U.S. Department of Justice

Office of Justice Programs

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

December 2001

A Message From OJJDP

The expeditious return of a missing

child who has been abducted is a

critical step toward alleviating the

trauma suffered by both child and

parent. The active involvement of

both law enforcement and criminal

court officials is, of course, integral

to attaining this desired goal.

As research has demonstrated, the

most prevalent form of child abduction in the United States is parental

kidnapping. This Bulletin draws on

findings of a study conducted for

OJJDP by the American Bar Association Center on Children and the

Law and Westat to assess the criminal justice system’s response to

parental abduction.

Parental abduction is a crime in

all 50 States and in the District of

Columbia and, in most cases, constitutes a felony. The OJJDP study

reviewed all stages of the criminal

justice system’s response to this

crime, including the reporting of the

abduction, the investigation of the

case, the finding and recovery of the

victim, and the criminal prosecution

of the perpetrator or perpetrators.

To date, it is one of the most comprehensive studies of this issue.

Children stand to benefit from a review of the study’s findings by law

enforcement and court officials and

other representatives of the justice

system. The information provided in

these pages is intended to facilitate

such crucial consideration.

to as “family abduction”) is defined as

“the taking, retention, or concealment of a

child or children by a parent, other family

member, or their agent, in derogation of

the custody rights, including visitation

rights, of another parent or family member” (Girdner, 1993:1–11). Abductors may

be other family members or their agents

(e.g., girlfriend, boyfriend, grandparent,

or even a private investigator), although

in most cases the abductor is a child’s

parent (Girdner, 1993). Some State criminal statutes use the term “custodial interference” (rather than parental abduction,

family abduction, or kidnapping) when

referring to this crime and may include

incidents in which children are detained

or enticed away from the custodial parent. Custodial interference can also be

defined to include interference with a

court order of visitation or access.

Although many individuals, including

some law enforcement personnel, perceive

parental abduction as “civil in nature” and

a private family matter best handled outside the realm of the criminal justice system, it is a crime in all 50 States and the

District of Columbia and, in most cases,

constitutes a felony. In some States, parental abduction constitutes a crime only

in cases in which a custody order has

been violated. In others, no custody order

is required for parental abduction to be

considered a criminal offense.

The Criminal Justice

System’s Response to

Parental Abduction

Kathi L. Grasso, Andrea J. Sedlak, Janet L. Chiancone, 

Frances Gragg, Dana Schultz, and Joseph F. Ryan

Millions of Americans receive advertisements in the mail with pictures of missing children and their alleged abductors.

Many people quickly glance at the pictures, some study them more carefully,

and some do not look at all. In the majority of cases, these children have been abducted by relatives, usually a parent. 

Parental abduction can have a devastating impact on the child who is abducted

and also the parent who is left behind. A

quick recovery is critical to reducing the

trauma to both child and parent. Law enforcement and criminal court involvement

in these cases can make the difference in

how effectively the search is conducted

and can influence how quickly the child

is recovered.

To better understand the criminal justice

system’s response to parental abduction,

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) funded a

study—conducted jointly by the American Bar Association Center on Children

and the Law and Westat—that examined

this issue. This Bulletin summarizes the

primary findings of this study.1

Definition and Legal

Framework

For purposes of this Bulletin (and for

much of the research conducted on this

issue), parental abduction (also referred
2

Criminal and Civil Laws Regarding Parental Abduction

The Missing Children’s Act of 1982 (28 U.S.C. § 534(a)). This Act requires the

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to enter descriptive information on missing

children into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, a computer

database with information on missing persons that can be accessed by law enforcement agencies nationwide.

The National Child Search Assistance Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 5780). This

Act requires that State and local law enforcement agencies immediately enter information on missing children younger than 18 into the NCIC database and prohibits such agencies from maintaining any waiting period prior to taking a report

of a missing child.

The Missing Children’s Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §§ 5771 et seq.). Enacted in

1984 and reauthorized in 1988, 1992, and 1999, this Act resulted in the establishment of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. NCMEC serves as

a national resource center on missing children, providing support to criminal justice system personnel and aggrieved parents as they seek to identify and recover

missing children, including those who have been abducted by a parent. It operates

a toll-free hotline, provides technical assistance to law enforcement personnel in

the field, and educates the public and others on relevant issues.

The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. § 1738A). Providing

for civil remedies, this Federal Act gives jurisdictional priority to the child’s home

State in parental abduction cases where conflicts arise between two States. It extends the Federal Fugitive Felon Act to cases in which a child has been taken out

of a State where that act would constitute a felony, thus enabling the FBI to investigate. It also authorizes certain persons access to the Federal Parent Locator Service for purposes of identifying the whereabouts of a parentally abducted child.

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA). An important civil remedy that exists to combat parental abduction, this jurisdictional statute governs

when a court has jurisdiction over a parental abduction case and attempts to prevent the occurrence of simultaneous proceedings in two different States. It has

been enacted with some variation in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and

the Virgin Islands.

The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA).

The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, adopted unanimously by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws in

1997 and approved by the American Bar Association in 1998, amends UCCJA to

bring it into conformity with the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act. UCCJEA also

clarifies jurisdictional provisions of UCCJA that courts have interpreted inconsistently across the country. As of January 2001, 22 States had enacted UCCJEA.1

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

This Convention, ratified by the United States in 1988, is an international treaty currently in effect in 43 countries.2 It serves to simplify and expedite the return process

when children have been abducted internationally. The Convention’s implementing

procedures can be found in the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (42

U.S.C. §§ 11601 et seq.). In 1993, the United States also passed the International

Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (18 U.S.C. § 1204), making the abduction or retention of a child from the United States a felony.

1. For more detail about UCCJEA, including a list of States that have adopted the Act, see http://www.nccusl.

org/nccusl/uniformact_factsheets/uniformacts-fs-uccjea.asp.

2. For the most recent list of countries that have ratified the Hague Convention, see http://travel.state.gov/

hague_list.html.

parental abduction cases by collecting

data on the following:

◆ National estimates of parental abduction reports to law enforcement authorities and resulting arrests.

Study Background

The primary goal of the study was to provide further insight into whether and how

the criminal justice system intervenes in

◆ National estimates of parental abduction cases which were opened by prosecutors and in which criminal charges

were filed.

◆ Law enforcement authorities’ use of

management information systems

(MISs) and written policies and procedures in responding to parental abduction reports.

◆ Staffing characteristics and administrative resources.

◆ Staff participation in formal training or

special programs addressing parental

abduction.

◆ Parental abduction case flow through

the criminal justice system.

◆ Characteristics of cases in which law

enforcement intervened by investigating and/or filing criminal complaints.

◆ Model approaches to the handling of

parental abduction cases.

The study consisted of three phases:

◆ Phase 1: A nationally representative

survey of law enforcement agencies

and prosecutors’ offices. 

◆ Phase 2: Site visits to six counties

where a larger than average number

of parental abduction cases were

prosecuted.

◆ Phase 3: A review of individual parental abduction case files in the law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’

offices of three of the six jurisdictions

visited. 

The study examined all facets of the criminal justice system’s response, including

the reporting of the incident, investigation

of the case, location and recovery of the

child, and criminal prosecution of the abductor(s). The site visits provided insight

into various aspects of unique programs,

and the national survey and case file reviews attempted to identify those characteristics that resulted in an enhanced system response. Based on these findings,

the researchers developed recommendations for statutory, policy, and programmatic change. The study described in this

Bulletin concluded in 1996 and is based

on parental abduction data from 1992 to

1996. Nevertheless, the study findings and

recommendations continue to be relevant

to current incidents of parental abduction.

OJJDP has chosen to highlight the findings

of this study because, to date, this is one

of the most comprehensive studies of

the Nation’s criminal justice system’s response to the crime of parental abduction.
3

National Estimates of

Reports, Arrests, and

Prosecutor Actions

Law enforcement agencies and prosecutors reported the following for 1992: 

◆ An estimated 30,500 parental abduction

cases were reported to law enforcement agencies. In 82 percent of these

cases, a parent was responsible for the

abduction; in 12 percent, a family member other than a parent was the abductor; and in 6 percent, nonfamily members were the perpetrators. 

