U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

A Message From OJJDP

While State custody laws vary, the

laws of every State establish that

abducting one’s own child is a crime.

OJJDP has funded four research

projects on preventing family abductions: a documentary study, a criminal sanctions study, an interview

study, and an intervention study. The

design and findings of these research

projects are described in this Bulletin.

The findings provide information

regarding the risk factors associated

with parental kidnaping and strategies that can be used to intervene

with families at greatest risk. They

address such critical factors as the

characteristics of parents who abduct

their own children, the role family

violence plays in increasing the likelihood of parental abduction, ways of

identifying children at risk of being

abducted by a parent or other family

member, and steps that can be taken

to protect children from family

abduction.

Recommendations to increase parental access to legal resources,

develop responses to reported family

violence, provide services to families

involved in custody disputes, protect

children’s interests, and create unified family courts are also included.

OJJDP believes that the information

this Bulletin provides will enhance

efforts to identify risk factors for parental abduction and help protect

children from harm.

March 2001

◆ What type of parent abducts his or

her child?

◆ What role does family violence play in

increasing the likelihood of abduction?

◆ How can one identify which child is at

risk of being abducted by a parent or

other family members?

◆ What can be done to prevent family

abductions and protect the child?

This Bulletin describes the multiple discrete research projects that made up the

research study and highlights the findings. The authors also recommend steps

that communities can take to help protect

children from family abduction.

Research Design

The four discrete research projects that

made up the study were designed to

Early Identification of Risk

Factors for Parental

Abduction

Janet R. Johnston, Inger Sagatun-Edwards,

Martha-Elin Blomquist, and Linda K. Girdner

“You’ll never see your child again!” When

are these words an idle threat spoken in

anger and frustration and when are they

a warning that a parent intends to abduct

his or her child, depriving the child and

the other parent of future contact?

Although custody laws vary from State to

State, abducting one’s own child is a

crime in every State. If a parent or other

family member takes, hides, or keeps a

child away from a parent with custody or

visitation rights, then he or she may have

committed a crime.1 More important, a

child often is harmed by life on the run

and by being deprived of his or her other

parent. Prior to abduction, many of these

children have been exposed to neglectful

and abusive behaviors in their homes and

have witnessed high levels of conflict between their parents. These children are at

risk for psychological harm.

The U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, funded a research study (Johnston et

al., 1998) on prevention of family abduction through early identification of risk

factors to answer the following questions:2

1

 In some States, these actions are a crime if a custody

order is in place, while in other States, these actions

are a crime if the parent has a right to custody.

2

 The research study was a collaboration between the

Judith S. Wallerstein Center for the Family in Transition

and the American Bar Association Center on Children

and the Law. The authors encourage readers to study

the full report, Prevention of Parent or Family Abduction

Through Early Identification of Risk Factors (Johnston et

al., 1998), which brings together several years of research and provides much greater detail regarding who

abducts their child, what interventions are effective,

and how to protect the child from family abduction. To

order a copy of this report (NCJ 182791), call 800–638–

8736 or send an e-mail to puborder@ncjrs.org.
2

◆ Abduction by a parent with rights of

custody who has a custody order from

the court (postcustodial abduction).

◆ Abductions by persons with no rights

of custody.

Unwed, married, separated, or divorced

parents and parents who have sole or

joint custody or visitation or no custody

rights can commit parental abduction by

violating the rights of the other parent.

A second reason for choosing California is

that, because they are mandated to use

both civil and criminal remedies to locate

and recover abducted children, district

attorneys in California have extensive

Profiles of Parents At Risk for Abducting Their Children

identify the characteristics of abductors

and their families and examine the effectiveness of interventions used to prevent

or respond to child abductions. Research

was conducted in the San Francisco Bay

Area of California. This location was chosen for several reasons. First, California’s

criminal statute broadly defines parental

abduction (also known as criminal custodial interference or child stealing) to include the following offenses:

◆ Abduction by a parent with rights of

custody and visitation who has no custody order from the court (precustodial

abduction).

Profile 1: When There Has Been a Prior

Threat of or Actual Abduction

When a parent has made credible threats to abduct a child

or has a history of hiding the child, withholding visitation, or

snatching the child from the other parent, there is great distrust between the parents and a heightened risk of further

custody violation. This risk profile is usually combined with

one or more of the other profiles. In these cases, the underlying psychological and social dynamics that motivate the

abduction need to be understood and addressed. When other

risk factors are present, one or more of the following are general indicators of an imminent threat of flight with the child:

◆ The parent is unemployed, homeless, and without emotional or financial ties to the area.

◆ The parent has divulged plans to abduct the child and has

the resources or the support of extended family and/or

friends and underground dissident networks needed to

survive in hiding.

◆ The parent has liquidated assets, made maximum withdrawals of funds against credit cards, or borrowed money

from other sources.

 Profile 2: When a Parent Suspects or Believes

 Abuse Has Occurred and Friends and Family

 Members Support These Concerns

Many parents abduct their child because they believe that the

other parent is abusing, molesting, or neglecting the child.

These abducting parents feel that the authorities have not

taken them seriously or properly investigated the allegations. Repeated allegations increase the hostility and distrust between the parents. Parents who have the fixed belief

that abuse has occurred—and will continue to occur—then

“rescue” the child, often with the help of supporters who concur with their beliefs, justify their actions, and often help with

the abduction and concealment. Supporters might include

family members, friends, or underground networks (usually

women) that help “protective” parents (usually women) obtain new identities and find safe locations.

In a large number of cases, the child has been previously

exposed to neglectful, endangering, or violent environments (e.g., domestic violence or substance abuse). In

these cases, the courts and child protective services may

have failed to protect the child and the concerned parent or

family member. They may have trivialized the allegations,

dismissing them as invalid or the product of a contentious

divorce. Often, however, the allegation of sexual abuse by a

father or stepfather that motivates a mother to abduct her

child is unsubstantiated. In these cases, the abduction can

psychologically harm the child and the other parent, possibly leaving their relationship in serious need of repair.

 Profile 3: When a Parent Is Paranoid Delusional

Although only a small percentage of parents fit this profile,

these parents present the greatest risk of physical harm or

death to the child, regardless of whether an abduction occurs. Parents who fit the paranoid profile hold markedly irrational or psychotic delusions that the other parent will definitely harm them and/or the child. Believing themselves to

be betrayed and exploited by their former partner, these

parents urgently take what they consider to be necessary

measures to protect themselves and the child.

