i

A Report to the Attorney General on

International Parental Kidnapping

April 1999

NCJ 189382

Report

Subcommittee on International Child Abduction of the

Federal Agency Task Force on Missing and Exploited Children and the

Policy Group on International Parental Kidnapping
iii

Table of Contents

Section 1: Introduction................................................................................................................3

Establishment of the Subcommittee on International Child Abduction and the

Policy Group on International Parental Kidnapping.................................................................................. 4

A Report on International Parental Kidnapping ......................................................................................... 5

Ongoing Commitment to Achieve “Best Practices” .................................................................................... 5

Section 2: Improving Federal Responses to International Parental Kidnapping.................... 7

Gap 1: Establish a more informative and coordinated Federal response to international

parental kidnapping ........................................................................................................................................ 9

Recommendations ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Gap 2: Develop a comprehensive statistical database on international parental kidnapping cases .... 10

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 11

Gap 3: Expand diplomatic efforts to resolve international parental kidnapping cases and

educate the public about them...................................................................................................................... 11

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 11

Gap 4: Improve implementation of the Hague Convention ..................................................................... 12

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 12

Gap 5: Seek solutions to problems of parental access at an international level..................................... 12

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 13

Gap 6: Foster more widespread and effective use of NCIC and INTERPOL to stop abductions

in progress and to locate abducted children and abductors ..................................................................... 13

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 14

Gap 7: Strengthen passport issuance and revocation practices and institute specialized training

for border inspectors to aid in deterring and intercepting cross-border parental abductions ............. 14

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 14

Gap 8: Provide education, training, and other assistance......................................................................... 15

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 15

Gap 9: Expand the availability of resources to assist left-behind parents.............................................. 15

Recommendations .................................................................................................................................... 16

Issues for Further Study............................................................................................................................... 16
iv

Section 3: Current Federal Responses to International Parental Kidnapping ....................... 17

Overview ........................................................................................................................................................ 19

International Parental Kidnapping Defined ........................................................................................... 19

Parental Kidnapping Victims ................................................................................................................... 19

Scope of the Problem ............................................................................................................................... 19

Overview of the Legal Response ............................................................................................................. 20

Part 1: Outgoing Cases ................................................................................................................................. 21

Prevention ................................................................................................................................................. 21

At the Local Level .............................................................................................................................. 21

Law Enforcement Intervention .................................................................................................. 21

Court-Ordered Prevention Measures ........................................................................................ 21

At the Federal Level .......................................................................................................................... 21

Prevention Packets ...................................................................................................................... 21

Passport Issuance and Denials ................................................................................................... 22

Flagging applications for U.S. passports ............................................................................. 22

Denying issuance of a child’s U.S. passport ........................................................................ 22

Revoking a child’s passport .................................................................................................. 22

Denying or revoking an abductor’s passport ...................................................................... 22

Entry controls: Denying visas .............................................................................................. 23

Departure controls................................................................................................................ 23

Entry-exit control system ..................................................................................................... 23

Locating Abducted Children and Their Abductors ................................................................................ 23

National Crime Information Center ................................................................................................. 23

Immediate Entry of a Child into the Missing Person File......................................................... 24

NCIC Entries on the Abductor: Wanted Person File and Vehicle File.................................... 24

Department of State, Office of Children’s Issues ............................................................................. 24

Welfare and Whereabouts Visits for U.S. Citizens Abroad ...................................................... 24

Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service.......................................................................... 24

INTERPOL–U.S. National Central Bureau ................................................................................... 24

Federal Bureau of Investigation ........................................................................................................ 25

U.S. Postal Service ............................................................................................................................ 26

Federal Inspection Services Personnel at U.S. Ports of Entry: U.S. Customs Service

 and Immigration and Naturalization Service .................................................................................. 26

Defense Department Legal Assistance Offices and Worldwide Military Locator Services .......... 26

Federal Parent Locator Service ........................................................................................................ 26

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children...................................................................... 27

Missing and Exploited Children’s Program Web Site ..................................................................... 27
v

Civil Remedies to Recover the Abducted Child ..................................................................................... 27

Mechanisms for Child Recovery ....................................................................................................... 27

Hague Convention Remedy ........................................................................................................ 27

Non-Hague Convention Country Recovery .............................................................................. 29

Recovery by Department of Defense Mechanisms ................................................................... 30

Encouraging Returns Through Visa Denials ............................................................................. 30

Federal Role in Civil Child Recovery ............................................................................................... 30

Welfare and Whereabouts .......................................................................................................... 30

Voluntary Return......................................................................................................................... 30

Finding a Lawyer ........................................................................................................................ 30