◆ Approximately 4,500 cases of parental abduction—only 15 percent of all

reported cases—resulted in arrest.

◆ A higher number of cases were referred to prosecutors than the 4,500

resulting in arrest. Law enforcement

agencies referred about 9,200 parental

abduction cases (30 percent of all

reported cases) to prosecutors.

◆ An estimated 15,000 parental abduction cases were formally opened by

prosecutors. This number is substantially higher than the number of referrals to prosecutors’ offices by law enforcement agencies (9,200), implying

that many parental abduction cases

reach these offices by other referral

routes, such as through the courts or

directly from the aggrieved custodial

parent. 

◆ Criminal charges were filed in only an

estimated 3,500 (23 percent) of the

15,000 cases opened by prosecutors.

Of the cases in which charges were

filed, 31 percent were dismissed and

49 percent resulted in convictions.

◆ Only 17 of the 400 counties surveyed

reported that their prosecutors’ offices filed more than 15 criminal complaints in 1992. Only 8 of these 17

counties were outside of California.

Relation to NISMART

Estimates

The most comprehensive study of the extent of parental abduction is the National

Incidence Studies on Missing, Abducted,

Runaway, and Thrownaway Children in

America (NISMART)2 (Finkelhor, Hotaling,

and Sedlak, 1990). Conducted in 1988,

this nationwide telephone household survey produced estimates of the number of

family abductions (to both domestic and

international destinations) nationwide.

Cases identified in NISMART are categorized as either “broad scope” or “policy

focal”:

◆ Broad-scope cases. These are cases in

which a family member either (1) took

a child in violation of a custody agreement or decree or (2) failed to return

or give over a child at the end of a

legal or agreed-upon visit (in violation

of a custody agreement or decree) and

the child was away at least overnight.

NISMART researchers estimated that

354,100 children experienced an abduction under this definition. This category included most cases that would

be considered abduction under even

the broadest statutes and also many in

which law enforcement agencies and

prosecutors would not be involved

(either because of more stringent legal

definitions or by discretion). 

◆ Policy-focal cases. These are cases

that fit the broad-scope definition but

also have at least one of the following

characteristics: (1) an attempt was

made to conceal the taking or whereabouts of the child and prevent contact with the child, (2) the child was

transported out of State, or (3) evidence existed that the abductor intended to keep the child indefinitely or

to permanently affect custodial privileges. About 46 percent (163,200) of

the broad-scope cases fell within this

narrower definition (Finkelhor, Hotaling, and Sedlak, 1990).

The national estimates of reports of

parental abduction to law enforcement

agencies in the present study include only

cases for which law enforcement officially

took a report (30,500) or for which prosecutors’ offices officially opened a case

(15,000). These figures are substantially

lower than the estimated number of family abduction cases reported in the 1990

NISMART study. Figures from both studies

appear equally valid in their own right.

Possible explanations for the discrepancy

between the two studies include:

◆ Classification of the crime within the

system not readily identifiable. For

example, a violation of a custody order

may not be distinguishable in the system from a violation of any other court

order. 

Phase 1: Findings From

the National Survey

Methodology

All law enforcement agencies and prosecutors serving a nationally representative

sample of 400 counties were surveyed

about their handling of parental abduction

incidents occurring in 1992. In all, 400

prosecutors’ offices, 405 county law enforcement agencies, and 3,625 municipal

law enforcement agencies were surveyed.

Two questionnaires, one to be filled out by

law enforcement agencies and the other

by prosecutors, were mailed to the offices

of sheriffs, police, and prosecutors in the

selected jurisdictions.

Because of a series of followup mailings

and other reminders to survey participants,

the response rate was excellent for a mail

survey. Overall, 76.6 percent of the law

enforcement agencies completed the survey, 4.7 percent were found to be ineligible

because the agencies did not have jurisdiction to conduct criminal investigations of

parental abductions, and only 0.5 percent

directly refused. Three-quarters (75 percent) of sampled prosecutors completed

the survey, with 2.5 percent declining to

participate and 22.5 percent not responding at all.
4

◆ Failure to report parental abductions

that occur in concert with other crimes.

For example, police may record other

crimes, such as assault and battery or

breaking and entering, and only mention the parental abduction in the narrative of the report.

◆ Lack of jurisdiction by some law enforcement agencies to conduct criminal

investigations on parental abductions.

◆ Informal handling of cases by both

police and civil attorneys to return

the child to the custodial parent. 

Case Characteristics

Influencing Law Enforcement

and Prosecutor Processing

The following three factors were most

frequently cited by law enforcement

agencies as influencing their decision

to take a report of an alleged parental

abduction: 

◆ The existence of a custody order

(60.1 percent).

◆ The endangerment of a child

(52.1 percent). 

◆ Joint custody (50.3 percent).3

Two of these factors—endangerment of

the child and existence of a custody

order—were also among three of the most

commonly cited factors determining investigative priority (70.9 and 51.9 percent,

respectively). The other most frequently

reported factor was the child’s disability

status, cited by 65.7 percent of agencies.

The most common factors influencing

whether a prosecutor’s office opened a

case were the existence of a custody

order (70.6 percent), joint custody (62.8

percent), and endangerment of a child

(62.2 percent). Regarding whether a case

was actually prosecuted (i.e., filing of a

criminal complaint), the three most common factors influencing this decision

were the existence of a custody order

(77.0 percent), the length of time the

child had been gone (68.0 percent), and

joint custody (66.9 percent).

Agency Characteristics

and Resources

The majority of law enforcement agencies

reported that they did not have written

policies and procedures governing parental abduction cases (69 percent), that

they did not receive formal training on

the handling of parental abduction cases

(63 percent), and that they were not

aided by a computerized MIS in providing

information on the number of parental

abduction cases reported to their agencies (69 percent). Only 10 percent of the

law enforcement agencies indicated that

they had specialized programs designed

to address parental abduction in their

jurisdictions.

The survey of prosecutors produced similar findings. The vast majority stated that

they had not been aided by a computerized MIS in providing survey information

(85 percent), that they did not have policies or written guidelines on the handling

of parental abduction cases (86 percent),

and that staff did not receive formal training on parental abduction (86 percent).

Seventy-nine percent of the prosecutors’

offices indicated that they did not have

specialized parental abduction programs. 

Phase 2: Findings

From Site Visits

In 1994, project staff conducted extensive

interviews with individuals familiar with

the criminal justice system’s processing

of parental abduction cases in six counties

of varying sizes and attributes: Escambia

County, FL; Hudson County, NJ; Pima

County, AZ; Salt Lake County, UT; San

Diego County, CA; and Snohomish County,

WA. The primary purposes of the site visits were to examine how law enforcement

agencies respond to parental abduction

reports and to identify unique casehandling practices.

Sites were selected based on the results

of the national survey. The sites were

chosen for their geographic diversity and

met the following criteria:

◆ The prosecutor’s office in the county

had filed at least 15 criminal custodial

interference complaints in 1992.

◆ Agencies in the county used MISs for

individual case tracking.

At the time of site selection, it was determined that the filing of a relatively high

number of criminal complaints (in this

case, 15 or more) was one indicator of

an enhanced law enforcement response

to the crime of parental abduction. 

Parental Abduction as a

Case-Handling Priority

With the exception of the San Diego

County District Attorney’s and Hudson

County Sheriff’s Offices, all criminal justice agencies reported that parental

abduction cases constituted only an

estimated 1 to 5 percent of their workload. Some perceived parental abduction

cases as “low priority” given their agencies’ limited staffing and the high volume

of other cases they were assigned to handle. This did not mean, however, that personnel in these offices had not developed

some expertise in the handling of parental

abduction cases. For the most part, these

experts were detectives assigned to the

departmental unit responsible for the

investigation of child abuse, parental and

stranger abductions, and runaway youth.

