Best-selling Author Peter Senese Supports New York State Legislation For 'Digital Impersonation Prevention Act'

New York State legislators are on the cusp of passing a remarkable and much needed law that will benefit all citizens of the state: the 'Digital Impersonation Prevention Act'. The Legislation was created to prevent individuals with malice and illicit intent to use the name of another person online for purposes of causing their target personal injury.

New York State Assembly Member Micah Z. Kellner (D-Upper East Side, Yorkville) who has sponsored the crucial legislation in the State Assembly said, "“It seems like every day we hear about a new and horrific case of identity theft. It’s grown beyond hacking into your bank account. People’s lives can be ruined by thieves who steal their email accounts or Facebook pages to use them for malicious purposes. People have actually been driven to suicide in cases.”

One of the benefits of the Internet is that it allows for anonymity; however, there is a serious price to be paid by many because the atmosphere has created the ability for anonymous posters to create false, untrue, slanderous, and harassing content with the sole purpose to cause the person they are attacking undue harm. It has been estimated there were over 9 million victims of online identity theft and impersonation last year alone: a number that is growing.

Presently, in New York State there are various laws that protect online identity theft and impersonation; however, with the anticipated passage of the 'Digital Impersonation Prevention Act', a new specific law will be in place that deals directly with this issue. It can and should be used in conjunction with other laws in place in order to protect those who are targeted for identity theft or impersonation.

One of the ways celebrities may protect their identity is to trademark their name. But this is not possible for the average working person. Copyright protection laws allows for certain protection to occur under laws governing personal property; howver, if you do not have copyrighted work that is attached to you such as a book or a film, then a person will not be protected under law.

In the past online identity impersonation typically involved financial transactions. Today the fastest growing form of online identity theft and impersonation is used to cause personal injury toward a target in conjunction with defamation,slander, libel, and harassing actions including cyberbullying and cyberstalking. Fortunately, in New York State there exists laws that deal with these issue. However, the 'Digital Impersonation Prevention Act' will be a much needed and added resource available to targeted victims.

In the world of international parental child abduction, laws that prevent digital impersonation are critical. For a parent intending to abduct a child internationally, the elements of the abduciton typically include a well thought out plan, including how to defend the abduction if there is a chance that the international courts such as the Hague Courts may become involved. Under the Hague Convention's Article 13, the rules allow for an abducting parent to defend their criminal abduction by claiming that it is in the best interest of the child for the child to not be ordered to return to the country of original jurisdiction. In order to prove this, the criminally abducting parent must 'create' a series of personal attacks on the the target in order to falsely demonstrate the targeted parents incapability to care for the welfare of the abducted child. Commonly, this will include the use of the Internet to slander, defame, harass, and cause grave injury to the target. The majority of this is done anonymously or under false name online via various community forums in order to falsely and misleadingly fabricate a communal negative perspective on the target. And unfortunately for the targeted parent, they have their hands more than full at that time because they are attempting to navigate the cruel multi-international litigation nightmare attached to trying to prevent, find, or bring home their child.

During the time that my child was internationally abducted in accordanc to the rules of the Hague Convention, I, like many parents who came before me as well as those who will sadly come after me, had to deal with this very issue. I was fortunate in the sense that the international courts under the Hague had seen through the conspiracy, and these courts ordered for my child to be returned. I was able to present literally several hundred sworn personal and professional letters to the court referring to my conduct, and I had resources available that allowed me to successfully litigate against the malicious slander and defamation that took place. I am also aware that many targeted parents may not have the resources to accomplish some of what I have. And that is why, from a viewpoint of international parental child abduction, laws such as the 'Digital Inpersonation Prevention Act' must be passed into law in each and every state.