Facilitating Legal Proceedings Abroad ...................................................................................... 31

Diplomatic Initiatives .................................................................................................................. 31

Facilitating a Child’s Return to the United States ..................................................................... 32

Travel documents .................................................................................................................. 32

Transportation costs.............................................................................................................. 32

Repatriation loans ................................................................................................................. 32

Significant public benefit parole .......................................................................................... 32

Stopping an Abduction in Progress: Intercepting the Child ..................................................... 32

Intercepting the child in the United States.......................................................................... 32

Intercepting the child abroad ............................................................................................... 33

Criminal Prosecution and Extradition .................................................................................................... 33

State Law Prosecution, Assisted by Federal Law ............................................................................ 33

Fugitive Felon Act: Unlawful Flight to Avoid Prosecution Warrants...................................... 33

Federal Prosecution Under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act............................. 34

Charging Considerations in Criminal Cases..................................................................................... 35

Abductions to Hague Countries ................................................................................................. 35

Abductions to Non-Hague Countries ........................................................................................ 35

Imposition of Sentencing Conditions ................................................................................................ 35

Federal Victim-Witness Assistance ................................................................................................... 35

Conduct of International Criminal Investigations ........................................................................... 36

International Legal Assistance .................................................................................................... 36

Extradition ......................................................................................................................................... 36

Stopping an Abduction in Progress: Intercepting the Abductor ..................................................... 37

In the United States .................................................................................................................... 37

Upon Arrival or Entry at Foreign Country ............................................................................... 37
vi

Part 2: Incoming Cases ................................................................................................................................. 38

Locating Abducted Children and Their Abductors in the United States .............................................. 38

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children...................................................................... 38

Child Abducted From a Hague Convention Country ............................................................... 38

Child Abducted From a Non-Hague Convention Country ...................................................... 38

Department of State, Office of Children’s Issues ............................................................................. 38

INTERPOL–USNCB....................................................................................................................... 38

Federal Inspection Service: INS and Customs ................................................................................ 38

NCIC .................................................................................................................................................. 38

FBI...................................................................................................................................................... 38

U.S. Postal Service ............................................................................................................................ 39

Defense Department Legal Assistance Offices and Worldwide Military Locator Services .......... 39

Federal Parent Locator Service ........................................................................................................ 39

Civil Remedies for Child Recovery ......................................................................................................... 39

Hague Convention Remedy .............................................................................................................. 39

Legal Proceedings Under the Convention ................................................................................. 39

Lawsuits to Enforce Foreign Custody and Visitation Orders................................................... 40

Finding a Lawyer ............................................................................................................................... 40

Hague Cases ................................................................................................................................ 40

International Child Abduction Attorney ............................................................................. 40

Network ................................................................................................................................ 40

California’s public prosecutors ............................................................................................. 40

Defense Department legal assistance .................................................................................. 40

Non-Hague cases .................................................................................................................. 40

Intercepting a child at U.S. points of entry ......................................................................... 41

Criminal Arrest and Extradition.............................................................................................................. 41

Provisional Arrest and Extradition ................................................................................................... 41

Intercepting Incoming Abductions in Progress ............................................................................... 41

Conclusion ...................................................................................................................................................... 42

Appendices ....................................................................................................................................................... 43

Appendix 1: Members of the Interagency Working Group...................................................................... 45

Appendix 2: Laws That May Apply in International Parental Kidnapping Cases ................................ 47
Section 1: Introduction

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 3

Establishment of the Subcommittee on International Child Abduction and the

Policy Group on International Parental Kidnapping ........................................................................... 4

A Report on International Parental Kidnapping ................................................................................... 5

Ongoing Commitment to Achieve “Best Practices” ............................................................................ 5
3

Recognizing that “international abduction or wrongful

retention of children is harmful to their well-being”

(42 U.S.C. 11601), the Federal Government has become increasingly involved in finding solutions to international parental kidnapping. With the goals of

deterring abductions, recovering children, and bringing abductors to justice, the Federal Government has

entered into international agreements, enacted laws,

adopted procedures, and funded programs to improve

the response of the civil law and the criminal justice

system when international abductions occur.

Two major Federal initiatives facilitate recovery of

abducted and wrongfully retained children: the

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and its implementing legislation the International Child Abduction Remedies

Act. The Department of State is the U.S. Central

Authority for the Hague Convention. The Hague

Convention is the primary mechanism preferred

under U.S. law for the recovery of children abducted internationally by a parent. It is in force

between the United States and 47 other nations.

In countries not party to the Hague Convention,

parents may still pursue private lawsuits under the

laws of the country in which the child is located.