At sites where agency staff had developed

expertise in parental abduction or a specialty unit had been created, such as in

Hudson and San Diego Counties, it was

clear that the initiative of skilled and concerned staff contributed to an enhanced

criminal justice system response. However, specialized systems were not always

institutionalized within an agency and

might not exist if specialized staff were no

longer employed by that agency. Of the 12

sheriff’s offices and police departments

contacted, only 5 had written policies governing the processing of parental abduction cases. San Diego County was the

only site where a specific criminal justice agency, the District Attorney’s Office,

was mandated by law to intervene in a

case of parental abduction.

Case Processing and the

Impact of Court Orders

on Police Action

With the exception of Utah, the States visited were governed by laws that could be

interpreted to prohibit custodial interference both before and after the issuance

of a custody order.4 Statutes in California,

Florida, and Washington expressly outlawed custodial interference prior to the

issuance of a custody order. Although Arizona’s statute was less clear as to whether

intervention is authorized before a custody

order is granted, the Pima County prosecutor’s office interpreted case law as allowing intervention in such cases. In Hudson

County, NJ, despite the statute’s lack of

clarity, law enforcement officials reported

that they would, at a minimum, investigate

a complaint of parental abduction to ensure that the child was safe and at the

same time refer the aggrieved parent to

the family court to obtain a custody

decree.

Generally, law enforcement personnel

in these six States responded to some

degree to a complaint of parental abduction, even when an aggrieved party did
5

not have a custody order. In at least three

jurisdictions visited, the degree of response (e.g., patrol officer sent to scene,

followup contact with involved parties)

varied, depending on whether a court

order existed or whether a child was at

risk of harm. In the other three counties,

a governing custody order had no impact

on the degree of response because a

patrol officer was automatically dispatched to the scene or an investigation

was conducted to verify the legitimacy of

a complaint. At a minimum, in all sites,

even if no court order existed, police

would travel to the scene of the complaint to assess a child’s well-being and,

at the same time, refer parties to local

civil courts, legal services or pro bono

programs, or the private bar for assistance in filing a petition for custody. 

Visitation Interference

Visitation interference, or denial of access,

encompasses the situation in which a

child’s legal custodian prevents a parent

or individual with court-ordered visitation

from exercising those rights. Almost all the

law enforcement agencies visited reported

they would respond to complaints of visitation interference by sending a patrol officer to the scene or attempting to investigate the matter over the phone. Whether

police enforced visitation orders depended

on the specificity and clarity of the order.

Also, not all responses to visitation interference reports were immediate, with

some agencies believing that the interference should be of a “protracted” nature.

The statutes of five of the six States visited

prohibited interference with a visitation or

access order. In three of these five States,

violation of a visitation order could constitute a felony. 

Preparation of Crime Reports

In all jurisdictions, law enforcement personnel prepared a crime report upon

receiving a complaint of parental abduction. Whether an incident of custodial

interference would be labeled as such

varied among jurisdictions. In some sites,

a custodial interference offense could be

classified as a “miscellaneous” offense, a

“civil matter,” or a related offense (such

as domestic violence or assault).

Entry Into the NCIC Database

The National Child Search Assistance Act

of 1990 (42 U.S.C. § 5780) requires that

State and local law enforcement agencies

take a report on a missing child and enter

descriptive information on that child into

the National Crime Information Center

(NCIC) database without a waiting period,

regardless of whether the abduction constitutes a criminal violation. The Federal

Missing Children’s Assistance Act of 1984

(42 U.S.C. § 5772(1)(A) and (B)) provides

that for purposes of NCIC entry, a “missing child” is defined as

any individual less than 18 years of age

whose whereabouts are unknown to

such individual’s legal custodian if—

(A) the circumstances surrounding

such individual’s disappearance indicate that such individual may possibly

have been removed by another from

the control of such individual’s legal

custodian without such custodian’s

consent; or

(B) the circumstances of the case

strongly indicate that such individual

is likely to be abused or sexually

exploited. . . .

Agency personnel reported varying practices as to the entry of information on parentally abducted children and perpetrators into the NCIC database. It was the

practice in some jurisdictions not to enter

information on a parental abduction case

unless the child’s whereabouts were

“unknown,” an arrest warrant had been

issued, or the abductor had fled out of

State. 

Contact With the Federal

Bureau of Investigation

Pursuant to the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (28 U.S.C. § 1738A),

the FBI is authorized to investigate cases

in which children have been abducted by

parents or their agents across State lines

or out of the country. In these cases, State

or local law enforcement authorities would

seek the issuance of a Federal Unlawful

Flight to Avoid Prosecution (UFAP) warrant to enable the FBI to investigate a fugitive parent’s whereabouts. 

The majority of law enforcement personnel reported minimal contact with the FBI.

They related that the FBI was involved in

only a few or none of their cases, and

their comments reflected a possible underuse of FBI resources. One respondent

recommended that the FBI become more

involved with case investigation once a

UFAP warrant had been issued and noted

a lack of followup on the FBI’s part. Another perceived the FBI as “jumping” on a

case quickly if a child were taken out of

State. Several viewed their working relationship with the FBI as “good.”

Use of State Missing

Children’s Clearinghouses

All States, the District of Columbia, and

Puerto Rico now have State missing children’s clearinghouses. Depending on the

jurisdiction, clearinghouses can have a

role in educating the public on missing

children’s issues, can be instrumental in

coordinating agency services aimed at

child recovery, and, in specific cases, can

provide assistance to law enforcement

agencies in recovering children.

With the exception of personnel in three

counties, investigators appeared to underuse State missing children’s clearinghouses. These investigators seemed unaware of the existence of clearinghouses

in their States or, if they were aware, did

not convey to interviewers that they

accessed clearinghouse services.
6

Other Support Services

Agency personnel have had varying experiences with other support services. Most

were not aware of or had never used the

Federal parent locator service. Although

the majority were familiar with the publications of the National Center for Missing

and Exploited Children (NCMEC), it was

less clear whether they were aware of

NCMEC’s training programs and provision

of technical assistance in individual cases.

Access to Prosecutors

All law enforcement agencies had 24-hour

access to prosecutors who could advise

them on relevant legal issues. In at least

three jurisdictions, agency personnel had

direct access to a prosecutor specializing

in custodial interference cases.

Involvement of Child

Protective Services

At all sites, agencies maintained a policy

that a referral would be made to the local

child protective services agency in parental abduction cases in which a child

was endangered or at risk of harm. In

these cases, law enforcement personnel

would have the authority to remove a

child from a threatening situation. 

Training and Specialized

Knowledge

With the exception of the sites that had

specialty units (Hudson, Pima, and San

Diego Counties), training on parental

abduction issues was “on-the-job.” In the

jurisdictions that had formal training, the

topics included Federal and State criminal

custodial interference laws, the psychosocial aspects of the crime, written policies

and procedures involving case processing,

effective interventions, and the interplay

between the criminal and civil systems in

resolving custodial interference disputes.

Most of the personnel interviewed were

knowledgeable about their State’s criminal

custodial interference laws. Sites with a

large immigrant population—Hudson,

Pima, and San Diego Counties—also had

personnel familiar with the handling of

international abduction cases. Personnel

at these three sites were knowledgeable

about the Hague Convention on the Civil

Aspects of International Abduction and

knew how to access the services of the

U.S. Department of State, the U.S. Customs

Office, and the U.S. Immigration and

Naturalization Service for assistance in

locating the abductor and recovering the

abducted child.

Prosecutors in Pima and San Diego

Counties had become specialists in the

field of parental abduction and were

viewed as national experts. In the other

four counties, although prosecutors

were familiar with their State laws addressing criminal custodial interference,

they had relatively limited experience

with applicable State civil laws, primarily

because they did not practice in civil or

family courts and did not specialize in

custodial interference. On-the-job training was the norm for prosecutors in

these cases.