Psychotic parents do not perceive the child as a separate person. Rather, they perceive the child as part of

themselves—that is, as a victim (in which case they take

unilateral measures to rescue the child)—or they perceive

the child as part of the hated other parent (in which case

they may precipitously abandon or even kill the child). Marital separation and/or the instigation of the custody dispute

generally triggers an acute phase of danger for these psychotic individuals. The result can be not only parental abduction, but also murder and suicide.

 Profile 4: When a Parent Is Severely Sociopathic

Sociopathic parents are characterized by a long history of

flagrant violations of the law and contempt for any authority—

including that of the legal system. Their relationships with

files on a range of parental abductions.3

Third, California is a large State with a

diverse population, and fourth, comparative data on litigated custody already

exist in California. Finally, California provides an affirmative defense for victims

3

 When this study was conducted, California was the

only State in which the district attorneys acted as the

enforcement arm of the family court. The Uniform

Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act—

promulgated in 1997 by the National Conference of

Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and approved

by the American Bar Association in 1998—includes

enforcement provisions similar to California’s. To obtain more information on this Act, visit www.nccusl.org

on the World Wide Web.
3

other people are self-serving, exploitive, and highly manipulative. These people are also likely to hold exaggerated beliefs about their own superiority and entitlement

and are highly gratified by their ability to exert power and

control over others. As with paranoid and delusional parents, sociopathic parents are unable to perceive their children as having separate needs or rights. Consequently,

they often use their children as instruments of revenge or

punishment or as trophies in their fight with the former

partner. Sociopathic parents have no qualms about continuing coercive, controlling, and abusive behavior or abducting their child, nor do they believe that they should be

punished for their actions. Like paranoia, a diagnosis of

severe sociopathy is rare.

Profile 5: When a Parent Who Is a Citizen of

 Another Country Ends a Mixed-Culture Marriage

Parents who are citizens of another country (or who have

dual citizenship with the United States) and have strong

ties to their extended family in their country of origin have

long been recognized as potential abductors. The risk of

abduction is especially acute at the time of parental separation and divorce, when these parents may feel cast adrift

from their mixed-culture marriage and may need to return

to their ethnic or religious roots to find emotional support

and reconstitute a shaken self-identity. Often in reaction to

being rendered helpless or feeling rejected and discarded

by the former spouse, such parents may try to take unilateral action by returning with the child to their family of origin. This is a way of insisting that the abducting parent’s

cultural identity be given preeminent status in the child’s

upbringing.

 Profile 6: When Parents Feel Alienated From the

 Legal System and Have Family/Social Support

 in Another Community

Many subgroups of potential abductors feel alienated from

the judicial system. Listed below are five such subgroups.

Subgroup 1. Parents who are indigent and poorly educated

lack knowledge about custody and abduction laws and cannot

afford the legal representation or psychological counseling that

would help them resolve their disputes. Those parents who

have extended family or other social, emotional, and economic

support in another geographical community may be at risk for

abducting their children.

Subgroup 2. Many parents cannot afford and are unaware of

the need to access the court system. In addition, those who

have had prior negative experiences with civil or criminal

courts do not expect family courts to be responsive to their

values or their plight.

Subgroup 3. Parents who belong to certain ethnic, religious,

or cultural groups may hold views about childrearing that

are contrary to the prevailing custody laws that emphasize

gender neutrality and the rights of both parents. These

parents instead turn to their own social networks for support

and use informal self-help measures rather than the courts

in disputes over the children.

Subgroup 4. A mother who has a transient, unmarried relationship with her child’s father often views the child as her

property, and her extended family supports this belief. Many

of the women in this subgroup assume they have sole custody of their child and are genuinely surprised when they are

informed that the father—by law in California and most other

States—has joint rights to the child.

Subgroup 5. Parents who are victims of domestic violence

are at risk of abducting their child, especially when the courts

and community have failed to take the necessary steps to protect them from abuse or to hold the abuser accountable. Joint

custody, mediated agreements, and visitation orders often

leave victims vulnerable to ongoing violence, despite separation from the abuser. When such victims abduct their child, the

violent partners may successfully obscure the facts about the

abuse and activate the abduction laws to regain control of their

victims.

who are fleeing domestic violence situations, thus providing researchers with an

opportunity to assess to what extent and

when these kinds of cases are identified

and excluded from charges of parental

child stealing.

In the first of the four research studies,

the “Documentary Study,” Inger SagatunEdwards (1998) studied 634 parental

child-stealing cases from files opened by

the district attorneys in two California

counties between 1987 and 1990. From

these documents, information was gleaned

about each family’s sociodemographic status, legal situation, abduction circumstances, and dispute characteristics and

the legal system’s response to parental

child stealing. Based on these records,

researchers developed a general description of abductors and a summary of the

legal system’s response to abductions.

In the second study, the “Statewide Criminal Sanctions Study” (Statewide Study),

Martha-Elin Blomquist (1998) examined

data from statewide criminal history

records for all 950 persons who were arrested for violating one of three sections

of the California criminal code for parental abduction between 1984 and 1989.

Blomquist used various statistical analyses to describe the characteristics of offenders, offenses, case dispositions, and

subsequent conduct, including that of

repeat offenders and serial abductions.

A subset of those arrested for multiple

abductions was also examined.

In the third research study, the “Interview

Study,” Janet Johnston (1998c) conducted

indepth interviews with a random sample

of 70 parents from 50 abducting families

drawn from the district attorneys’ records

used in the Documentary Study. The participants in this study—35 men and 35

women, half of whom were abductors and

half of whom were left-behind parents—

also completed psychological questionnaires. The researchers systematically

compared the demographic, legal, psychological, and family dynamic characteristics

of these abducting families with similar

data from 114 members of 57 high-conflict
4

nonabducting families who were litigating

custody.

Six descriptive profiles of parents at risk

for abducting their children emerged from

the findings of the Interview Study (see

the sidebar on pages 2–3). In the fourth

study, referred to as the “Intervention

Study,” Johnston (1998a, 1998b) provided

instruction to Family Court Services personnel (who are mandated to mediate all

custody disputes in California) on how to

identify individuals who fit one or more of

the descriptive profiles and encouraged

the personnel to refer these individuals

to the Intervention Study for special interventions developed for the profiles. Fifty

families identified as fitting one or more

of the risk profiles for abduction were randomly assigned to one of two counseling

interventions: a brief 10-hour intervention

that primarily involved diagnostic and

referral services or a longer, 40-hour intervention that included more extensive

counseling and mediation of the family’s

impasse. Other services, such as legal

representation and abuse investigations,

were sought for both intervention groups

as needed. Researchers evaluated the

parents after 9 months to analyze and

compare the outcomes of the two types of

intervention models. The findings of the

four component studies are summarized

in the following two sections.