Several Federal laws provide the authority to bring

international child abductors to justice, including the

Fugitive Felon Act, the International Extradition

Treaties Interpretation Act of 1998, and the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act. In addition,

the series of missing children laws passed by Congress plays a vital role in helping to locate abducted

children. Other laws also may come into play in an

international abduction case. The laws are most successful when they deter abductions outright. When

deterrence fails, the civil statutes enable those leftbehind parents to seek recovery of the child, and the

criminal statutes enable law enforcement and prosecutors to pursue the abductor. Although the child

may be located and possibly recovered through the

criminal pursuit of the abductor, the criminal process

does not assure a child’s return, and parents should

pursue civil means. Those left behind also need to be

aware that pursuing criminal proceedings in fact may

diminish the chance of child recovery, particularly in

countries that have ratified the Hague Convention.

The States likewise have developed law and practice

regarding parental abductions. Every State criminalizes

parental kidnapping, although there is no single definition or title of the offense. Statutes label the offense

variously as custodial interference, child abduction,

parental abduction, child stealing, child snatching,

family abduction, and parental kidnapping. All 50

States and the District of Columbia have established

missing children clearinghouses. Some States have

enacted flagging statutes to monitor requests for birth

and school records of missing children. All States

have laws addressing the issuance, modification, and

enforcement of child custody determinations.

When a child is abducted from or wrongfully retained outside of the United States, State and local

law enforcement, left-behind parents, and their advocates naturally turn to the Federal Government

for help. After numerous phone calls, they discover

that the Departments of State and Justice play parallel but separate roles in facilitating the recovery of

a child and the extradition of an abductor to the

United States for prosecution, while numerous other

Federal agencies and international authorities play

secondary roles in child recovery and fugitive apprehension. The quest for help may also lead them to

the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), a nonprofit organization funded, in

part, by the Department of Justice, as well as to

other nongovernmental organizations, which may

also be of assistance.

Introduction
4

What parents and law enforcement do not find is a

central point of contact in the Federal Government

for assistance and guidance on how to access Federal resources. As a result, they are often uncertain

about whom to call and whether all available Federal resources have been identified to address their

case. Although a network exists among Federal officials who regularly work these cases, it may not be

apparent to those parents, advocates, and law enforcement officials who seek assistance as they approach these cases, as most probably do, for a first

and only time. Further, agency personnel working

either the civil or criminal aspects of an international

abduction or wrongful retention case may not know

the variety of assistance available, and they may lack

an efficient means to find out what resources have

already been tapped. Consequently, those working

these cases may not pursue certain avenues or make

appropriate referrals for further assistance.

Establishment of the Subcommittee

on International Child Abduction

and the Policy Group on

International Parental Kidnapping

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention (OJJDP) within the Office of Justice

Programs at the Department of Justice is responsible for the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program (MECP), authorized by Congress in the

Missing Children’s Assistance Act of 1984 (42

U.S.C. 5771 et seq.). OJJDP, through MECP, has

funded groundbreaking research, programs, and

services in relation to interstate and international

parental kidnapping cases.

In 1994 the Federal Coordinating Council on Juvenile Justice, chaired by the Attorney General, established a Missing and Exploited Children’s Task Force

(Task Force) to coordinate Federal law enforcement

resources to assist State and local authorities with

difficult missing and exploited children cases. In June

1997, OJJDP, in cooperation with NCMEC, sponsored an International Parental Abduction Focus

Group to identify common problems, improve the

delivery of services and support to parents and children, and reduce or prevent unnecessary stress and

suffering faced by victim parents whose children are

wrongfully removed to or retained in other countries.

Soon after, in December 1997, the Task Force established a Subcommittee on International Child Abduction to clarify the roles and responsibilities of the

many Federal agencies that respond to international

abduction cases and to explore ways to improve the

governmentwide response.

Chaired by Ronald Laney, Director of OJJDP’s

Office of Missing and Exploited Children’s Program, the Subcommittee comprises representatives

of numerous Federal agencies as well as other organizations with a special interest in this problem.

Participating entities are the Department of State

(Office of Children’s Issues, which is the U.S. Central

Authority for the Hague Convention; Office of the

Legal Adviser; Bureau of Diplomatic Security); the

Department of Justice (Office of Juvenile Justice

and Delinquency Prevention; Missing and Exploited

Children’s Program; Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys; Criminal Division, the Office of International

Affairs and the Child Exploitation and Obscenity

Section; the INTERPOL–U.S. National Central

Bureau; the Immigration and Naturalization Service;

the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of

General Counsel and the Office of Crimes Against

Children); the Department of Treasury (U.S. Customs Service); the National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children; the Kern County, California,

District Attorney’s Office; and the American Prosecutors Research Institute.