Criteria for Filing a Criminal

Complaint

In all jurisdictions, the number of criminal custodial interference complaints

filed was quite low. For example, in San

Diego County, where the District Attorney’s Office received as many as 1,500

calls regarding custodial interference per

year, only about 350 cases were formally

opened and, of these, only an estimated 30

criminal complaints were filed each year.

Most, if not all, prosecutors reported that

prosecution may not be in a child’s or family’s interest and that the most important

priority was to recover the child safely and

expeditiously. The consensus was that

prosecutors had to evaluate each case

individually before initiating prosecution.

Typically, only custodial interference was

charged in these cases. In two jurisdictions

visited, prosecutors also filed charges of

child endangerment, burglary, or assault

related to domestic violence. Only Pima

County actively prosecuted misdemeanor

visitation interference cases through the

county and city attorneys’ offices. 

The criteria for filing a criminal complaint

varied between jurisdictions. The following factors were among those identified

by prosecutors as influencing their decisions to prosecute:

◆ The child and/or abductor could not

be located, or the abducting party

refused to return the child.

◆ The custodial interference was for a

permanent or protracted period (e.g.,

2 to 3 months).

◆ The abductor crossed State lines or

fled the country.

◆ A custody or visitation order had been

violated.

◆ Evidence existed of repetitive criminal

conduct on the part of the perpetrator.

Extradition of Offender

In most sites, offenders were rarely extradited. One explanation was the expense

involved in extraditing the abductor, especially if he or she were in a distant location.

Extradition was more likely to occur in

jurisdictions in which prosecutors’ offices

had a unit employing staff who specialized

in parental abduction cases. 

Case Disposition

The majority of cases filed in all six jurisdictions resulted in plea bargains or dismissals. Individuals convicted of custodial interference usually received probation

with conditions (e.g., they had to pay restitution to the victim, attend parenting

skills classes, or stay away from the victimized child). Jail time was extremely

rare. It appeared that defendants were

incarcerated, either prior to or after a

conviction, only when they refused to

disclose a child’s whereabouts.

According to prosecutors, parental abduction cases were rarely tried by a jury

or judge. Three jury trials were reported,

one in each of three sites in which case

files were tracked. Bench trials (cases in

which the judge determines guilt or innocence) occurred with some frequency

only at one site that actively prosecuted

visitation interference cases. Prosecutors

perceive parental abduction cases as

extremely difficult to try. Not only must

they prove the elements of an offense, they

must refute the defense that the abductor

acted to protect the child from the other

parent’s alleged abusive behavior. 

Victim Advocacy Programs

and Reunification Services

With the exception of Pima and San Diego

Counties, victim advocates had a minimal

role in assisting parents and children prior

to and after a child’s recovery. The victim

witness advocate of the Pima County Attorney’s Office and the investigation specialists of the San Diego District Attorney’s

Office have been instrumental in getting

aggrieved parties access to civil court and

legal services and providing assistance

during the reunification process. 

Phase 3: Findings From

Case File Reviews

In the study’s third phase, the criminal justice system’s response to parental abduction was further examined through a review of individual case files in three of the
7

jurisdictions visited during the study’s second phase—Hudson, Pima, and San Diego

Counties. Individual case tracking produced important findings on the processing of parental abduction cases through

the criminal justice system and on case

characteristics and their influence on case

outcomes. It also corroborated many of

the findings of the study’s site visits.

Conducted in 1995, data collection

involved abstracting information from

existing paper and computer files in the

sites’ law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ offices. The final sample included

80 cases in Hudson County (62 from the

Sheriff’s Office and 18 from the prosecuting attorney’s office), 96 cases in San

Diego County (all from the District Attorney’s Office), and 94 cases in Pima

County (80 from the Tucson Police Department and 14 from the county attorney’s office).

Figures 1–3 provide an overview of the

characteristics and processing of these

cases in the three jurisdictions. Researchers considered various characteristics to

determine whether they were associated

with the response to and outcomes of

parental abduction cases—specifically,

whether an arrest was made or arrest

warrant issued and whether charges

(felony or misdemeanor) were filed in

criminal court.5 Across all three sites,

74 complaints of parental abduction resulted in arrests or the issuance of an

arrest warrant. Fifty of these complaints

resulted in the filing of felony and misdemeanor charges. 

Four of the twelve perpetrator characteristics examined were found to be positively associated with whether a case resulted in an arrest. That is, cases with the

characteristic were more likely to result

in the perpetrator’s arrest than cases

without it. These perpetrator characteristics are listed below:

◆ Race/ethnicity. Perpetrators identified as African American, Hispanic, or

“other” were more likely to be arrested

than white, non-Hispanic perpetrators.

◆ Criminal record. Perpetrators with at

least one prior arrest were more likely

to be arrested than perpetrators with

no prior arrests. 

◆ Prior law enforcement incidents or

complaints between the perpetrator

and complainant. A prior complaint

involving law enforcement increased

the likelihood of arrest.

◆ History of drug and alcohol abuse.

Perpetrators with a history of drug and

alcohol abuse, regardless of the source

of that information, were more likely to

be arrested.

Nine complainant characteristics were

examined for their relationship with case

outcomes. Four complainant characteristics were associated (either positively or

negatively) with arrests or the issuance of

an arrest warrant:

◆ Relationship to the child. Cases in

which child protective services was

the complainant were more likely to

result in the perpetrator’s arrest. 

◆ Criminal history. Cases in which the

complainant had a criminal record

were less likely to result in the perpetrator’s arrest. 

◆ History of domestic violence. Cases in

which the complainant had a history

of committing domestic violence were

less likely to result in the perpetrator’s

arrest. 

◆ History of mental illness. Cases in

which there was an indication of the

complainant’s past mental illness were

less likely to result in the perpetrator’s

arrest.

One perpetrator characteristic, prior law

enforcement incidents or complaints, was

found to be associated with the filing of

charges by prosecutors’ offices. The complainant’s history of committing child

abuse was also associated with whether

charges were filed in criminal court.

None of the characteristics associated

with the abducted child (e.g., the number

of children involved in the incident or the

living situation of the child) was found to

be significantly related to case outcomes.

This may be attributable in part to the

fact that the majority (60 to 78 percent)

of cases in all three sites involved only

one child. 

Six incident characteristics were examined for association with case outcomes;

three were found to be significantly related to arrests and arrest warrants:

◆ The use of a weapon or force.

◆ The return of the child to the leftbehind parent.

◆ The removal of the child from the 

jurisdiction. 

The perpetrator was more likely to be

arrested or have an arrest warrant issued

if a weapon or force had been used, the

child had been returned, or the child had

been taken out of the jurisdiction during

the abduction incident.

Implications of

This Study

Emerging from this study is a picture of a

criminal justice system paying relatively

scant attention to the crime of parental

abduction. As reported in NISMART, an

estimated 155,800 children are victims of

serious parental abductions in the course

of a year (Finkelhor, Hotaling, and Sedlak,

1990), yet research from this current

study indicates that only 30,500 police

reports are officially registered and only

an estimated 4,500 arrests for parental

abduction are made. Of parental abductions coming to the attention of prosecutors, only 9,200 cases are officially opened

and only 3,500 criminal complaints are

actually filed. Even allowing for the fact

that a single reported case may involve

the abduction of more than one child,

these figures imply a very low response

rate overall.

Although parental abduction is a crime in

all 50 States and the District of Columbia,

this study’s findings reveal that criminal

justice agencies have not implemented

training and other programs that would

educate their staff about custodial interference and enable them to respond more

effectively. As stated earlier, this study’s

findings indicate that the majority of law

enforcement agencies and prosecutors’

offices do not have written policies and

procedures governing the processing of

parental abduction cases, do not train

staff in how to respond to these cases,

and do not have special programs designed to specifically address the crime.

However, it should be noted that during

site visits, several jurisdictions were identified that have developed promising

approaches to handling parental abduction cases. The characteristics unique to

the majority of jurisdictions visited that

contributed to an enhanced criminal justice response were the following:

◆ Statutory authority to intervene.