Unfortunately for many targeted parents of abduction who have successfully recovered their child, a problem still exits: the abducting parent still remains at large: bitter, angry, and filled with a desire for revenge and to cause the chasing parent additional harm (it is noted by leading experts in the area of IPCA that the vast majority of parental abductors use the child of the relationship in order to cause great harm toward the targeted parent). In fact, Dr. Janet Johnston (Judith Wallerstein Center for the Family in Transition) and Dr. Linda Girdner (ABA Center on Children and the Law) along with other reknown therapist and law enforcement officers have openly stated that an abducting parent exhibit sociopathic behavior and have little respect for or concern of the law.

Online identity theft and impersonation generated due to malice is a growing and very serious problem. Civil litigation can protect an individual from defamation and slander, but the process can be long. Additionally, if you sue a person due to their misconduct, if they have no assets, you may be able to have the defamatory content removed from the Internet, but the individuals behind the malice will not be held truly accountable for their acts. And in certain circumstances content cannot be taken down under Internet law (though I have recently learned that there are other possible ways to have content removed). Nevertheless, once untruthful content is placed online, there is a challenge to have it removed. One important remedy a targeted person can do is to address matters under criminal law, particularly since many cases of malicious online impersonation include defamatory, slanderous, and malicous content posted. The 'Digital Impersonation Prevention Act' adds to the arsenal of laws already established that may be utilized to protect individuals from online malice.

Various research also indicates that a person who will impersonate or steal another person's online identity is acts with fearless reckless abandonment because they think they are protected to continue their acts because of the difficulties associated with their target bringing litigation, and, under civil court action, they can be sued - but if they have very little to take, they could care less.

The remedy to all of this is very simple: create and enforce criminal codes that will hold individuals who impersonate or steal another person's identity with the sole purpose of causing malicious harm to that person fully and unequivocally accountable under criminal law. I speak from heavy experience on this issue as I have been the victim of this type of act to which I have taken serious and unilateral action under all laws available to me.

“Anonymity is a criminal’s best friend—and it’s one of the defining features of the Internet,” said Assembly Member Kellner. “New Yorkers deserve stronger protections so we can bring these nefarious individuals out of the shadows and hold them accountable for their actions.”


I am in full support of the passage of the Digital Impersonation Prevention Act as this bill will be a great law for New York. I hope you will be as well. Here is the legislation that is moving its way through Albany's legisltion.

Senator Martin Golden has sponsored the bill in the Senate and will navigate the legislation as it moves through the Senate.

S4015-2011: Enacts the Digital Impersonation Prevention Act

Same as: A6238 / Versions: S4015-2011 S4015A-2011 Print HTML Page / Print Original Bill Format / ShareThis/ Read or Leave Comments

Enacts the digital impersonation prevention act.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sponsor: GOLDEN / Committee: CODES / Law Section: Penal Law

S4015-2011 Actions
Mar 25, 2011: PRINT NUMBER 4015A
Mar 25, 2011: AMEND AND RECOMMIT TO CODES
Mar 14, 2011: REFERRED TO CODES
S4015-2011 Memo
BILL NUMBER:S4015

TITLE OF BILL:
An act
to amend the penal law, in relation to enacting the digital
impersonation prevention act

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
To establish the crime of digital
impersonation and to create effective penalties for those who engage
in digital impersonation for the purposes of harming, threatening, or
defrauding another person, sending unsolicited bulk mails or
commercial solicitations, or downloading or utilizing a contact list.

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS:
Section 1:

Establishes the title 'Digital Impersonation Prevention Act"

Section.2:

-Amends the penal law by adding a new section 190.87, establishing the
crime of digital impersonation;

-Provides that a person is guilty of digital impersonation when he or
she, knowingly, with intent to defraud and without consent,
creditably impersonates another actual person through or on an
Internet web site or by other electronic means for purposes of: (i)
harming, intimidating, threatening, or defrauding another person;
(ii) transmitting unsolicited commercial solicitations or unsolicited
bulk messages; or (iii) copying, accessing, downloading or utilizing
a contact list;

-Establishes the meaning of creditable impersonation;

-Defines "electronic means," "contact list," "unsolicited commercial
solicitations," and "unsolicited bulk messages";

-Establishes penalties for violations; and

-Provides that a person who suffers loss or damage by reason of a
violation may a bring civil action against the violator; sets forth
damages and other relief.