In a series of meetings that began in January 1998,

the Subcommittee reviewed how each agency

handles international child abduction cases and discussed issues of interagency coordination. It clarified agency roles, responsibilities, and jurisdiction in

international abduction cases and identified problems at the State and Federal levels that impact

these cases. The Subcommittee also developed recommendations to address the identified problems.

In November 1998, the Attorney General, after

discussion with the Secretary of State, convened

a Policy Group, comprising key high-level representatives from the Departments of Justice and

State, to expedite appropriate reforms in the Federal

responses to international child abduction. Using the

Subcommittee’s recommendations as a springboard

for discussion, the Policy Group adopted a series of
5

recommendations (which appear in section 2), prioritized actions for immediate implementation, and

made plans to assess existing resource needs of the

agencies as well as budgetary implications of proposed initiatives.

A Report on International Parental

Kidnapping

It became evident from the Subcommittee’s deliberations that the Federal Government as a whole needs

a statement describing current responses in international parental kidnapping cases, including identification of problems.

Section 3 of this report addresses the first need. It

describes current Federal responses to international

parental kidnapping, distinguishing between civil

remedies to recover children and criminal mechanisms to bring abductors to justice, and identifies

problems with existing law and practice.

Section 2 describes shortcomings in the current responses and makes recommendations to close the

gaps and more effectively engage the many agencies

involved to improve the Federal responses to international child abduction cases. It concludes by identifying issues for further study.

Ongoing Commitment to Achieve

“Best Practices”

This Report to the Attorney General is an important

milestone in the work on international parental kidnapping by the Interagency Subcommittee and the

Policy Group. To fulfill the second need identified

by the Subcommittee, guides for law enforcement

and parents on Federal resources in international

parental kidnapping cases also will be developed.1

Efforts to improve Federal responses to international parental kidnapping will continue in an interagency working group, which recommendation 1.4

proposes establishing. (Appendix 1 lists members of

the proposed core interagency working group.) The

interagency working group, to be chaired by the

Department of State, will meet at least quarterly to

review and seek resolution of difficult cases, explore

problems with Hague Convention implementation,

and promote interagency coordination. The Policy

Group will continue to meet periodically to address

issues identified for further study. It and the proposed interagency working group will monitor the

Federal Government’s responses to international

parental kidnapping cases, with a goal of seeking

and implementing best practices to prevent and resolve them.

1

 Copies of the Department of State booklet, International Parental Child Abduction, and the existing guide, Federal Resources on

Missing and Exploited Children: A Directory for Law Enforcement and

Other Public and Private Agencies (Federal Agency Task Force for

Missing and Exploited Children, 1997) accompany this report.
Section 2: Improving Federal

Responses to International

Parental Kidnapping

Gap 1: Establish a more informative and coordinated Federal response to

international parental kidnapping .............................................................................................................. 9

Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 9

Gap 2: Develop a comprehensive statistical database on international

parental kidnapping cases........................................................................................................................... 10

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 11

Gap 3: Expand diplomatic efforts to resolve international parental kidnapping

cases and educate the public about them .......................................................................................... 11

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 11

Gap 4: Improve implementation of the Hague Convention.......................................................... 12

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 12

Gap 5: Seek solutions to problems of parental access at an international level ................ 12

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 13

Gap 6: Foster more widespread and effective use of NCIC and INTERPOL to stop

abductions in progress and to locate abducted children and abductors............................. 13

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 14

Gap 7: Strengthen passport issuance and revocation practices and institute

specialized training for border inspectors to aid in deterring and intercepting

cross-border parental abductions ........................................................................................................... 14

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 14

Gap 8: Provide education, training, and other assistance ............................................................ 15

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 15

Gap 9: Expand the availability of resources to assist left-behind parents............................. 15

Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 16

Issues for Further Study ................................................................................................................................ 16
9

This section identifies gaps in the Federal

Government’s current responses to international

parental kidnapping cases, i.e., cases involving the

international wrongful removal or retention of a

child. Recommendations are made to close the gaps

and improve the governmentwide handling of these

difficult cases. Many of the recommendations have

resource implications.

GAP 1: Establish a more

informative and coordinated

Federal response to international

parental kidnapping

Many different Federal agencies are potentially involved in international child abduction situations.

Interagency coordination occurs, but there is no

established framework for assuring accurate tracking of case activity by all concerned agencies or for

assisting those officials in assuring that all appropriate measures are being taken by all appropriate

agencies in any given case.

There also is no central point of contact for information and guidance for parents, their advocates, other

assisting organizations, or for State and local law

enforcement, all of whom turn to the Federal Government for help in international abduction cases.