◆ Agency leaders and staff committed to

combating parental abduction.

◆ Personnel who specialize in the handling of parental abduction cases.

◆ Coordinated agency response.

◆ Good agency management practices.
8

◆ Access to supportive services (e.g.,

legal, family court, mediation, reunification, and visitation supervision services) for agency staff and left-behind

parents.

The remainder of this section presents

strategies and recommendations for legal,

programmatic, and policy reforms to

enhance the criminal justice system’s

response to parental abduction.

Legal Reforms

Enact comprehensive criminal parental

abduction statutes, such as the model

Parental Kidnapping Crime Act. The first

step in implementing an enhanced law

enforcement response to parental abduction is for a jurisdiction to evaluate its

current State criminal statutes and case

law relevant to this crime. If criminal justice agencies are to respond effectively

to the crime of parental abduction, laws

must support their efforts. Parental abduction will not become a law enforcement priority unless laws are enacted

Figure 1: Processing of Parental Abduction Cases in Hudson County, NJ

Sheriff’s Office 

received complaint 

100% (72)

Arrested/Arrest 

warrant issued 

28% (20)

Cleared exceptionally 1% (1)

Closed/No further action 67% (48)

Not in record 3% (2)

Charges filed from arrests

made by municipal 

law enforcement 

jurisdictions 19%* (8)

Charges filed

19% (14)

Charges 

not filed 

8% (6)

Misdemeanor 

charges 

4% (4) 

Felony charges

15% (17) 

Not indicted 

by grand jury 

7% (8)

Remanded to 

municipal court 

5% (6)

Dismissed by 

court with 

prejudice 1% (1)

Pled guilty 

1% (1)

Pretrial 

intervention 

1% (1)

Dismissed 

by prosecutor 

2% (2)

Not 

apprehended 

2% (2)

Charges filed, 

case open 

1% (1) 

Open 

1% (1)

Not arrested

71% (51)

No custody 

order/

Unknown 

32% (23)

Custody 

order 

existed 

68% (49)

Advised to obtain 

custody order 

25% (18)

..................................................

Note: The number of cases is given in parentheses. Also, percentages through the charges-filed level are based on 72 Sheriff’s Office complaints.

After the charges-filed level, counts include charges filed from both municipal law enforcement and the Sheriff’s Office (n=22). Accompanying percentages are based on estimates of all complaints (n=113) from both municipal law enforcement agencies and the Sheriff’s Office. Percentages

have been rounded.

* This percentage is based on the estimated number of complaints received in municipal law enforcement agencies (n=41), using the ratio of filed

cases to complaints found in the Sheriff’s Office.

that authorize law enforcement intervention and designate the offense a felony.

One model of a comprehensive and uniform parental abduction statute is the

Parental Kidnapping Crime Act.6 Those

interested in enhancing their criminal justice system’s response to the crime of

parental abduction should review this

model statute, carefully contrasting it to

their State’s existing statute. As indicated

in its introduction, the “Act is intended as a

substitute for existing laws that cover the

issues addressed in [the] statute.” The Act
9

Figure 2: Processing of Parental Abduction Cases in San Diego County, CA

District Attorney’s 

Office received 

complaint 

100% (195)

Arrested/Arrest 

warrant issued 

11% (21)

Issuance of summons 1% (2)

Closed/No further action 83% (161)

Not in record 4% (7)

Charges filed

4% (8)

Charges not 

filed 

7% (13)

Felony charges 

filed with county 

attorney 4% (8)

Pled guilty 

4% (7)

Dismissed by court

without prejudice 

1% (1)

Open 

2% (4)

Not arrested

87% (170)

No custody 

order/

Unknown 

46% (90)

Custody 

order 

existed 

54% (105)

Advised to obtain 

custody order 

28% (54) .................................................

can also serve to enhance the effectiveness

of those statutes that are already for the

most part in conformity with it. The Act’s

primary goal is to produce statutory uniformity among States because

[a] uniform approach to the nationwide problem of parental kidnapping

will send this message to parents:

There is no safe haven for child abductors. Every State treats child abduction

as a punishable offense according to

the same terms. Faced with predictable criminal consequences for parental kidnapping, more parents are

apt to seek civil solutions to their child

custody problems, which is in the best

interests of children. (Uthe, 1996:iii)

Briefly, the Act prohibits parental kidnapping that substantially deprives another

of his or her right of custody or visitation

whether a child has been removed from a

particular State or a custody order has

been issued. Of particular note to law

enforcement personnel are provisions

of the Act that authorize them to take a

child into protective custody under specified circumstances, including if the child

“reasonably appears” to be a missing or

abducted child. These provisions also

state that “[a] law enforcement officer

and a prosecutor and his or her representatives shall not be liable for actions

taken pursuant to this Act.”

Note: The number of cases is given in parentheses. Percentages have been rounded.

Enact State statutes modeled after

California’s law and the Uniform ChildCustody Jurisdiction and Enforcement

Act that authorize prosecutors to investigate and prosecute custodial interference complaints, including filing

pleadings in civil or family court proceedings necessary for the abducted

child’s recovery. In addition to California

Family Law Code §§ 3130–3134, Title II of

An Act To Expedite Enforcement of Child

Custody Determinations7 addresses the

role of prosecutors and law enforcement

in taking civil action to enforce custody

orders. For example, the Act provides

among other things that law enforcement

personnel are authorized to seek a court

order granting them the right to take
10

temporary custody of a child in cases in

which they would have to travel out of

State to recover an abducted child and/or

pick up an offender during extradition

proceedings. 

The Uniform Child-Custody Jurisdiction

and Enforcement Act, approved in 1997 by

the National Conference of Commissioners

on Uniform State Laws, contains very similar provisions. Section 315 gives prosecutors statutory authority to take any lawful

action, including using a proceeding under

the Act to locate a child, obtain the return

of a child, or enforce a child custody

determination. The prosecutor may take

action if there is an existing custody determination, a request from a court, a reasonable belief that a criminal statute has been

violated, or a reasonable belief that the

child was wrongfully removed or retained

in violation of the Hague Convention.

Section 316 authorizes law enforcement

personnel to assist prosecutors in carrying out their responsibilities under the

Act. States should consider adopting the

Act, including these innovative provisions. 

Figure 3: Processing of Parental Abduction Cases in Pima County, AZ

Tucson Police 

Department received 

complaint 100% (178)

Arrested/Arrest 

warrant issued 

12% (22)

Issuance of summons 1% (1)

Cleared exceptionally 6% (10)

Closed/No further action 40% (71) 

Not in record 39% (70)

Charges filed from

arrests made by Pima 

 County Sheriff’s 

 Office 10%* (3)

Charges filed 

10% (17)

Charges 

not filed 

3% (5)

Misdemeanor 

charges filed 

with city attorney 

4% (9) 

Felony charges 

filed with county 

attorney 

5% (11) 

Pled guilty 

4% (9)

Dismissed by 

court without 

prejudice

3% (6)

Dismissed by 

court with 

prejudice

2% (4)

Unknown 

1% (1)

Open

2% (4)

Not arrested 

85% (152)

No custody 

order/

Unknown 

48% (85)

Custody 

order 

existed 

52% (93)

Advised to obtain 

custody order 

3% (5)

.................................................

Note: The number of cases is given in parentheses. Also, percentages through the charges-filed level are based on 178 Tucson Police Department

complaints. After the charges-filed level, counts include charges filed from both the Tucson Police Department and the Sheriff’s Office (n=20).

Accompanying percentages are based on estimates of all complaints (n=209) from both the Tucson Police Department and the Sheriff’s Office.

Percentages have been rounded.

* This percentage is based on the estimated number of complaints received in the Sheriff’s Office (n=31), using the ratio of filed cases to complaints found in the police department.