Findings of the First

Three Studies

The combined findings of the Documentary, Statewide, and Interview Studies

that identified the characteristics of families in which abduction occurred are summarized below. In most cases, the characteristics were found by two or more of

these studies, but in some cases, only one

of the studies obtained relevant data.

◆ According to the Documentary and

Interview Studies, children abducted

by their parents or other family members were usually preschoolers. In

the majority of cases, one child was

abducted.

◆ According to the Documentary and

Interview Studies, mothers and fathers

were equally likely to abduct. The abducted child’s parent, usually in his or

her midtwenties or midthirties, almost

always carried out the abduction, although the child’s grandparent or stepparent occasionally was the abductor.

◆ The Documentary Study showed that

almost two-thirds of the abductions

were postcustodial offenses; that is,

the abduction occurred after the issuance of a court order dictating the custody of the child. In the Statewide

Study, however, abductions were more

evenly divided between pre- and

postcustodial offenses.

◆ The Statewide and Documentary Studies found that mothers were more likely

to abduct when a custody order existed, whereas fathers were more likely

to abduct when no custody order existed. The Statewide Study found that

fathers were twice as likely as mothers

to abduct in the absence of a custody

order.

◆ The Statewide and Documentary Studies discovered that fathers were much

more likely to use force to abduct their

children or to retain them by not returning them from a visitation, whereas mothers rarely used force to abduct

their children. Instead, mothers were

more likely to flee with the children or

to deny the fathers visitation. These

patterns of behavior reflect that mothers usually have physical possession of

their children.

◆ According to the Documentary and Interview Studies, divorced parents were

the largest category of abductors, followed by unwed and separated parents.

When compared with custody-litigating

parents in the Interview Study, abducting parents were far more likely to be

unwed. This group of unwed abducting

parents also included a subgroup of

unwed parents who had cohabited or

had brief transitory relationships.

◆ Both the Documentary and Interview

Studies found that more than one-half

of the abducting parents were poor, unemployed, unskilled or semiskilled, and

poorly educated. Consequently, the

poor were overrepresented in the population of abductors and their families.

Compared with custody-litigating mothers in the Interview Study, mothers in

abducting families were more likely to

be unemployed, depend on public assistance, and receive no child support

from the fathers. Many mothers had

few, if any, economic incentives to remain in the geographical area.

◆ According to all three studies, rates of

reported abductions and abduction

arrests varied by race and ethnic background. The proportions of Caucasian

and Hispanic abductors were similar to

the percentages of these racial groups

in the general population: Caucasians

were the largest group of abductors,

followed by Hispanics. In cases reported to the justice system, African

Americans who abduct were overrepresented and Asians who abduct were

underrepresented relative to their

percentage in the population. With

the exception of the Caucasian group,

fathers were more likely than mothers

to abduct.

◆ According to the Documentary and Interview Studies, abductors were disproportionately unwed, low-income parents. Specifically, the Interview Study

found that many of these young parents

had brief relationships with one another and never developed a pattern of

working together as parents. The mothers and their extended family felt that

the child belonged to them and that the

fathers had few, if any, custodial or visitation rights. Rather than looking to

the legal system to assign physical

An Overview of the

Research Projects

◆ Documentary Study. Based on

information gleaned from files

opened by the district attorneys

in two California counties, researchers developed a general

description of abductors and a

summary of the legal system’s

response to abductions.

◆ Statewide Criminal Sanctions

Study. Researchers examined

data from California’s criminal

history records and used various

statistical analyses to describe

offenders, offenses, case dispositions, and subsequent conduct.

◆ Interview Study. Researchers

conducted indepth interviews with

a random sample of parents from

abducting families and, based

on their findings, developed six

descriptive profiles of parents at

risk for abducting their children.

◆ Intervention Study. Researchers

provided instruction to Family

Court Services personnel on how

to identify individuals who fit one

or more of the descriptive profiles.

Personnel were then encouraged

to refer these individuals to the

study for special interventions

developed for the profiles.
5

possession and visitation rights to

specific individuals, the mothers relied

on their extended family and friends to

help raise the child and make informal

custody decisions. These parents did

not use family courts to resolve custody disputes because they could not

afford legal representation and because the legal system was largely foreign to them. Instead, they abducted

their children without regard to legal

ramifications.

◆ Records from the Documentary Study

showed that about one-fourth of the

abductors did not operate alone in the

act of abducting. Many abductors relied on a network of family and social

support to carry out and maintain the

abduction. The Interview Study found

that a significant proportion of abductors (almost three-fifths of women and

two-fifths of men) received moral support for their actions and practical

help in planning the abduction. The

network of supporters provided money,

food, and lodging and was willing to

conceal the whereabouts of the child.

This widespread support for their actions may be one reason why many

abductors do not recognize that their

actions are illegal.

◆ According to the Interview Study, parents in abducting families—especially

mothers—were significantly less likely

than parents in high-conflict, custodylitigating families to have legal representation. The custody-litigating families were somewhat more likely than

the abducting families to have detailed

custody and visitation orders, to include provisions for therapy, and to

have been granted restraining (stayaway) orders. While abducting families

were significantly less likely than

custody-litigating families to go to

family court (on custody, visitation,

child support, spousal support, property, or restraining orders), they were

more likely to have come into contact

with the juvenile court.

◆ The numbers of substantiated allegations of neglect and unsubstantiated

allegations of sexual abuse were higher

among abducting families than among

custody-litigating families. In the Interview Study, abducting parents frequently alleged that child protective

services and family courts did not take

their complaints seriously or failed to

conduct a thorough investigation. Rates

of allegations of parental substance

abuse were similar in abducting and

custody-litigating families.

◆ According to the Documentary and

Interview Studies, family violence and/

or child abuse was a dynamic in many

abducting families. Mothers—whether

they were abductors or left-behind

parents—more often claimed that

child and/or spousal abuse had occurred. Women abductors were more

likely to see the abduction as an attempt to protect their children from

abusive fathers or spouses, whereas

male abductors were more likely to

claim that they were attempting to

protect their children from neglectful

mothers. Men—whether they were leftbehind or abducting parents—were

more likely to be accused of domestic

violence and sexual abuse. The Statewide Study, however, showed little evidence that formal criminal charges of

domestic violence offenses had occurred either prior to or around the

time of the abduction.

