failed him and his child.

One day, Steven will be reunited with his child. And until that day happens, he will have my unwavering support. Why?  Because my friend Steven is a very good, caring, honest, and loving man.


I would like to share this letter from Steven as it serves as a reminder of the many thousands of targeted parents around the world - near equally men and women - who are forced to defend against a child kidnappers claims under Article 12 or Article 13 of the Hague Convention.

Letters like Steven's are very important for they educate each of us of the importance of stopping abduction.

As for the targeted parent who was able to protect their child, I must say that he unquestionably is one of the kindest, gentlest, and loving parents I know.


To read a large number of select testimonial letters from parents who I and the I CARE Foundation have assisted, Please Click Here. 

Critically, parents need to know the Warning Signs Of International Parental Child Abduction.

Of great interest is the fact that the I CARE Foundation's groundbreaking International Travel Child Consent Form is being hailed as one of the most important child abduction prevention tools ever created.

On a personal note, it is my honor to be able to have helped as many parents and children as I and my colleagues at the I CARE Foundation have.

The shared select testimonials were provided in order to educate others of the severity parents around the world face when dealing with the abduction of their child.

One last thing: Steven - you know where I stand.

Kind regards to all,

Peter Thomas Senese 







http://www.petersenese.com/uploads/Testimonial_Letter_20.pdf

I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form Continues To Make A Difference Protecting Children From Abduction

The I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form continues to be a tool utilized by parents and the legal community on a global scale that is making an incredible impact on the fight to stop children from being internationally parentally abducted.

As many of you are aware, the summer months are a time where international abductions are at the highest levels and, in my role as the Executive Director of the I CARE Foundation, I am pleased to say that every child that was expected to be returned home around the world, that used the Travel Consent Form, has indeed done just that... come home!

I invite you to read a piece that the Colorado Bar Association wrote about the I CARE Foundation and our groundbreaking International Travel Child Consent Form. 

To read more about the I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form and to download a copy of the form, please visit The I CARE Foundation's website. 

Kindest regards to all,

Peter Thomas Senese
Executive Director
The I CARE Foundation

International Child Abduction and The Prevent Departure Program

Earlier this summer I had shared an article that I had written on Summer Vacations and International Child Abduction Warning Signs.  The article explained in detail some of the possible scenarios and techniques that a potential abductor may use in order to wrongfully remove a child from their home country of jurisdiction.  Even though that article was focused on the time of summer vacations, a time where approximately 85% to 95% of all parental abductions occur in the United States or abroad, even though summer is almost over international parental child abduction still poses a very serious threat for many families.

As always, the I CARE Foundation works toward the goal of preventing international child abductions.  One of the major keys to protecting innocent children from abduction is raising awareness of the realities of international abduction with the hope that our messages about the risks and warning signs that a kidnapping is being planned may allow a parent or other stakeholders the opportunity to prevent abduction.  Historically, the U.S. rate of reported cases of outbound abduction has declined by approximately 15% during the fiscal years 2011 and 2012, and that is after nearly 30 years of reported growth.  This tells us that abduction prevention efforts are working.

Now one of the most concerning risk factors that will lead to international child abduction is the use of a would-be taking parent to use a secondary passport not issued by the United States government in order to depart the country as shared in detail in the article published on behalf of the I CARE Foundation titled Summer Vacation. Child Abduction. Dual Citizenship. Two Passports. How To Prevent Abduction. 


I urge any parent who believes they are at risk of abduction to read both articles that I have listed.

One of the most effective tools available for at-risk parents trying to prevent abduction is the Prevent Departure Program, which is a secure screening program that lists any individual considered by the courts or law enforcement to be a high-risk child abductor.  In order to be placed on the Prevent Departure Program, there are certain requirements, one of which presently includes that the person cannot be a citizen of the United States of America.  Thus, only aliens residents (or non-residents) physically located in the United States may be put on the Prevent Departure Program at the request of the Department of State to the Department of Homeland Security.

Unfortunately, the caveat is that in order for a person to be considered a candidate for the Prevent Departure Program they are not American citizens, which presents a problem since individuals who possess dual citizenship, including American citizenship, cannot be placed on the Prevent Departure Program list.  Hopefully, there will be a modification in policy so that American citizens who are considered to be high-risk child abductors can be placed on a secure screening list.  The following press release provides details of the need to have the Prevent Departure Program policy modified:  Peter Thomas Senese & The CARE Foundation Supports GAO Recommendation to Create Departure Screening List for High-Risk U.S. Citizens Considered High-Risk Child Abductors.

So what is the Prevent Departure Program and how can it be applied?

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.

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.