Modify the Missing Children’s Assistance

Act of 1984 to ensure that information

on all parentally abducted children is

entered into the NCIC database immediately upon law enforcement’s receipt of

a report. Site visits revealed that the

Missing Children’s Assistance Act (42

U.S.C. § 5772 (1)(A) and (B)) is generally

interpreted to mean that if a child’s

whereabouts are known to the child’s

lawful custodian, information regarding

the child and the abductor need not be

entered into the NCIC database. However,
11

and civil systems in resolving custodial

interference disputes, and community and

other support services (e.g., mediation,

family court, and legal services programs)

that may complement law enforcement

interventions.9 In addition, to ensure uniformity among the States in the use of

NCIC, all law enforcement personnel

should receive concerted training on the

appropriate and expeditious entry of abduction reports into the NCIC database.

Given time constraints for staff training

and the number of subjects that must be

covered, it may be appropriate to incorporate specialized training on parental

abduction and visitation interference

concerns into already existing domestic

violence and child abuse training. Management and staff should explore the possibility of obtaining technical assistance

from the following: the National Center

for Missing and Exploited Children, the

National Center for Prosecution of Child

Abuse, the Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention, and the Missing

and Exploited Children’s Training and

Technical Assistance Program.10

Establish specialized units made up of

law enforcement personnel and prosecutors skilled in investigating and prosecuting the crimes of parental abduction

and visitation interference. Given the

complexity of case investigations and

recovery efforts and the experiences of

criminal justice personnel in Hudson,

Pima, and San Diego Counties, agencies

should seriously consider establishing

sufficiently staffed specialty units to allow

for a coordinated and expert response

to reports of parental abduction. Patrol

officers and line staff still need to be

even in cases in which a child’s whereabouts are known by the lawful custodian,

there is always the serious risk that the

abducting parent will flee, possibly immediately; will subject the child to abuse or

neglect; or will be involved in other criminal conduct. Clarifying the Federal law

(i.e., clarifying the definition of “missing

child”) so that information on all parentally abducted children is entered into the

NCIC database will ensure that these

entries are made more uniformly among

States and will facilitate intrastate and

interstate communication among law

enforcement agencies. It will also enhance

the ability of prosecutors who have or

may acquire the civil authority to locate

and recover abducted children pursuant

to the aforementioned Uniform ChildCustody Jurisdiction and Enforcement

Act.8

Programmatic and Policy

Reforms

Recognize that parental abduction is a

serious form of child maltreatment and

is a crime that must be effectively investigated and prosecuted. Leaders of criminal justice agencies should advocate for

sufficient staff, enhanced computer technology, and other resources so that staff

are able to make the crime of parental

abduction a case priority. Interviews conducted during the study’s site visits revealed that criminal justice system personnel were overwhelmed with handling

cases of serious violence and other

crimes. Although those interviewed perceived parental abduction as a serious,

criminal offense, they were also concerned that unless additional staff and

other resources were provided, they

would be unable to respond effectively.

Several interviewees reported the need

for sufficient and upgraded computer

equipment and access to computer technologies that would allow them to connect quickly to data collection systems

(e.g., Experian credit check and Data

Quick) and expedite investigations. 

Develop and implement written policies

and procedures addressing the handling

of parental abduction cases. To institutionalize practice and procedure and

ensure a uniform, effective response to

reports of parental abduction, it is imperative that State and local criminal justice

agencies develop and implement policies

and procedures specific to the processing

of these cases. As a matter of good management practice, all personnel, including

supervisors and those on patrol, should

be fully trained in and apprised of agency

policies and procedures. Agencies should

evaluate their existing policies and procedures on the general handling of missing

children’s cases to ensure that parental

abduction issues are addressed. In addition, law enforcement personnel and prosecutors should assess the need for formal

written protocols governing the appropriate transfer of cases for purposes of

prosecution. 

Develop initial and ongoing training

programs for all criminal justice system

personnel on the handling of parental

abduction cases, including the psychosocial aspects of the crime and the interrelationship of criminal and civil

forums in resolving custodial interference disputes. Educating all criminal justice system personnel, including patrol

officers and management, about parental

abduction and effective responses is essential to change the assumption that

parental abduction is not a serious crime.

The study’s findings indicate that, with

the exception of a handful of criminal justice agencies, most law enforcement personnel and prosecutors do not receive

any specialized training on issues, policies, and procedures relevant to parental

abduction. (The criminal justice system’s

current perception of this crime is very

much like its view of domestic violence

5 to 10 years ago.) Briefly, all agency personnel should be familiar with Federal and

State criminal parental abduction laws,

the psychosocial aspects of the crime, any

written policies and procedures addressing case processing, effective interventions, the interplay between the criminal
12

knowledgeable about the issues, but staff

specialists can more effectively follow up

with necessary investigations, assess the

appropriateness of law enforcement interventions, access suitable support services, and ease the burden on line officers

in resolving custodial interference complaints. These specialists need not be limited to handling only custodial interference cases, especially in jurisdictions

that may not have a high number of such

cases. Agencies are encouraged to designate two or more staff members who

would be comprehensively trained in all

aspects of handling parental abduction

cases and, at the same time, be assigned

other types of cases. A preferred staffing

model would be one such as the Family

Protection Division of the San Diego District Attorney’s Office, which handles not

only custodial interference but also child

abuse and domestic violence cases.

Consider establishing local law enforcement missing children’s clearinghouses.

Local law enforcement agencies should

collaborate more effectively with their

State missing children’s clearinghouses.

In conjunction with this, consideration

should be given to establishing local

missing children’s clearinghouses within

counties to allow for expert, coordinated

responses to parental abduction reports.

One model for this approach could be

that used in Hudson County, where a

number of municipal police agencies refer

parental abduction cases to the Sheriff’s

Office, a county agency that employs staff

specialized in the handling of such cases.

Recognizing that this type of coordination

might not be easy to accomplish, given

agencies’ individual priorities and interests, those interested in pursuing such

coordination should keep in mind that

this approach could be cost effective and

ease the burden on municipal police

departments in investigating parental

abduction cases. 

Develop and implement written interstate

and intrastate protocols for handling

cases that involve the investigation and/

or prosecution of parental abduction in

more than one State or within more than

one municipality in a State. Criminal justice agencies, especially those located in

neighboring jurisdictions, should examine

whether interstate and intrastate written

protocols need to be developed to reduce

the chances that jurisdictional disputes

related to agencies’ responsibilities will

arise during case investigation and prosecution. For example, in the Nation’s

Northeast corridor, which is made up of

several large metropolitan areas, parental

abductions could easily result in the crossing of State lines. If a kidnapped child were

taken from the District of Columbia to

Maryland, would Maryland law enforcement agencies have a responsibility to

assist in investigating the child’s whereabouts and, if so, what would be the level

of assistance? Questions like these could

be answered in interstate and intrastate

written protocols.

Clarify the role of the FBI in investigating cases of parental abduction and actively seek the FBI’s assistance in appropriate cases. This study found that the

FBI may not be as actively involved as it

might be in identifying the whereabouts

of abductors.11 Criminal justice system

personnel may be unaware of the role the

FBI can play in investigating these cases,

and State and local law enforcement personnel may be concerned about sharing

investigative responsibilities. Information

on the FBI’s role in handling parental abduction cases needs to be disseminated

through training and other programs to

State and local law enforcement personnel and the general public.12 In addition,

Federal law enforcement authorities’ handling of parental abduction cases warrants

further study, including assessing the

extent of their involvement in investigating abductions pursuant to the Fugitive

Felon Act and investigating and prosecuting international abductions pursuant to

the International Parental Kidnapping

Crime Act.

Learn about State missing children’s

clearinghouses, work with them to improve coordination and use of services, and advocate for enhanced clearinghouse funding. Given the low priority

that most law enforcement agencies place

on parental abduction cases and the general lack of knowledge about the crime

and its handling, it is not surprising that

missing children’s clearinghouses may be

underused and, consequently, underfunded. This study revealed the need for

enhanced communication between local

law enforcement staff and State clearinghouses so that agencies can better understand a clearinghouse’s role in providing

technical assistance. Police need to be

better informed of their State’s clearinghouse operations and should know how

to access its services. Collaboration

between clearinghouses and local law

enforcement is essential if the clearinghouses are to provide the services most

useful to law enforcement. 