Much more could be done to provide information to

these interested parties about assistance that may be

available and how to obtain it, and to facilitate coordination and communication among relevant agencies. In addition, there are significant gaps in

services provided, for example, in the area of counseling and support to left-behind parents and to

families and children even at the end of the ordeal.

Recommendations

1.1 Identify/designate a point of contact (POC) for

left-behind parents, their advocates, interested organizations, and law enforcement in international child

abduction cases. The POC for law enforcement may

be different than the POC for parents and their advocates. The role of the POC(s) shall be to provide

information about assistance that may be available

from the Federal Government and other governmental and private sources to address the civil and

criminal aspects of international parental kidnapping

and to explain how to obtain appropriate assistance.

The POC(s) shall serve as a liaison between these

offices and interested parties to facilitate communication and promote interagency collaboration to

resolve specific cases.

1.2 A comprehensive case tracking system could

foster collaboration and coordination among agencies and improve the Federal responses to and services for children, parents, law enforcement

agencies, and other organizations involved in international child abduction cases.

1.2.1 A comprehensive system could gather

information on the status of international

child abduction cases from Federal,

State, and local agencies and nonprofit

organizations. Appropriate information

should be accessible to all Federal

agencies and cooperating nonprofit

organizations involved in international

parental kidnapping cases via computer

network, an Internet site, or other

source.

Improving Federal Responses to International

Parental Kidnapping
10

1.2.2 Consideration of the system should also

include development of a checklist to be

used by agencies to gather information

from the party requesting assistance.

(Missing children clearinghouses and law

enforcement at the State and local levels

may also use the checklist.)

1.3 Task a group of management information

systems specialists from all appropriate Federal

agencies and any relevant nongovernmental organizations, as necessary, to review existing systems

used for gathering, updating, analyzing, and disseminating both case-specific and aggregate information on international abduction cases and to

explore development of a comprehensive case

tracking system, as well as a system—responsive

to gap 2—that integrates statistics and information

from all relevant agencies.

1.4 Establish a working group of the Policy Group,

comprising representatives from Federal agencies,

the POC(s), and relevant contractors—for example,

the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children—chaired by the Office of Children’s Issues

(which is also the U.S. Central Authority) to meet

quarterly, or more often as needed. This group will

review and foster resolution of difficult international

parental abduction cases, both Hague and nonHague, including cases identified by the POC; explore systemic problems with the implementation of

the Hague Convention; and promote interagency

coordination in the resolution of cases.

1.5 Support the National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children in its role as a missing children’s

clearinghouse in international child abduction cases.

The clearinghouse would serve as a repository for

information, research, literature, and so forth, relating to international child abduction cases; and ensure that this information is accessible to parents,

law enforcement officials, prosecutors, lawyers,

judges, and other children’s advocacy organizations

(via the Internet and other means) consistent with

applicable privacy laws. (See recommendation 9.6.)

GAP 2: Develop a comprehensive

statistical database on international

parental kidnapping cases

There is no one comprehensive integrated process

for gathering and analyzing data and information on

international child abduction cases. Addressing this

problem requires that all agencies should assure the

timely and complete entry of appropriate information in the abduction cases they handle. The problem of integrating data from various sources must

also be addressed. For example, although the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues has

taken steps to improve its data collection and analysis, other offices and agencies, each working with its

respective database system, may use different criteria to categorize cases, actions, and results. As a

consequence, there is no comprehensive, integrated

statistical database that can be used to describe

reliably the incidence of abduction cases, agency

actions with respect to those cases, results and

timeliness of results, and the use and efficacy of

the Convention and other legal remedies.

If a comprehensive statistical database could be developed, it could serve a variety of objectives, including: (1) more accurately identifying the resource

needs of responding Federal agencies; (2) assessing

the record of various countries in returning abducted children; (3) identifying problem areas and

best practices; (4) evaluating the efficacy of the

Hague Convention both as a whole and also with

respect to the performance of particular countries;

(5) seeking to improve mechanisms for returning

children under the Hague Convention and otherwise

by sharing data selectively with other countries; (6)

advising parents, their advocates, and courts of information (including country-specific information)

that may be useful in formulating appropriate court

orders and taking other actions to deter abductions;

and (7) providing more accurate and useful information to policymakers, the Congress, and the public

about the problem of international abductions.

There is a strong case, then, for the benefits of a comprehensive statistical base. However, the technical

complexity and resource requirements entailed in

developing such a capability need first to be explored.
11

Recommendations

2.1 Task management information systems specialists to explore development of a comprehensive system, as described in 1.3 above. If such a system is

feasible, then:

2.1.1 Use the data in making decisions about

the resource needs of agencies involved

in international abduction cases.