Finally, the Department of State's Office Of Children's Issues Abduction Prevention Division is in charge of requesting that an individual be considered a candidate to be listed on the Prevent Departure Program.  From our experience, it is critically important that a court order be issued stating that a specific person be listed on the Prevent Departure Program, and that person is restrained from traveling outside of the United States with the specified children of the partnership considered by the court to be at risk of possible abduction.  

For more information on international parental child abduction please visit the I CARE Foundation.  Some of you may be interested in also visiting the official website of my deeply inspired novel about abduction titled CHASING THE CYCLONE, which contains a great amount of information on abduction.

Kindest regards to all -

Peter Thomas Senese

Peter Thomas Senese and I CARE Foundation Launch International Travel Child Consent Form To Stop Child Abduction

Peter Thomas Senese & The I CARE Foundation's Hague Convention Oriented International Child Abduction Prevention Tool Provides Family Lawyers New Weapon To Protect Children

Family law attorneys worldwide are calling The I CARE Foundation’s groundbreaking International Travel Child Consent Form as a groundbreaking universal child abduction prevention tool that can be used to protect children at risk of international parental abduction.

The I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form is being viewed by highly respected international family law attorneys around the world who are deeply familiar with the grave challenges of international parental child abduction prevention and reunification as a significant new tool that may assist them and courts protect against abduction.

Worldwide, international parental child abduction increases substantially during the summer months when children are on summer school break. One of the primary methods behind these abductions under the rules established by the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction occurs when a parent wrongfully detains a child in a foreign country outside of a court order or without consent of the other parent after the ‘taking parent’ is initially granted permission to travel with the child to a foreign country.

In many of these cases the ‘taking parent’ carefully conspires to mislead and defraud the courts and the ‘targeted parent’ of their true intent: to relocate in their country of origin with the child while removing the targeted parent's contact with their child. Detecting abduction schemes is often not easy. In fact, some parents conceal their true intent to abduct by inviting the child's other parent to travel abroad with them in an attempt to avoid suspicion of abduction. However, once in a foreign country (often the conspiring parent's country of origin), the conspiring parent unleashes a horrible scheme intended to remove the other parent’s rights to the child. They often succeed.

The I CARE Foundation’s comprehensive 'International Travel Child Consent Form' was created to prevent these types of international parental child abduction schemes by calling for both parties to affirm key components central to the ability for an abductor to mount a false and misleading legal defense while also creating additional affirmations for an expeditious return of a child who has been wrongfully detained.

Steep in Hague-oriented case law with focus on Articles 1, 12, 13 and 20, the I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form was created to remove a parent's legal defenses under Articles 12, 13, and 20 of the Hague Convention who may be scheming to abduct a child prior to an alleged 'family vacation' abroad while also establishing strong support for a child’s immediate return under Article 1 of the Hague Convention.


Silvia A. Sejas Pardo, a highly respected Argentinean and Spanish international lawyer based in Spain and who is a Founding Member of FASIM, an international association of attorneys dedicated to preventing child abduction commented, "We need to continue to treat child abduction and prevention of kidnapping as something extremely exceptional as we are dealing with children's lives. The uncertainty and abuse related to abduction is not in their interest. The I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form is workable and would make child abduction more difficult as this document is a legally strong piece of evidence that may result in protecting many children. I hope all Hague-member states embrace this initiative."

Peter Thomas Senese of the I CARE Foundation and author of the critically acclaimed Chasing The Cyclone and lead creator of the consent form added, "The new abduction prevention tool was created to help provide clarity and directional paths for any court or law enforcement agency overseeing international parental child abduction associated with the wrongful retention of a child abroad. As the new international travel consent form reaches into Central Authorities and courtrooms around the world, and as attorneys dedicated to protecting children implement this tool or one similar to what the I CARE Foundation has created, we hope that there is a dramatic decline in abusive child abductions. We may not have created a new law, but we have created a universal child abduction prevention tool the entire world can use."

Mexico’s Carlos Alvarado, a renowned international family lawyer specializing in international parental child abduction prevention and reunification issues, and who is actively involved in new legislation initiatives in Mexico focused on protecting children of abduction added, "As a law practitioner deeply familiar with Hague Convention law and the great challenges parents and lawyers have protecting children targeted for international abduction, it is critical that new and creative abduction prevention tools are utilized to protect children. The I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form is an important tool that can and should be used to prevent children from being wrongfully detained in a foreign country. We intend to widely implement this new tool to protect children in Mexico and whenever possible, assist parents who have had a child abducted to Mexico who have utilized this agreement. This is a tool all attorneys should use." 