Advocate for the development and continuation of support services that are

instrumental in preventing and resolving custodial interference disputes and

that complement criminal justice system

intervention. Criminal justice system personnel who are in a position to advocate

for enhanced support services should

seek to develop and maintain costeffective support services that can prevent abductions and can provide children

and their families greater access to civil

forums to resolve custodial interference

disputes. This support can include legal

services and self-help legal programs,

family court services, mediation, supervised visitation programs, and educational forums on parental abduction issues.

Moreover, serious thought should be

given to appointing independent counsel

for children in civil proceedings and

developing programs to assist in the

reunification of children with their parents. Support services offered in both

civil and criminal arenas can be instrumental in reducing the need for criminal

justice system intervention and the risk

of trauma to the abducted child. 

Conclusion

Throughout this study, several individuals, including project staff and those in

the field, commented that in addressing

the problem of parental abduction, the

focus on the child as victim is often lost.

Criminal parental abduction statutes, for

instance, speak in terms of one parent

depriving the other of his or her child.

As a result, the parent, not the child,

becomes the aggrieved party. Similarly,

the child’s point of view is too often overlooked in these cases, especially if the

child’s whereabouts are unknown. Unlike

other types of child maltreatment cases,

in parental abduction cases, investigators often do not have direct contact

with the child. As a result, though unintentional, the child’s interests, in contrast to his or her parents’, may become

secondary.

Criminal justice leaders, legislators, and

others in a position to support and implement specialized programs of intervention

must be reminded that parental abduction

can be a form of serious child maltreatment and is a crime in all 50 States and the

District of Columbia. Many children will

benefit if the criminal justice system carefully considers this study’s findings and

recommendations and begins to perceive

this crime as harmful to the well-being of

children and their families.
13

For Further Information

Additional information about parental

abduction is available from the organizations listed below. Brief descriptions of

selected publications available from each

organization are also provided.

Organizations

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP)

Child Protection Division

202–616–3637

202–353–9093 (fax)

ojjdp.ncjrs.org

National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children (NCMEC)

703–274–3900

703–274–2222 (fax)

missingkids.com

National Center for Prosecution of 

Child Abuse (NCPCA)

703–739–0321

703–549–6259 (fax)

ndaa-apri.org/apri/NCPCA/Index.html

American Bar Association Center on

Children and the Law (ABA CCL)

202–662–1720

202–662–1755 (fax)

abanet.org/child

Publications

OJJDP. The following documents are available from OJJDP (see Publications on its

Web site or call the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800–638–8736) or from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service

(visit ncjrs.org or call 800–851–3420).

Addressing Confidentiality of Records in

Searches for Missing Children (NCJ 155183).

This Report makes recommendations concerning law enforcement agencies’ access

to records maintained by schools, hospitals, child welfare agencies, domestic violence shelters, and runaway shelters. The

Report also covers information release

procedures and includes a checklist for

maximizing record access from service

providers. The Report’s appendixes contain additional information and other

relevant statistical data on the confidentiality of records in searches for missing

children, jurisdictions that allow record

access or impose reporting requirements

in missing children cases, and State laws

affecting record access.

Early Identification of Risk Factors for

Parental Abduction (NCJ 185026). This

Bulletin presents the design and findings

of four OJJDP-funded studies on preventing family abductions. The findings provide information regarding the risk factors associated with parental kidnapping

and strategies that can be used to intervene with at-risk families. 

Family Abductors: Descriptive Profiles and

Preventive Interventions (NCJ 182788). This

Bulletin describes preventive interventions,

such as counseling, conflict resolution, and

legal strategies, that seek to settle custody

and access disputes for families identified

as at risk for parental abduction.

A Family Resource Guide on International

Parental Kidnapping (NCJ 190448). This

guide presents practical and detailed

advice about preventing international kidnapping and increasing the chance that

children who are kidnapped or wrongfully retained will be returned. It provides

descriptions and realistic assessments

of the civil and criminal remedies available in international parental kidnapping

cases, explains applicable laws and identifies both the public and private resources

that may be called upon when an international abduction occurs or is threatened,

and prepares parents for the legal and

emotional difficulties they may experience.

International Parental Kidnapping: A Law

Enforcement Guide (forthcoming). This

guide provides practical information on

the public and private resources and

services that are available to assist law

enforcement in international parental

abduction cases. It explains applicable

laws, defines agency roles and responsibilities, describes criminal and civil remedies, examines methods for prevention

and interception, and discusses important issues and procedures to be addressed during an international parental

abduction case. 

Issues in Resolving Cases of International

Child Abduction (NCJ 182790). This Report

documents a lack of uniformity in the

application of the Hague Convention

across countries. It includes case histories, survey findings on left-behind parents, selected practices in international

family abduction cases, and recommendations for the judicial and legal systems.

Issues in Resolving Cases of International

Child Abduction by Parents (NCJ 190105).

This Bulletin provides an overview of the

major survey findings, selected good

practices, and recommendations from

the Report Issues in Resolving Cases of

International Child Abduction.

Obstacles to the Recovery and Return of

Parentally Abducted Children (Report: NCJ

144535; Research Summary: NCJ 143458).

These publications present the results of

a 2-year study of the legal, policy, procedural, and practical obstacles to the location, recovery, and return of children

abducted by a noncustodial parent. They

include recommendations to overcome

each obstacle and extensive appendixes

that describe the pros and cons of existing legal procedures for enforcing a custody order, sample forms to be used

with existing legal procedures, and summaries of both civil and criminal appellate decisions.

Parental Abduction: A Review of the

Literature (Available online only: ojjdp.

ncjrs.org/pubs/missing.html#186160).

This online resource summarizes current

research and literature related to the

primary issues involved in parental

abduction.

Prevention of Parent or Family Abduction

Through Early Identification of Risk Factors

(NCJ 182791). Based on analyses of data

from several California studies related to

child abductions by a noncustodial parent, this Report outlines a set of characteristics of parents who abduct their

children and presents indepth sociodemographic and legal information

about the families of abducted children.

Using Agency Records To Find Missing

Children: A Guide for Law Enforcement

(NCJ 154633). This Summary focuses on

procedures for obtaining and using the

records of certain types of human service

providers to find missing children. It examines the use of, access to, barriers to,

and limitations of records from schools,

medical care providers, runaway shelters,

and domestic violence shelters.

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival Guide (NCJ 170022; Spanish Version:

NCJ 178902). This guide, written by parents and family members who have experienced the disappearance of a child,

explains how parents can best participate

in the search for a missing child. It discusses the parents’ relationship with law

enforcement, examines issues related to

the media, and presents practical information about distributing fliers and photos, organizing volunteers, and managing

monetary donations.
14

NCMEC. The following documents are

available from NCMEC (see Education

& Resources on its Web site or call

800–843–5678).

Family Abduction. This handbook guides

parents through the civil and criminal justice systems, explains the laws that will

help them, outlines prevention methods,

and provides suggestions for aftercare

following the abduction. It thoroughly

details search and recovery strategies

and contains advice for attorneys, prosecutors, and family court judges handling

these cases.

International Forum on Parental Child

Abduction: Hague Convention Action

Agenda. This report details the findings

of a forum held in September 1998 to

study the Hague Convention on the Civil

Aspects of International Child Abduction.

It offers 12 action/agenda items to help

strengthen implementation of the Hague

Convention.

“The Kid Is With a Parent, How Bad Can It

Be?”: The Crisis of Family Abductions. This

issue brief discusses the seriousness of

the problem of family abduction, considers whether the problem is growing, and

examines the challenges and opportunities this crime poses to policymakers.

Missing and Abducted Children: A LawEnforcement Guide to Case Investigation

and Program Management. This guide,

authored by a team of 38 professionals

from local, State, and Federal agencies,

outlines a standard of practice for law

enforcement officers handling several

types of missing child cases, including

runaways, thrownaways, family/nonfamily

abductions, and disappearances in which

the circumstances are unknown.