Section 3: Sets effective date

JUSTIFICATION:
Digital identity theft, more accurately known as
digital impersonation, has been a growing problem in the internet era.
The US Federal Trade Commission estimates that as many as 9 million
Americans have their identities stolen each year. Historically, the

major motive for identity theft has been financial fraud, as thieves
use
stolen identities to make credit card purchases, withdraw funds, and
set up phony accounts. Over the past few years, we have seen an
increase in a more personal kind of impersonation: the use of
Internet anonymity to harass individuals. In 2010, for instance, the
New York Times reported on the rise of cyber bullying and what can
happen if the issue is not addressed. The article told the story of
Marie, a single mother from Newburyport, Massachusetts, whose son had
become increasingly withdrawn since entering a new high school. After
some investigating, Marie discovered that a number of her son's
classmates had created a Facebook page with her son's name and
picture. The page in question was being used by others to bully
people her son barely knew, with the blame for
this behavior falling unfairly on her son. It is clear that stronger
measures are needed to combat such actions.

Additionally, thieves have made use of stolen identities to send
'spam' unsolicited bulk email messages and commercial
solicitations-circumventing mechanisms intended to block such
unwanted messages by sending them from the accounts of unwitting
identity theft victims. According to a report commissioned by McAfee,
a computer-security company, approximately 62 trillion unsolicited
emails were sent in 2008, with serious economic and environmental
consequences. Many of these messages were sent from stolen or
hijacked email accounts.

Already, states like California have passed laws to crack down on
digital impersonation. New York should follow suit. This legislation
would create effective penalties for those who engage in digital
impersonation for the purposes of harming, threatening, or defrauding
another person, sending unsolicited bulk emails or commercial
solicitations, or downloading or utilizing a contact list. It also
establishes a civil cause of action for people who are victims of
digital impersonation.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
None.

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
To be determined.

EFFECTIVE DATE:
The law shall take effect on the first of November
next succeeding the date upon which it shall have become law.