Adding further insight, renown Florida family law attorney Denise Gunn, who is a member of the U.S. Department of State’s Hague Convention Attorney Network and who recently prevented the abduction of two minors from Florida to a non-Hague Middle Eastern country in a complex custody dispute added, “New and applicable international child abduction prevention resources such as the I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent form is a critically needed tool to stop the abusive criminal act of parental abduction. Once implemented, the foundation's groundbreaking Hague Convention-oriented travel consent form should protect a large population of at-risk children around the world who are targeted for wrongful retention under the rules of local and international law. The ingenuity and thoughtful creation of this agreement illustrates the expertise and commitment of the I CARE Foundation to protect children."

Linda Hammerschmid is Secretary of the Family Law Association of Quebec and a Family Law practitioner in Montreal Canada with over 30 years’ experience in the field. Ms. Hammerschmid commented, “The creation of the new International Travel Consent form is a MUST have, not only for Government Departments, Family Law Attorneys and divorcing couples, but also for INTACT families, and should be kept at the homes of ALL parents to use whenever one or the other wishes to travel alone with their children. Far too often the traveling parent only informs the other, AFTER departure, of their intention not to return the children.” The I CARE Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to preventing child abduction.

Jennifer Cluff, one of the world’s foremost parenting blog writers who has stewarded the message of child abduction prevention on her Mom-ology parent site added, “Parents at risk of having a child kidnapped often are not aware of the scheme against them. The I CARE Foundation's tool is something all parenting-focused writers need to share with their readers, especially since the majority of our reader-base is the near-identical demographic of targeted parents.”

To download a copy of the 'International Travel Child Consent Form' in English or Spanish please visit the I CARE Foundation's official website. For more information about suggestions on how to implement the form and to obtain the legal analysis used to create this abduction prevention tool, please contact by email: legal@stopchildabduction.org or call 310.882.3967.

*NOTE: The press news release does not constitute legal advice. Should you require assistance please consult with a qualified attorney.

FBI States Risks Of A Child Victim Of International Parental Child Abduction: Murder

“Unfortunately, the threat of violence—and death—in these cases is all too real,” said Ashli-Jade Douglas, an FBI analyst in our Violent Crimes Against Children Intelligence Unit who specializes in child abduction matters.  "Most non-custodial parental abductors want retaliation. They feel that if they can’t have the child full time—or any amount of time—then the other parent shouldn’t have the child, either.”

The I CARE Foundation has, for some time now, been sharing the fact that children of international parental child abduction are at risk of murder. The above statement, from the U.S. Department of Justice website, shows that children who are targeted and become victims of parental child abduction are subjected to brutal crimes - and that includes murder. No child should be subjected to such crimes of violence - ever - and society should be very concerned that this is happening.  At the hands of an abducting parent, children are put in grave risk.  A parental child abductor is willing to break the laws, ignore the orders of a court, and they have no concern with perjury or contempt.  Parental child abductors kidnap children in order to cause the targeted parent hurt and suffering.

Children of Parental Abduction are Prisoners

We must remember that children who are abducted by a parent are prisoners forced to comply with the will of their hostage-taker.

Dr. Wagner, a leading child psychologist, used the word "compliance" while discussing the reason of why hostages may not be able during their imprisonment speak-up and free themselves.

Compliance.

It hit me like a ton of bricks falling off a ten-story building.

You see, in the the world of international parental child abduction, and in this world's post-abduction reunification when both the targeted parent and the abductor may by court-order need to exist in the world of the victimized child, courts often do not realize that when they allow the kidnapper to remain bonded with the child-victim, not only does this create a sense of uncertainty for the child, but it wrongfully sends a message to the child that there was validity to their kidnapping.

Now it is imperative to remember that during the time of a child's international abduction, these children are in fact hostages. They are manipulated. They are brainwashed. They are taught to fear. And in the kidnapper's need to have that child sanction their kidnapping, kidnappers teach that failure to comply will be met with grave consequences.

Sadly, during many post-abduction reunification's, the abductor's intent to cause pain and suffering to the target parent continues via manipulation of a child.

Since the child cannot break free from the bindings of their kidnapper despite the efforts of the targeted parent, many of these children still live in fear, and are forced to live in spiritually and mentally bound ways.

They are still prisoners.

They must comply with the ever-present abductor's will.

And this must end.

Child Services Need To Heavily Consider Any Claims Made By A Parent Abductor

It is imperative that every social services program, every child welfare organization and every family protective service agency charged with investigating any claims of child abuse carefully analyze any allegations of abuse. Critically, these organizations must carefully scrutinize any claims made by a parent who was previously charged with child abduction, especially if a court determined that parent had committed a criminal act of child kidnapping, or in Hague cases during international parental child abduction that uses a civil procedure for the return of a child despite the federal act of kidnapping being committed, it is imperative that all social service personnel charged with investigating any claims of abuse or neglect made by a child abductor against their previous targeted parent be cautiously examined. 