When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival Guide. Also available from OJJDP;

see above for description.

NCPCA. The following documents are

available from NCPCA (see Publications

on its Web site).

Charging the Parental Kidnapping Case.

This monograph assists prosecutors in

determining appropriate charges and sentencing recommendations. It notes that an

aggressive investigative and prosecutorial

approach sends the message that parental kidnapping is a serious crime with

serious consequences for both victims

and abductors and recommends that

prosecution should be seriously considered in every parental kidnapping case.

Investigation and Prosecution of Parental

Abduction, 2000 (Training Conference

Notebook). This notebook contains training materials compiled for the 2000

NCPCA Conference, Investigation and

Prosecution of Parental Abduction.

Parental Kidnapping, Domestic Violence

and Child Abuse: Changing Legal Responses to Related Violence. This monograph will assist investigators and prosecutors in developing appropriate

responses to the interrelated crimes of

parental kidnapping, domestic violence,

and child abuse.

ABA CCL. The following documents are

available from ABA CCL (see Issues/

Parental Kidnapping on its Web site).

Hague Child Abduction Convention Issue

Briefs. This 1997 material consists of four

issue briefs that can help attorneys handle cases that fall under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The Hague Convention: A Curriculum for

American Judges and Lawyers. This 1997

publication explains how the Hague Convention can be used effectively within the

United States in international parental

kidnapping cases.

Parental Kidnapping Prevention and Remedies. This 1997 material is designed to

help attorneys better understand parental

abduction cases and applicable laws. It

includes practical tips on protections that

can be placed in child custody orders

that may help prevent an abduction, tips

that lawyers can give their parent clients,

a review of possible legal actions that can

be taken on parents’ behalf, and governmental resources that can be used to help

in these cases.

Parental Kidnapping Law Reform Package.

This package, produced in 1996, contains

three proposed State laws related to

parental abduction that can be adopted

by State legislatures. The laws are the

Parental Kidnapping Crime Act, Missing

Children Record Flagging Act, and Tortious Interference With Child Custody

and Visitation Act.

Endnotes

1. The study’s findings and recommendations are discussed in greater detail in the

project’s final report, The Criminal Justice

System’s Response to Parental Abduction:

Final Report, which is available from the

Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse (call 800–

638–8736 or order online at www.ncjrs.

org/puborder). Unless otherwise stated,

legal and other research for this Bulletin

was concluded in mid-1996. Readers wishing to rely on a particular legal reference

should check the law itself to find accurate, updated language and citation

information.

2. A detailed discussion of NISMART 2,

which is currently under way, can be

found in Hanson, L., 2000, Second Comprehensive Study of Missing Children, Bulletin,

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

3. The survey instrument made the

inquiry as to “whether . . . joint custody”

was a factor in taking a report or influenced the investigative priority assigned

to a case. Whether a court order was

necessary to have “joint custody” was

left to the interpretation of the responding agency. 

4. The law mentioned in the section

“Phase 2: Findings From Site Visits” was

the law in effect at the time of the site

visits and was current as of 1995.

5. Characteristics that were missing more

than 30 percent of the data were eliminated from the chi-square analysis.

6. See Uthe (1996). The Act also appears

in an appendix to The Criminal Justice

System’s Response to Parental Abduction:

Final Report (see note 1).

7. The full text of the Act with commentary can be found in Volenik and Uthe

(1993). 

8. In accordance with NCIC 2000, technological capabilities are improving. As part

of the improvement effort, guidelines are

being developed and implemented. In

light of this Bulletin’s NCIC-related findings, the NCIC 2000 code for missing

persons should state “parental abduction” rather than “noncustodial parent

abduction.” The present code is too narrow a construct because sometimes
15

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.

Acknowledgments

At the time of this Bulletin’s development, Kathi L. Grasso, J.D., was Director of

the Child and Adolescent Health Law Program at the American Bar Association’s

Center on Children and the Law. She is now Director of OJJDP’s Research and

Development Division. Andrea J. Sedlak, Ph.D., is Associate Director of Human

Services Research at Westat. Janet L. Chiancone, M.S., is a Program Manager

in the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s Research and

Program Development Division. Frances Gragg, M.A., is a Senior Project Director

at Westat. Dana Schultz, M.P.P., is a Project Analyst at Westat. Joseph F. Ryan,

Ph.D., is a former detective with the New York City Police Department and currently the Chair of the Department of Criminal Justice and Sociology at Pace University in New York and a nationally recognized expert on police response to intimate

violence.

Other individuals involved with this research included Susan J. Wells, Ph.D.,

Patricia Hoff, Esq., Diane D. Broadhurst, M.L.A., and Lisa Altenbernd. Project

Advisory Board members were Martha-Elin Blomquist, Ph.D., Judge Christopher

Foley, and Janet Kosid Uthe, Esq.

Photo on page 3 © 1998–2001 PictureQuest, Inc.; photo on page 5 © 1997–99

PhotoDisc, Inc.; photo on page 11 © 2001 Corbis Corporation.

custodial parents conceal children in

violation of the other parent’s visitation

rights. Codes should also expressly allow

entry of abducting parents who are missing into the NCIC database, regardless of

custodial or criminal status. It is imperative that the proposed NCIC 2000 guidelines relative to parental abduction (interstate and international) be reviewed to

ensure that they facilitate, not hinder, the

identification and recovery of abducted

children, regardless of whether a custodian, noncustodian, or other person

abducts them.

9. See Parental Abduction: A Review of

the Literature (ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/

missing.html#186160) for more information about many of these topics. A

description of this document can be

found under “For Further Information.”

10. The Missing and Exploited Children’s

Training and Technical Assistance Program, funded through a grant to Fox Valley Technical College and overseen by

OJJDP’s Child Protection Division, currently offers five different week-long

training programs, including a program

on Responding to Missing and Abducted

Children.

11. In addition to the FBI, a number of other

Federal agencies can be of assistance to

criminal justice system personnel working

on parental abduction cases. An excellent

guide to this support is Federal Resources

on Missing and Exploited Children: A Directory for Law Enforcement and Other Public

and Private Agencies (3rd ed., May 2001),

prepared by Fox Valley Technical College

under a cooperative agreement with OJJDP.

For further information on obtaining this

document, call the Juvenile Justice Clearinghouse at 800–638–8736.

12. In January 2000, the FBI expanded its

Office of Crimes Against Children into the

Crimes Against Children Unit (CACU).

CACU is staffed by supervisory special

agents and support professionals who

focus on all crimes under the FBI’s jurisdiction that in any way involve the victimization of children. The staff provide

program management and fieldwide investigative oversight over these critical FBI

operations. The mission of CACU is to

provide a quick, effective response to all

incidents under its jurisdiction, thereby

increasing the number of victimized children recovered and reducing the number

of crimes in which children are victimized.

References

Finkelhor, D., Hotaling, G., and Sedlak, A.

1990. Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and

Thrownaway Children in America; First

Report: Numbers and Characteristics,

National Incidence Studies. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of

Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Girdner, L. 1993. Introduction. In Obstacles

to the Recovery and Return of Parentally

Abducted Children, Final Report, edited by

L. Girdner and P. Hoff. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

Uthe, J. 1996. Parental Kidnapping Crime

Act. In Parental Kidnapping Law Reform

Package, edited by L. Girdner and P. Hoff.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention.

Volenik, A., and Uthe, J. 1993. Chapter 6:

Obstacles to the recovery and return of

parentally abducted children. In Obstacles

to the Recovery and Return of Parentally

Abducted Children, Final Report, edited by

L. Girdner and P. Hoff. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention.

This Bulletin was prepared under grant number 93–MC–CX–0010 from the Office of Juvenile

Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S.

Department of Justice.
PRESORTED STANDARD

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

DOJ/OJJDP

PERMIT NO. G–91

Bulletin NCJ 186160

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