2.1.2 Make appropriate data available to the

public consistent with applicable privacy

laws.

2.1.3 Provide courts with country-specific

information to help parents obtain appropriate safeguards in child custody and

visitation orders where there is a risk of

international abduction or wrongful retention.

2.1.4 Share information with other countries

to foster the return of children under the

Hague Convention and otherwise.

GAP 3: Expand diplomatic efforts

to resolve international parental

kidnapping cases and educate

the public about them

Diplomatic efforts can be an important part of addressing the problem of international parental abduction, both in seeking—on multilateral and bilateral

bases—to make treaty and nontreaty responses more

effective generally and in seeking to resolve difficulties in particular cases involving the location of, return of, and access to abducted children. However,

many parents lack an understanding of what the Federal Government can and cannot do to facilitate resolution of international parental child abduction cases.

More can be done to provide such information.

More could also be done to systematize and intensify contacts with foreign governments on bilateral

and multilateral bases to improve international responses to parental child abductions. This is particularly true with respect to countries that have joined

the Hague Convention, as discussed in connection

with gap 4. With non-Hague countries, the need is

perhaps greater and the task is much more difficult,

because no framework of international law governs

the matter; instead, each non-Hague country applies

its own law to its own nationals and others within its

own territory. Nonetheless, this is an area in which

all governments should recognize the necessity of

transnational legal cooperation in the best interests

of the child. The United States should intensively

explore possible legal and diplomatic tools that

could better address this situation. Similarly, as discussed in connection with gap 5, the problem of

access is particularly difficult; although the Hague

Convention has a provision on rights of access, this

has not been developed, either in the text or in practice, into an effective legal regime.

Recommendations

3.1 Educate parents, attorneys, and other interested

parties on:

3.1.1 Sovereignty and dual nationality issues.

3.1.2 Practical application of political and diplomatic pressure in international parental

abduction cases in the United States and

abroad.

3.1.3 Uses of diplomatic initiatives in multilateral treaty and bilateral contexts.

3.1.4 Diplomatic efforts being made by the

United States to improve operation of the

Hague Convention.

3.1.5 Differing and sometimes conflicting purposes of the civil and criminal aspects of

abduction.

3.2 Invite foreign diplomatic personnel from embassies to participate in informal discussions to overcome barriers that impede resolution of international

abduction cases, including special problems that

arise in cases involving dual nationals.

3.3 Articulate U.S. policy regarding diplomatic initiatives in international parental kidnapping cases

and the ways and means by which the State Department may communicate with foreign governments

on behalf of a left-behind parent seeking return of
12

an abducted child. Include a description of problems

and barriers to recovery that have arisen in past

cases and describe how they can be overcome. Disseminate this information to left-behind parents,

their advocates, and other interested parties.

3.4 Consult left-behind parents on how to improve

service, using survey research tools and the family

support network (an OJJDP-funded program,

known as Project Hope, which trains parents to

provide crisis assistance and support to left-behind

parents in the United States whose children are victims of international abduction).

GAP 4: Improve implementation

of the Hague Convention

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provided for the first

time an international treaty mechanism for parents

to seek the return of abducted and wrongfully retained children and to facilitate access to children

located in another country. However, there are

systemic problems with how the Convention is

implemented in a number of countries, including

impediments to locating children, delays in processing of cases, nonenforcement of court orders, lack of

access to children, and the imposition of conditions

on return orders (undertakings). Efforts must continue to improve the Convention’s effectiveness.

Enhancing the operation of the Convention worldwide is of great interest to the United States because

more children are abducted to and from the United

States than any other Convention country.

Recommendations

4.1 Ensure that the issue of international child abduction and the need selectively to increase the number

of signatories to the Convention are on the official

agenda of relevant bilateral and multilateral meetings

attended by appropriate non-Hague countries.

4.2 Raise and examine delays in proceedings, quality

of legal representation, and compliance with the

provisions of the Convention with central authorities

of Hague party countries.

4.3 Address issues, such as noncompliance, failure

to enforce return and access orders, procedural delays, inability to locate children, and other problems

that impede successful operation of the Convention,

in bilateral discussions and at the next meeting of

Hague Convention party countries at The Hague.

4.4 Make a concerted effort to expand access to legal

services in the United States and abroad for all leftbehind parents in Hague and non-Hague cases by:

4.4.1 Expanding the International Child Abduction Attorney Network (ICAAN) to

include attorneys in other countries who

will represent parents of abducted children on a pro bono or reduced-fee basis.