◆ Both the custody-litigating parents

and the sample of abductors and leftbehind parents in the Interview Study

reported similarly high incident rates

of domestic violence, including severe

physical aggression. Despite California’s

affirmative defense for parents who

take their children to flee violence, not

all cases involving domestic violence

were identified and provided protection

under this defense. For a small number

of parents in the Interview Study, attempts to escape the violence by fleeing with the children backfired. For example, some women with few resources

who were caught abducting their children had no place to stay after recovery

and therefore resorted to returning to

their abusive partners. Other mothers

fitting this profile remained separated

but were subject to court-ordered visitation arrangements that put them and

their children at ongoing risk of being

physically harmed and terrorized by

their violent and controlling ex-partner.

◆ Compared with the general adult population, the high-conflict, litigating families and abducting families in the Interview Study demonstrated similarly

higher levels of anger, lower levels of

cooperation, a pervasive distrust of

the ex-partner’s parenting, greater

emotional distress, and behaviors indicative of character disorders. This

signaled that anger and spite, which

are more often attributed to separation

and divorce, were not sufficient in

themselves to motivate abduction.

◆ About one-half of the abductors and

two-fifths of the left-behind parents in

the Documentary and Interview Studies

had criminal arrest records. The Statewide Study revealed that more than

one-half of those who were arrested for

criminal custodial interference had a

previous arrest record. Of these, onethird had been incarcerated. Far more

men than women had arrest records

prior to the abduction, and ethnic and

racial minorities were more likely than

nonminorities to have been arrested

for more serious offenses. Those with

criminal arrest records were more likely

to have been arrested for precustodial

offenses, indicating that most had not

attempted to resolve the custody dispute through the court system. The Interview Study found that abductors had

high levels of narcissistic and sociopathic character disorders. People with

these character disorders often have

contempt for the law and feel that laws

do not apply to them and, therefore,

they can easily run afoul of the criminal

justice system.

◆ The Statewide Study showed that only

about 10 percent of those arrested for

criminal custodial interference were

rearrested for a subsequent abduction.

The Interview Study showed higher

recidivism rates, with self-reports of

reabductions at 30 percent. This difference is likely due to the fact that parents do not always report abductions—

particularly short-term snatchings—to

law enforcement or the district attorney. Also, the district attorneys’ criteria

for defining a complaint as an abduction case may differ from the parents’

criteria. For example, a district attorney

is more likely to perceive a violation as

an abduction when a noncustodial parent does not return the child and is less

likely to perceive a violation as an abduction when a custodial parent chronically withholds visitation.

Together, these findings suggest a number

of interrelated family risk factors that predict child abduction by a parent, especially when children are very young. Parents and family members at risk are those

who make persistent allegations of child

abuse/neglect and family violence, have

narcissistic/sociopathic personality traits,

and have a history of trouble with the law.

Others who are at risk include those who

are unmarried, less educated, poor, and of
6

ethnic minority status (especially those

whose extended family live in another

geographical area or another country).

All of these factors make parents less

likely to resolve custody disputes by using the formal, legal system. Instead they

turn to their own families and social networks for emotional support and practical help, which may include abduction.

Six profiles of separating/divorced parents at risk for abducting their children

are proposed on the basis of these findings and are shown in the table on pages

6–7. To the extent that families meet the

criteria for more than one profile, the risk

for abduction is probably increased. The

table also lists suggested interventions

that authorities and parents can take to

help reduce the likelihood of abductions.

Findings of the

Intervention Study

In the Intervention Study, Family Court

Services personnel used the six profiles

to identify individuals at risk for abducting and then referred these individuals

to one of two interventions. This study

found that, compared with baseline

(precounseling) measures, all parents in

the study were more cooperative, less

violent, and more likely to resolve disputes over custody issues than before the

intervention. In addition, custody violations and parental abductions also decreased. The brief 10-hour intervention

was as effective as the extended 40-hour

intervention in achieving these results.

The success of both interventions was

attributed to the increased attention the

family courts gave the at-risk families,

which led to early imposition of constraints by the court, increased use of

Risk Factors and Preventive Interventions for Custody Violation and Parental Abduction

Risk Profile Behavioral Indicators* Interventions†

When there has been a • Threatens to take child, has a history of • Obtain certified copy of custody/visitation

prior threat of or actual hiding child, refuses visits, or snatches order specifying access and jurisdiction.

abduction child. • Obtain restraining order that prohibits

• Has no financial or emotional ties to area. leaving area without permission.

• Has resources to survive in hiding or help • Flag passports or school, medical, and

from others to do so; has liquidated assets birth records so that both parents need

or has made maximum withdrawals of to approve the release of or at least be

funds against credit cards. advised of the other parent’s request to

see these materials.

• Supervise visits or use electronic

surveillance.

• Require that potential abducting parent

post bonds.

• Provide family counseling and mediation

of impasse.

When a parent suspects or • Has a fixed belief that the child is abused, • Undertake a timely, thorough investigation

believes abuse has occurred molested, or neglected and that authorities of allegations.

and friends and family mem- will not take charges seriously and will • Inform concerned social network.

bers support these concerns dismiss them as unsubstantiated. • Coordinate all professionals involved to

• Has the support of friends and family. share perspectives and conclusions.

• Makes repetitive allegations and is • Implement temporary supervised visits

increasingly hostile; distrust between to protect abused child or falsely acparents exists. cused parent. If investigation is inconclusive, appoint coparenting counselorarbitrator to provide counseling, rebuild

trust, and monitor situation.

• Provide the child with therapy.

When a parent is paranoid • Is flagrantly paranoid and irrational and • Assess lethality!

delusional makes allegations. • Conduct emergency ex parte hearing

• Has a history of hospitalizations for for psychiatric screening; appoint legal

mental illness and has delusions of mind representation for child and deluded

control. parent.

• Engages in bizarre forms of domestic • Suspend visits or supervise with high

violence; boundary confusion observable security.

between parent and child. • Award temporary custody to other

• Makes threats of murder/suicide. parent or to third party.

• Provide adult psychiatric treatment and

child therapy.
7

investigation and evaluation, and monitoring of resolved custody issues.

Effectiveness of

the Legal System’s

Response to Family

Abduction

The Documentary and Statewide Studies

yielded data on the California legal system’s response in cases of family abduction and on the relative effectiveness of

its response. In a multivariate analysis

that controlled for custodial and marital

status, gender, occupation, race, criminal

history, and family violence/child abuse

allegations of the parents, the Documentary Study found that the greater the intervention by the district attorney’s

office, the more rapid the recovery of the

child. The intervention ranged from filing

a complaint to issuance of a criminal

charge, prosecution, conviction, and, finally, incarceration. Almost one-half of

the children were returned within about

2 months of the filing of a complaint, and

two-thirds were returned within 3 years

of the abduction.