Text
S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
4015
2011-2012 Regular Sessions
I N SENATE
March 14, 2011
Introduced by Sen. GOLDEN -- read twice and ordered printed, and when
printed to be committed to the Committee on Codes
AN ACT to amend the penal law, in relation to enacting the digital
impersonation prevention act
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. This act shall be known and may be cited as the "digital
impersonation prevention act".
S 2. The penal law is amended by adding a new section 190.87 to read
as follows:
S 190.87 DIGITAL IMPERSONATION.
1. (A) A PERSON IS GUILTY OF DIGITAL IMPERSONATION WHEN HE OR SHE,
KNOWINGLY, WITH INTENT TO DEFRAUD AND WITHOUT CONSENT, CREDIBLY IMPERSO
NATES ANOTHER ACTUAL PERSON THROUGH OR ON AN INTERNET WEB SITE OR BY
OTHER ELECTRONIC MEANS FOR PURPOSES OF: (I) HARMING, INTIMIDATING,
THREATENING OR DEFRAUDING ANOTHER PERSON; (II) TRANSMITTING UNSOLICITED
COMMERCIAL SOLICITATIONS OR UNSOLICITED BULK MESSAGES; OR (III) COPYING,
ACCESSING, DOWNLOADING OR UTILIZING A CONTACT LIST.
(B) FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, AN IMPERSONATION IS CREDIBLE IF
ANOTHER PERSON WOULD REASONABLY BELIEVE, OR DID REASONABLY BELIEVE, THAT
THE DEFENDANT WAS OR IS THE PERSON WHO WAS IMPERSONATED.
2. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION: (A) "ELECTRONIC MEANS" SHALL INCLUDE
CREATING OR OPENING AN E-MAIL ACCOUNT OR AN ACCOUNT OR PROFILE ON A
SOCIAL NETWORKING INTERNET WEB SITE IN ANOTHER PERSON'S NAME; OR ACCESS
ING ANOTHER PERSON'S PRE-EXISTING E-MAIL ACCOUNT OR AN ACCOUNT OR
PROFILE ON A SOCIAL NETWORKING INTERNET WEB SITE; OR ALTERING OR CHANG
ING THE PROPERTIES OF AN E-MAIL, OR E-MAIL HEADER, TO APPEAR AS THOUGH
THE E-MAIL ORIGINATED FROM A DIFFERENT SOURCE WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
CONSENT FROM THE ACCOUNT HOLDER.
(B) "CONTACT LIST" SHALL INCLUDE ANY LIST OF THIRD-PARTY CONTACT
NAMES, ADDRESSES, TELEPHONE NUMBERS, MOBILE PHONE NUMBERS, FACSIMILE
EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD09358-02-1 S. 4015 2
NUMBERS, E-MAIL ADDRESSES, INSTANT MESSENGER NAMES, OR OTHER INFORMATION
USED FOR CONTACTING INDIVIDUALS.
(C) "UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL SOLICITATIONS" SHALL INCLUDE ANY ADVER
TISEMENT RELATED TO THE AVAILABILITY OR QUALITY OF ANY PROPERTY, GOODS,
OR SERVICES OR TRANSMISSION OF A HYPERLINK TO A WEB SITE OR UNIFORM
RESOURCE LOCATOR (URL) WHICH HAS ANY MATERIAL ADVERTISING THE AVAILABIL
ITY OR QUALITY OF ANY PROPERTY, GOODS, OR SERVICES.
(D) "UNSOLICITED BULK MESSAGES" SHALL INCLUDE THE TRANSMISSION OF AN
E-MAIL, INSTANT MESSAGE, OR SOCIAL NETWORKING POST THAT IS PUBLISHED TO
MORE THAN ONE UNIQUE RECIPIENT.
3. A VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION ONE OF THIS SECTION SHALL BE PUNISHABLE
BY A FINE NOT TO EXCEED ONE THOUSAND DOLLARS OR BY IMPRISONMENT NOT TO
EXCEED ONE YEAR, OR BY BOTH THE FINE AND IMPRISONMENT.
4. IN ADDITION TO ANY OTHER CIVIL REMEDY AVAILABLE, A PERSON WHO
SUFFERS DAMAGE OR LOSS BY REASON OF A VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION ONE OF
THIS SECTION MAY BRING A CIVIL ACTION AGAINST THE VIOLATOR FOR STATUTORY
DAMAGES OF FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS PER OCCURRENCE, COMPENSATORY DAMAGES,
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF OR OTHER EQUITABLE RELIEF. IF THE COURT FINDS THAT
THE DEFENDANT WILLFULLY OR KNOWINGLY VIOLATED THIS SECTION OR THE REGU
LATIONS PRESCRIBED UNDER THIS SECTION, THE COURT MAY, IN ITS DISCRETION,
INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF THE AWARD TO AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO NOT MORE THAN
THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE UNDER THIS SUBDIVISION.
5. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "OCCURRENCE" SHALL INCLUDE EACH ACT
OF CREATING OR OPENING AN E-MAIL ACCOUNT OR AN ACCOUNT OR PROFILE ON A
SOCIAL NETWORKING INTERNET WEB SITE; ACCESSING ANOTHER PERSON'S PRE-EX
ISTING E-MAIL ACCOUNT, ACCOUNT OR PROFILE ON A SOCIAL NETWORKING INTER
NET WEB SITE OR CONTACT LIST; ALTERING OR CHANGING THE PROPERTIES OF AN
E-MAIL, OR E-MAIL HEADER, TO APPEAR AS THOUGH THE E-MAIL ORIGINATED FROM
A DIFFERENT SOURCE; AND THE TRANSMISSION OF AN UNSOLICITED COMMERCIAL
SOLICITATION TO A UNIQUE RECIPIENT.
S 3. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed
ing the date upon which it shall have become a law.

Peter Senese suggestions on how to protect your child from international abduction

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.