Critically, all social service agencies acting on a complaint against a child made by a parent child abductor must commence their investigation with the hard reality that the child was a victim of kidnapping along with other forms of serious abuse, and carefully review the sociopath tendencies of abductors.As published on the United States Department of State's website, "When non-custodial parents resort to kidnapping, they believe they are acting in the best interests of their children. Although a minority of parental kidnappers may actually save their children by taking them out of the reach of the other parent, the motives of most parents who steal their children are not at all altruistic.

Parents find a myriad of reasons or self-justification for stealing a child from another parent Some abductors will find fault with the other parent for nonsensical transgressions; others will steal a child for revenge."

Profile of a Parental Child Abductor: Narcistic Sociopaths

The State Department's report includes, "[A] profile [of] the parent who shows signs of flagrant paranoid beliefs or psychotic delusions. In this situation, the intervention must focus on the child and his or her safety and well-being . . . Unfortunately, the other parent and the child must be informed about a safety plan at all times."  Continuing, the Department of State's report specifically states, "[The] profile [of an international parental child abductor] is the sociopathic personality."

Again, nobody wants to think about a parent killing their child.

However, we must take into heavy consideration the statement by the United States Department of Justice's Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)  concerning the sociopathic behavior of abductors. Grave concern was expressed, "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 blatantly as instruments of revenge or punishment or as trophies in their fight with the ex-partner. Hence, the sociopathic parent believes that domestic violence and child abduction can be perpetrated with impunity. Like paranoia, a diagnosis of severe sociopathy is rare (4 percent of the studies’ samples).

Parents Murder Their Children

Filicide is not a term that I like to talk about, but the reality is, we need to talk about it more.  For those that are not aware, the term filicide refers to the deliberate act of a parent killing his or her own child.  In the United States, hundreds of children are murdered by their parents each and every year. Proportionately, filicide occurs everywhere. It is not a phenomenon isolated within American borders: parents do kill children. And we can't put our head in the sand and think this does not exist.

According to a recent statement released by the FBI, there is a trend that I find incredibly disturbing coming from non-custodial parents - and that is the rate in which they are abducting and threatening to harm their own children... all with the intent of retaliation against the parent who has been given legal custody.


Now, with a large number of American children being born to unwed parents, along with the high rate of marriages ending in divorce, the reality is that there is an increasing number of cases where a single parent is going to have custody of the child. The FBI's statistics show that between the years 2010 and 2012 there was an increase of 41% in child abduction cases that involved custody matters.  So if we add that to the increased number of those parents seeking retaliation through harming their own child - do we need to be concerned?  You bet we do!

In the FBI statement there were some recent cases of filicide that occurred at the hands of non-custodial parents:

• In 2009, a non-custodial mother abducted her 8-month-old son from his custodial father in Texas. She told the father she killed the boy to prevent the father from employing his custodial rights and in retaliation for his alleged involvement with other women.
• In 2011, a 2-year-old girl was abducted by her non-custodial father in California. A week later, both were found dead. The father committed suicide after shooting his daughter.
• In 2012, a non-custodial father in Utah abducted and killed his 7- and 5-year-old sons and then committed suicide. He was angry over not being afforded sole custody of the children.

Ashli-Jade Douglas offers up this advice to help keep children safe:  “Custodial parents should inform schools, after-care facilities, babysitters, and others who may at times be responsible for their children about what custody agreements are in place so that kids are not mistakenly released to non-custodial parents.”

The common misconception that parental abductions are considered a family matter has to end.

Parental child abduction is a serious crime. The act of abduction leads to ongoing forms of abuse toward a child. When a child is abducted they should immediately be considered to be in great danger!

Law enforcement agencies need to act quickly to ensure that these innocent children are not going to be harmed.  The sociopathic behaviors that a kidnapping parent exhibits has them believing in their own mind what they are doing is in the best interest of the child.  When we think again about the fact that many of these cases revolve around revenge or retaliation, you can see it’s not out of the question to have the ultimate revenge be at the expense of the innocent child… with the act of filicide.


This is all very disconcerting, but one thing is for certain:  raising awareness and stewarding the message about the warning signs of international parental child abduction is the key.  This awareness has played a role in reducing the number of reported outbound child kidnapping cases originating in the United States by 15% during the last two consecutive years after nearly 30 years of continued growth.

If I may ask you to please share the warning signs of international abduction – you may very well be getting this information out to a family that needs it… ultimately possibly saving the life of an innocent child.  It is that desire, that is so ingrained in me, that I continue my fight each and every day!

Together we can, and are, making a difference.

- The I CARE Foundation -