The threat of prosecution was sufficient

to bring most abductors back with the

child. In about 90 percent of the cases in

which the child was recovered, the case

was resolved informally by the district

attorney’s office, often after the abducting

parent had been informed that abduction

is a crime under State law. Once abducting parents realized that criminal action

could be taken against them, they often

returned the child voluntarily and attempted to resolve the matter in family

court. If the abductor attempted to obtain

a custody order or modification of an order in the court with proper jurisdiction,

Risk Factors and Preventive Interventions for Custody Violation and Parental Abduction—Continued

Risk Profile Behavioral Indicators* Interventions†

When a parent is severely • Has multiple arrests and convictions and • Have the parent obtain appropriate

sociopathic a blatant contempt for court orders. restraining orders.

• Stalks, makes threats of domestic violence, • Engage decisive use of court authority;

manipulates and controls, or initiates obtain explicit court orders and rapid

vexatious litigation. sanctions for contempt; fine or jail.

• Has self-serving, exploitive, and self- • Suspend or supervise access and resume

aggrandizing relationships. unsupervised visits contingent on

conforming behavior.

When a parent who is a citizen • See “When there has been a prior threat • See “When there has been a prior threat

of another country ends a of or actual abduction” (above). of or actual abduction” (above).

mixed-culture marriage • Idealizes own family, homeland, and • Require that parent departing with child

culture after dissolution of mixed-cultural post bonds to ensure return from visiting

marriage and depreciates American culture; homeland; hold passport and monitor

rejects or dismisses child’s mixed airlines.

heritage. • Obtain mirror custody orders with country

• Feels separation and divorce are severe of origin; inform families of consequences

loss/humiliation. of aiding custody violation.

• Feels homeland offers more emotional/ • Provide culturally sensitive divorce

financial support. counseling, including child’s need for

• Is a high risk if from a non-Hague both parents and both cultural identities.

country.‡ • Provide emotional/financial support.

When parents feel alienated • Is undergoing severe economic hardship, • Provide access to legal services, pro se

from the legal system and is poorly educated, and never married. clinics, and translation assistance.

have family/social support in • Is a member of an ethnic minority group, • Advocate community services.

another community has language barriers, and has cultural • Provide culturally sensitive divorce and

beliefs regarding custody contrary to U.S. custody counseling/mediation.

legal norms. • Educate parent and social network

• Is a victim of domestic violence and is regarding abduction laws.

alienated from major social institutions.

• Has family/social support in another

geographic area.

* Common to all profiles: (1) Parent dismisses value of other parent for child, (2) child is very young or vulnerable to influence, and (3) abductor has

family and social support.

† General principle: More restrictive measures that curtail parents’ freedoms are warranted when (1) the risks for abduction are greater, (2) the

obstacles to the recovery of the child are more substantial, and (3) the potential harm to the child is more extensive.

‡ The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, ratified in 1986, is an international treaty that establishes administrative and judicial mechanisms to bring about the prompt return of an abducted or wrongfully retained child, usually to his or her country of habitual

residence, and to facilitate the exercise of visitation across international borders. The Convention took effect in 1988, following enactment of the

International Child Abduction Remedies Act, a Federal implementing statute.
8

then the district attorney’s office did not,

in general, pursue the criminal offense.

The district attorney formally prosecuted

only 10 percent of the abductors. Of

these, one-fourth were convicted with

no incarceration, one-fourth were convicted and incarcerated, and the remaining half were released because charges

were dismissed. The Statewide Study

found similar rates of conviction and incarceration, with repeat offenders more

likely to be convicted.

The Statewide Study included an examination of parents who were charged for abducting more than once. It found that the

greater the sanctions employed by the

court at the initial abduction, the more

likely the abductor was to reabduct, controlling for other factors. That is, those

convicted of abduction were more likely

than those not convicted to subsequently

reabduct their children. Not enough is

known about the psychological characteristics of those who were convicted to

understand why they were more likely to

reabduct. This group, however, represents

a very small and extreme subset of all family abductions (about 2–3 percent). Within

this group, conviction of criminal custodial

interference is not a successful deterrent to

further abductions, a fact that left-behind

parents greatly fear.

Both the Documentary and Statewide Studies found that the criminal justice system

was more likely to pursue postcustodial

offenders. When a parent violates an existing written custody order issued by the

court, it is easier for prosecutors to prove

the offense was a knowing violation. When

no such document exists, as in precustodial

abductions, it is harder to prove in court

that the abducting parent knew he or she

was violating the law.

The Statewide Study found a divergence

in the criminal justice system’s treatment

of men and women. Men were more likely

than women to be arrested for abduction,

but the women who were arrested for abduction were more likely than men to be

convicted and incarcerated. This difference appears to relate to the specific

criminal codes that men and women usually violate. Women were more likely to

abduct after a custody order existed, a

criminal offense that is easier to prove

to be a knowing violation. On the other

hand, men were more likely to abduct in

the absence of a custody order, a criminal

offense that is more difficult to prove to

be a knowing violation. In addition, violating an existing custody order constitutes

contempt of court, which judges are less

likely to tolerate. This apparent lack of

tolerance is more prevalent when the offender is a Caucasian woman, possibly

because the court expects her to be more

law-abiding than nonwhite women or

male offenders. The court, therefore, may

treat her more harshly than female offenders of other races or male offenders,

because her behavior is contrary to societal expectations.

The Documentary Study found no differences in the district attorneys’ treatment

of abduction cases with regard to the abductor’s gender, race, or ethnic background. The Statewide Study, however,

found that the criminal courts treated

Caucasians more harshly than ethnic and

racial minorities in case dispositions. This

may have been because the Caucasians

more often had child custody orders and,

therefore, violated the section of the code

that was easiest to prove. Another explanation for the disparity in treatment is

that the court expects Caucasians to be

more law-abiding—that is, the courts

more severely sanctioned Caucasians

who violated the law because this group

had fallen out of role expectations. Another interpretation is that Caucasian leftbehind parents pressed the justice system to pay more attention to their cases

and, in turn, obtained it.

The Documentary Study found that the

left-behind parents with higher occupational status were more likely to obtain

severe sanctions against the abductor.

One explanation for this is that more of

these parents have skills that enable them

to deal effectively with a government

agency. Examples of such skills include

persistence and organization and the

ability to provide information in a businesslike fashion, to gain cooperation, to

expect action, to keep track of conversations, and to take the initiative to

follow up.

Both the Documentary and Statewide Studies found that the criminal justice system

acted more harshly when responding to

abduction cases that included allegations

of child abuse or family violence by the

abductor toward the child or other parent.

Prior criminal history, however, did not

influence the district attorneys’ or the

criminal courts’ intervention.