4.4.2 Working with foreign central authorities

in Hague countries to identify lawyers

willing to be added to ICAAN.

4.4.3 Encouraging non-Hague countries,

through their nonprofit organizations

and otherwise, to identify lawyers willing

to provide representation in international

parental abduction cases.

4.4.4 Continuing to expand the ICAAN network in the United States to provide

assistance on incoming cases.

4.5 Work to increase the frequency of meetings of

party countries in The Hague to review operation of

the Convention.

GAP 5: Seek solutions to

problems of parental access

at an international level

Although not entirely satisfactory, there are somewhat predictable law and practice regarding international child abduction. However, law and practice

regarding efforts of parents to visit their children

abroad are much less well-developed. The Hague

Convention is vague on how access rights (referred

to in the United States as visitation rights) are to be

effectively exercised internationally, and the Convention does not include return of the child as a remedy
13

for breach of access rights. There are recognized

shortcomings of the Hague Convention that should

be addressed. Thus, in Hague and non-Hague countries, a left-behind parent’s ability to visit a child may

be largely dependent on the laws and customs of the

country in which the child is located, which may unfairly disfavor left-behind parents. Moreover, without

a clear international legal framework to address access problems, government agencies and private attorneys—both here and abroad—are less able to

assist parents in obtaining access.

Two possible avenues to improve the situation regarding access may be to press, on a multilateral

basis, for better implementation of Hague Convention provisions, which may provide relief regarding

access, and to consider the efficacy of the 1996

Hague Convention on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law,

Recognition, Enforcement, and Cooperation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for

the Protection of Children (Hague Convention for

the Protection of Children) as a means of better

addressing the access problem. Other solutions

should also be explored.

Unmerited denial of access, whether in the context

of an abduction or not, is a serious problem which,

to date, has not been satisfactorily addressed on an

international level.

Recommendations

5.1 Ensure that the issue of access rights is taken up

at the next quadrennial meeting of Hague Convention party countries at The Hague.

5.2 Accelerate consideration of the 1996 Hague Convention for the Protection of Children as a possible

means of enforcing access rights in party countries.

5.3 Investigate ways to improve international access

to children in Hague and non-Hague countries.

5.4 Explore arrangements with countries not party

to the Hague Convention to ensure that the leftbehind parent may enjoy access to his or her child

and that the child has access also to his or her second parent.

GAP 6: Foster more widespread

and effective use of NCIC and

INTERPOL to stop abductions in

progress and to locate abducted

children and abductors

When a left-behind parent reports an abduction in

progress to U.S. law enforcement authorities, those

authorities must immediately attempt both to locate

the abductor and child and to halt the abduction.

U.S. law requires entering information on the child

at once into the missing person database of the National Crime Information Center (NCIC). NCIC is

a U.S. nationwide computerized police information

system. The FBI administers NCIC on behalf of

more than 80,000 U.S. criminal justice agencies at

all levels of government. If it has obtained a warrant

for the abductor, a law enforcement agency handling

an abduction case can enter a record on the abductor in the NCIC wanted person database, as well.

There are, however, certain limitations regarding the

use of the NCIC system. First, the system is useful

only if law enforcement officers have the training to

know when and how to make the best use of it. Not

only are there questions about whether officers have

been adequately informed about making all appropriate NCIC entries in international abduction

cases, but there seem to be instances in which entries are removed prematurely when a missing child

is located overseas—but not yet recovered—and

subsequent opportunities to identify the child’s (or

abductor’s) movements are lost.

When an international abduction from the United

States is underway, U.S. law enforcement must rapidly notify and request assistance from appropriate

foreign law enforcement authorities. In addition to

calling the FBI field office, U.S. Federal, State, and

local law enforcement can alert foreign authorities

24 hours per day, 7 days per week, every day of the

year, by contacting the INTERPOL–U.S. National

Central Bureau (USNCB).
14

If an abductor and child have entered one or another foreign country and their location is unknown,

U.S. law enforcement can use INTERPOL’s powerful notice system to search for them internationally.

Red (fugitive), yellow (missing persons, including

an abducted child), and blue (trace and locate) notices provide all INTERPOL member countries

with a given person’s case and identification information and ask any country locating the person to

notify the requesting country immediately so that it

may request extradition, facilitate a request for the

child’s return under the Hague Convention, or take

other action as appropriate. U.S. law enforcement

can apply for INTERPOL notices through the

USNCB. However, many U.S. law enforcement

personnel are unaware of the various types of assistance available through INTERPOL.

Recommendations

6.1 Explore the feasibility of a policy change for

NCIC that would require maintaining NCIC

records concerning a child missing in a foreign

country until the child is recovered or until the issue

of the child’s return has been resolved.