What Children At

Risk for Abduction

Deserve From Their

Communities

What can be done to help parents at risk

for abducting their children make better

choices? What can the courts, public

agencies, and private and nonprofit organizations do to help families resolve their

disputes amicably while addressing their

legitimate concerns about protecting

their children to reduce the risk of abduction and the possibility of the children

being harmed?

Increased Parental Access

to Legal Information and

Representation

Problem 1: Parents generally lack

knowledge of or access to legal information. Most parents are not familiar with

custody and visitation laws. Many of them

do not know that moving to a new location

without going to court to obtain a custody

order or to modify an existing order can be

a crime when it violates the rights of the

other parent. Unwed parents often do not

know they should have a custody order.

Grandparents, stepparents, and others

who support parents in abducting their

children generally do not know that they

may be committing a felony by aiding and

abetting the abductor.

Recommendation: Develop public education programs that discuss relevant laws

for parents. Communities or organizations should develop public education

campaigns, including public service announcements, to educate the public

about custody and visitation laws and the

crime of parental abduction. These campaigns should provide information—via

radio, television, the Internet, and printed

materials—that will increase public

awareness. For example, programs or organizations that target at-risk populations

can provide informational brochures to

parents in these programs. Examples of

such programs or organizations include

public welfare offices, child support enforcement offices, programs for unwed

parents, organizations serving immigrant

and ethnic communities, mental health

agencies, the courts, and missing children’s organizations and clearinghouses.

Problem 2: Parents and children are

unable to obtain affordable legal representation. Educating parents about

the need for custody orders and ways to
9

prevent abductions does little good if

they are unable to access the legal system. Most low-income parents are unable

to find affordable representation in custody and visitation cases. Many middleclass parents in the midst of a divorce

cannot afford to hire attorneys for the

period of time needed to resolve contested custody cases. Legal services

offices often do not represent parents in

custody cases, unless the case fits under

a separate priority set by the office, such

as the prevention of domestic violence.4

Unwed mothers who seek public assistance are required to cooperate with welfare agencies in determining paternity

and child support, yet neither the mothers nor the fathers receive help in obtaining a court order that specifies their custody and visitation rights.

Recommendation: Develop communitybased programs that increase the parents’ access to legal representation.

The courts should appoint custody evaluators, guardians ad litem (legal representatives), or attorneys who represent

children to provide the parents with information and recommendations. More

programs that provide legal representation

on a pro bono or sliding scale basis should

be developed. Parents who do not have

legal representation should still be able to

obtain legal information and advice. Barriers that prevent attorneys from offering

partial services should be removed to enable parents to get the help they most

need from attorneys. Courts should also

be more user-friendly by allowing the offices of the clerks of the court to assist the

expanding population of pro se parents

(i.e., parents who do not retain a lawyer

and represent themselves in court).

In addition, jurisdictions should streamline procedures for obtaining custody and

visitation orders to make them available

to low-income, unwed parents. Programs

for parents, starting with the birth of the

child, should clarify custody rights and

responsibilities. Parents should be able to

obtain readily enforceable custody orders

and acquire legal assistance to obtain child

custody and visitation orders when courts

determine paternity and child support.

Problem 3: Enforcing custody orders is

time-consuming and costly. When a child

is abducted after a custody order is

obtained, the left-behind parent often

questions the usefulness of the custody

order. The left-behind parent faces the

prospect of hiring two attorneys (one attorney in each State if the abducting parent traveled to another State), filing enforcement proceedings with the court,

and waiting for a court date. Meanwhile,

the abducting parent may flee again with

the child. Many left-behind parents know

where their child is, but they are unable

to recover him or her.

Recommendation: Pass State laws that

mandate district attorneys to enforce

custody orders. California is the only

State that currently has an expedited enforcement measure for child custody orders. The measure mandates that the district attorney take whatever civil and

criminal remedies are necessary to locate

and recover children abducted by family

members and to enforce child custody

orders. In July 1997, the National Council

of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws

approved the Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA),

which contains a similar provision. As of

February 2001, 21 States and the District

of Columbia had enacted the UCCJEA, and

it had been introduced in the legislatures

of 10 other States.5

4

 Custody cases are ineligible to receive free legal aid

because it is too costly. This type of aid is available

only if a parent can prove that his or her case includes

domestic violence.

5

 The States that have enacted the UCCJEA are as follows: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, California,

Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maine,

Minnesota, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota,

Oklahoma, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and West

Virginia and the District of Columbia. The UCCJEA has

been introduced in the legislatures of Delaware, Florida,

Illinois, Maryland, Missouri, New Jersey, New York,

Rhode Island, Virginia, and Washington. For any updates, visit www.nccusl.org/uniformact_factsheets.

Development of Prompt

and Effective Responses

to Allegations and Acts of

Family Violence

Problem 1: Parents feel that child protective services and the courts do not

treat child abuse and neglect allegations

seriously or address them promptly.

Whether or not they lead to abductions,

allegations of child abuse and neglect fuel

many custody battles. When child protective services and the courts do not treat

these concerns seriously or address them

promptly, they exacerbate an already contentious environment. Some forms of

abuse, such as emotional abuse or allowing a child to witness domestic violence,

do not meet child protective services’

criteria of direct harm to the child. Nonetheless, the child is at considerable risk

of continued abuse or the psychological

damage caused by unfounded allegations.

Recommendation: Conduct thorough

and prompt child abuse and neglect

investigations. Child protective services

and the courts need sufficient funding to

hire and train staff to conduct thorough

and prompt child abuse and neglect investigations. If these concerns are addressed quickly, it is less likely that the

child will be harmed and that the parents

will continue to make allegations against

each other. It is critical that professionals

coordinate their efforts to arrive at a

sound conclusion.
10

Problem 2: Many victims of domestic

violence find that separation and divorce do not provide them with the

safety they sought by leaving the

abuser.6

 Abusive husbands are more

likely to seriously harm or kill their wives

during marital separation (Wilson and

Daley, 1993; Feld and Straus, 1990). Even

after divorce, custody and visitation

orders that do not address safety for the

survivor of domestic violence and her

children provide the abuser with continued opportunities to harm them.

Recommendation: Provide communitybased responses that protect victims

and make abusers accountable for their

actions. Domestic violence survivors who

have left their abuser should be able to

live in safety with their children without having to leave their communities.

Judges, lawyers, mediators, and custody

evaluators need to know how to identify

domestic violence and understand its

impact on the victim and her children.

Courts must consider custody and visitation orders that protect the victim and

the children from physical and psychological abuse. Communities should establish supervised visitation centers so that,

when necessary, parents can safely drop

off and pick up their children and visitations can be properly supervised.

Services for High-Risk and

High-Conflict Families

Disputing Custody

Problem 1: The traditional processes for

determining custody are not sufficient

or appropriate for many high-conflict

families—especially those who are also

at risk for abduction. Custody mediation

as usually practiced is not effective with

highly contentious families. They often

return to court to relitigate custody and

visitation issues—not to resolve parental

conflicts. Adjudication can result in a

well-crafted order, but high-conflict parents often do not carry out the terms

of the order (e.g., accessing services

ordered to help them with various problems). Consequently, the children continue to be exposed to harmful and

conflictual situations.

Recommendation: Offer high-risk and

high-conflict families innovative approaches that address custody conflicts.

Courts, family attorneys, and mental

health professionals working collaboratively can modify existing approaches

and develop new procedures and services

to better suit these families (Johnston,

2000). For example, parent education

programs—a popular innovation in many

jurisdictions—need to be adapted to meet

the needs of multicultural families from

different economic strata and highly

conflictual and violent families. Most parent education programs target the middleclass divorcing population, but they do

not address the situations that unwed,

low-income parents face. This population

cannot afford the services of mental

health professionals or attorneys; therefore, parent education may be the only

context in which they will learn about the

impact of their conflict on the children

and about the laws pertaining to custody

and visitation. If seminars portray lifestyles and circumstances that are not

reflective of their own, parents can be

further alienated as a result of the experience. Similarly, custody mediation and

custody evaluations should demonstrate

cultural sensitivity, particularly in mixedculture marriages where there may be a

risk of international child abduction.

Innovative adaptations of custody mediation have been developed for use with highconflict and high-risk families. Impassedirected therapeutic mediation or a briefer

diagnostic and referral intervention for

groups or for individual families, as utilized in the Intervention Study, is an

effective means of reducing conflicts and

the possibility of abduction, particularly

when paired with legal constraints (e.g.,

restraining orders) and needed services

(e.g., legal advice or substance abuse

treatment). Counselors who have conducted impasse-directed mediation with

groups have found that this intervention

has reduced conflict and relitigation and

is less costly than the individual family

model (Johnston and Campbell, 1988;

Johnston and Roseby, 1997).

Many high-risk and high-conflict families

need ongoing oversight and monitoring.

For the children’s sake, there needs to be

a means of checking whether parents are

honoring the terms of the custody and visitation orders. Are parents going to courtordered counseling or drug treatment?

Have parents attended to the child’s special medical needs? Have court-ordered

parental visitations been carried out without incident? Have there been further allegations of abuse? Has supervised visitation been properly supervised? Have the

parents attempted to snatch or actually

snatched the child? Does the order need

to change to reflect the parent’s new

work hours or the child’s summer schedule? Programs that monitor visitation

arrangements are one type of innovative

approach.

Some jurisdictions use a coparenting arbitrator or coordinator, as stipulated by an

agreement between the parents or by

court order, to decide on various issues

relating to the children. In one model, the

coparenting arbitrator is involved only

when parents are unable to agree, usually

despite the involvement of other professionals. In another model, the coparenting arbitrator acts as the parenting counselor, mediator, or child therapist on an

ongoing basis and exercises his or her

right to arbitrate only when parents fail to

agree on a specific matter. In both models, the arbitrator seeks to develop trust

with family members and a depth of understanding of the family dynamics.

In other jurisdictions, a family court judge

is responsible for managing the highconflict custody cases. The judge can

order periodic review of the case and can

monitor adherence to the custody and

visitation orders. Although the discretion

to undertake greater case management

responsibilities has always been available

to the courts, few have taken advantage

of this power on a systematic basis with

high-conflict families.

Protection of Children’s

Interests and Needs

Problem 1: Under current Federal and

State law, abduction is not a crime

against the child. Under current law, the

parent whose custody or visitation rights

have been interfered with by the abduction of his or her child is the victim of

family abduction. The law casts abducted

children as possessions that parents have

rights in, not as victims of a crime.

Recommendation: Modify laws so that

family abductions are crimes against the

child. In lieu of, or in addition to, criminal

custodial interference laws that recognize

the rights of the left-behind parent, laws

should recognize that family abduction is

a type of abuse against the child. Child

victims of abduction should be eligible for

services under the Victims of Crime Act,

42 U.S.C. § 10601.7

6

 Although men can be victims of domestic violence,

the majority of these victims are women.
11

7

 In 1990, the Crime Control Act, Pub. L. No. 101–647,

tit. V, §§ 502–503, 104 Stat. 4820 (codified at 42 U.S.C. §§

10606–10607 (1990)), established a new framework for

victims’ rights by creating the first Federal bill of rights

for victims of crime. This legislation, referred to as the

Victims’ Rights Act (or the Victims’ Rights and Restitution Act of 1990), requires Federal law enforcement

officers, prosecutors, and corrections officers to use

their “best efforts” to ensure that victims receive basic

rights and services. In 1994, the Violent Crime Control

and Law Enforcement Act, Pub. L. No. 103–322, tit. IV,

§§ 40113, 40221, 40503, tit. XXV, § 25002(a), tit. XXIII,

§ 230101(g), 108 Stat. 1904–2078 (codified at 42 U.S.C.

§ 10607(c)7, 14011(g); 18 U.S.C. §§ 2263–2264, 2248,

2259; and at Fed. R. Crim. P. 32 (1994)), created additional new rights for victims of sexual assault, domestic violence, and child abuse.

Problem 2: Children can be harmed by

recoveries, postabduction placements,

and custody orders that abruptly disrupt

their relationship with their primary

parent. Although society increasingly

recognizes that the child is harmed when

his or her relationship with a caring leftbehind parent is disrupted, society may not

fully understand the problems that arise

when the bond between the child and his

or her abducting parent is disrupted. The

child should not inadvertently be punished

for the parent’s actions, particularly if the

child’s primary bond is with that parent. In

some instances, the child is more traumatized by these disruptions than by the actual abduction. In cases of long-term abduction, the child may be returned to a parent

who is virtually a stranger and be cut off

from the only known parent.

Recommendation: Involve social services

at each phase of decisionmaking that

affects the child and minimize the disruption to the child’s relationship with a primary parent. Law enforcement officers and

social services should coordinate their efforts when the officers plan to recover the

child or arrest the abductor. These two

groups should know enough about the case

to assess whether the child would experience harm if unaccompanied by the abducting parent during the recovery and return

or to determine whether the abducting

parent presents a potential physical or

flight risk to the child. A mental health or

social services professional should also be

present when the child is reunited with the

left-behind parent or soon after. This professional can help facilitate the child’s transition and ease the feelings of anger, guilt,

and fear that often accompany it.

If the left-behind parent obtained an ex

parte (without notice to the other party)

custody order after the abduction, then

there was no full hearing on the best interests of the child. In these cases, a hearing

should be scheduled promptly after the

child is recovered to determine custody

and visitation, as ex parte orders are meant

to be temporary. As appropriate, judges

should consider alternatives to abrupt

shifts in the child’s caretaking arrangements, so that the child can gradually enter

into new arrangements, building the parentchild relationship over time.

Creation of Unified

Family Courts

Problem 1: Currently, judges often lack

access to information about other legal

proceedings affecting the child or the

parents. Spousal abuse and child abuse and

neglect are factors in many abducting families or those at risk for abducting, yet there

is little or no coordination among the

courts that handle child custody, child

abuse and neglect, spousal abuse, substance abuse, and criminal custodial interference cases. Lack of information from the

juvenile, other civil, or criminal courts can

lead to inappropriate and unsafe custody

arrangements that may increase risks for

children, including abduction risk.

Recommendation: Establish unified family

courts that have an integrated approach

to cases involving the same family. Unified

family courts allow for systematic case

management, integration of evaluation and

treatment services, and coordinated decisionmaking in cases involving the same

family. This system produces better decisions, reduces the confusion of parties, and

uses resources more efficiently than current systems. Both the American Bar Association and the National Council of Juvenile

and Family Court Judges have long been

committed to the unified children and

family courts concept. A unified family

court would reduce many of the problems

already described.

References

Blomquist, M. 1998. Studying risk factors for

family abduction. In Prevention of Parent or

Family Abduction Through Early Identification

of Risk Factors, edited by J.R. Johnston, I.

Sagatun-Edwards, M. Blomquist, and L.K.

Girdner. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, Center on Children and the Law.

Feld, S.L., and Straus, M.A. 1990. Escalation and

resistance from wife assault in marriage. In

Physical Violence in American Families: Risk

Factors and Adaptations to Violence in 8,145

Families, edited by M.A. Straus and R. Gelles.

New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, pp. 489–505.

Johnston, J. 1998a. Descriptive study of preventive interventions in families at-risk for

abduction. In Prevention of Parent or Family

Abduction Through Early Identification of Risk

Factors, edited by J.R. Johnston, I. SagatunEdwards, M. Blomquist, and L.K. Girdner.

Washington, DC: American Bar Association,

Center on Children and the Law.

Johnston, J. 1998b. Empirical study of two

counseling interventions in families at-risk for

abduction. In Prevention of Parent or Family

Abduction Through Early Identification of Risk

Factors, edited by J.R. Johnston, I. SagatunEdwards, M. Blomquist, and L.K. Girdner.

Washington, DC: American Bar Association,

Center on Children and the Law.

Johnston, J. 1998c. Interview study of risk factors for family abduction. In Prevention of Parent or Family Abduction Through Early Identification of Risk Factors, edited by J.R. Johnston,

I. Sagatun-Edwards, M. Blomquist, and L.K.

Girdner. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, Center on Children and the Law.

Johnston, J. 2000. Building multidisciplinary

professional partnerships with the court on

behalf of high conflict divorcing families and

their children: Who needs what kind of help.

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review 22(3):453–479.

Johnston, J., and Campbell, L. 1988. Impasses

of Divorce: The Dynamics and Resolution of

Family Conflict. New York, NY: Free Press.

Johnston, J., and Roseby, V. 1997. In the Name

of the Child: A Developmental Approach to Understanding and Helping Children of Conflicted

and Violent Divorce. New York, NY: Free Press.

Johnston, J.R., Sagatun-Edwards, I., Blomquist,

M., and Girdner, L.K. 1998. Prevention of Parent

or Family Abduction Through Early Identification of Risk Factors. Final Report. Washington,

DC: American Bar Association, Center on Children and the Law.

Sagatun-Edwards, I. 1998. Documentary study

of risk factors for family abduction. In Prevention of Parent or Family Abduction Through

Early Identification of Risk Factors, edited by

J.R. Johnston, I. Sagatun-Edwards, M. Blomquist, and L.K. Girdner. Washington, DC: American Bar Association, Center on Children and

the Law.

Wilson, M., and Daley, M. 1993. Spousal homicide risk and estrangement. Violence and Victims 8(1):3–16.

Supplemental Reading

The following sources provide additional

information on parental abduction:

Johnston, J.R., and Girdner, L.K. 1998. Early identification of parents at risk for custody violations

and prevention of child abductions. Family and

Conciliation Courts Review 36(3):392–409.
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 185026

U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

Washington, DC 20531

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Share With Your Colleagues

Unless otherwise noted, OJJDP publications are not copyright protected. We

encourage you to reproduce this document, share it with your colleagues, and

reprint it in your newsletter or journal. However, if you reprint, please cite OJJDP

and the authors of this Bulletin. We are also interested in your feedback, such as

how you received a copy, how you intend to use the information, and how OJJDP

materials meet your individual or agency needs. Please direct your comments and

questions to:

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse

Publication Reprint/Feedback

P.O. Box 6000

Rockville, MD 20849–6000

800–638–8736

301–519–5600 (fax)

E-mail: tellncjrs@ncjrs.org

Acknowledgments

Janet R. Johnston, Ph.D., is Associate Professor in the Administration of Justice

Department, San Jose State University, and Executive Director of the Judith

Wallerstein Center for the Family in Transition. Inger Sagatun-Edwards, Ph.D., is

Professor in and Chair of the Administration of Justice Department, San Jose

State University. Martha-Elin Blomquist, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor in the School

of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Florida State University, Panama City. Linda

K. Girdner, Ph.D., was Director of Research at the American Bar Association

Center on Children and the Law during the time of the grant project.

Photograph page 9 copyright © 2001 PhotoDisc, Inc.

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes

the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau

of Justice Statistics, the National Institute of

Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime.

Johnston, J.R., Girdner, L.K., and SagatunEdwards, I. 1999. Developing profiles of risk for

parental abduction of children from a comparison of families victimized by abduction with

families litigating custody. Behavioral Sciences

& the Law 17:305–322.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant

number 92–MC–CX–0007 from the Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,

U.S. Department of Justice.

Points of view or opinions in this document are

those of the authors and do not necessarily

represent the official position or policies of

OJJDP or the U.S. Department of Justice, nor

have they been approved by the House of

Delegates or the Board of Governors of the

American Bar Association (ABA). The views,

accordingly, should not be construed as

representing the official position or policies

of the ABA.