6.2 Train U.S. Federal, State, and local law enforcement in using NCIC and INTERPOL more effectively

in cases of children abducted from the United States.

GAP 7: Strengthen passport

issuance and revocation practices

and institute specialized training

for border inspectors to aid in

deterring and intercepting crossborder parental abductions

Parents who believe their child may be at risk of

international abduction look to local and Federal

authorities for help in preventing, detecting, and

intercepting an abduction. Travelers departing the

United States do not encounter exit controls. (Occasionally Federal Inspection Service (FIS) personnel

may perform outbound merchandise inspections.)

Airlines, not the U.S. Government, may require a

passenger to show a valid passport when he or she

boards a plane. Even in cases where there may be

an opportunity to prevent or delay the departure of

a child and/or parent in a suspected abduction,

FIS personnel at the border may not be adequately

trained to respond to abductions.

Preventing the issuance of a passport to a child may

deter some abductions. A parent with a valid custody order may put a hold on the issuance of a U.S.

passport to his or her child(ren) by contacting the

Department of State. The State Department Office

of Passport Services may deny or revoke a U.S.

passport of an abducting parent who is the subject

of a Federal warrant. However, neither of these

measures is widely known to parents or to all law

enforcement authorities. It is clear that there needs

to be wider training and information materials available to parents and law enforcement.

Because many abducted children are dual nationals,

they may also hold a valid passport of the other

country. If they don’t have one, they may apply for

one. There may be no barriers to the issuance of

these passports. In fact, the foreign countries’ embassies and consulates may be required to issue a

passport on demand by one of their nationals. At

present there is no requirement for the Passport

Office to notify a foreign government when it denies

a passport for a dual national child. Nor is there is

a formal mechanism to inform foreign governments

about lookouts placed in the system for U.S. passport applications for these children.

Recommendations

7.1 Provide a joint training program for Federal

Inspection Services personnel at U.S. borders and

ports of entry to increase awareness about international child abduction.

7.2 Review policies governing the issuance and

denial of U.S. passports.

7.2.1 Improve awareness about procedures to

prevent issuance of a child’s passport to

the noneligible parent.

7.2.2 Notify the concerned foreign embassy of

a lookout placed in the U.S. passport

system on a dual national child, at the

request of the custodial parent.
15

7.2.3 Pursue regulatory changes to allow revocation of a child’s U.S. passport on the

same basis that the issuance of a U.S.

passport can be denied.

7.3 Explore ways to increase awareness among Federal, State, and local officials of procedures for and

the effect of revoking U.S. passports when a parent

(or other person) is criminally charged with child

abduction.

GAP 8: Provide education,

training, and other assistance

International parental child abduction is a complex

and difficult issue. For attorneys, judges, and officials at all levels of government who deal with family

law and custody matters, the prospect or fact of an

international abduction will generally present issues

of law, fact, and practice as to which they have little

or no experience or training. For parents—often

under extreme stress—the picture is even more

daunting. Although information, experience, and

assistance are available, they are not easily accessible, nor has there been a systematic, coordinated

effort to educate and assist parents and others involved about remedies and resources in international

child abduction cases.

Recommendations

8.1 With extensive coordination with other Federal

agencies, the Missing and Exploited Children’s Program shall develop a formal, comprehensive education, training, and technical assistance program for

parents; Federal, State, and local law enforcement

officials and prosecutors; State clearinghouses;

judges; attorneys; and other agencies and organizations involved in civil and criminal international abduction cases. This effort shall be linked to training

on international parental kidnapping provided by

other agencies and organizations. (See 8.2.1, below.)

8.2 Identify current training and technical assistance

resources. Design, develop, and conduct training;

provide technical assistance; and disseminate publications and other products to fill needs and gaps in service delivery. Provide training to State and Federal

law enforcement and prosecutors on the investigation

and prosecution of parental kidnapping, focusing on

actions to be taken immediately in cases of suspected

international parental kidnapping. Provide training to

agency personnel who deal with left-behind parents

to ensure they have the necessary sensitivity and expertise to respond effectively in international abduction cases and are conversant with the rights and

services due to Federal crime victims. Train judges

and attorneys on the Hague Convention, other intercountry agreements concerning children, problems

related to dual nationality, obstacles to recovery, the

relationship between domestic violence and parental

kidnapping, the impact of abduction on children, and

prevention. (See 8.3, below.)

8.2.1 Each Federal agency involved in the civil

or criminal aspects of international child

abduction shall ensure that there is detailed guidance on appropriate responses

in these cases and that training on international parental kidnapping is routinely

included in continuing education programs for agency personnel involved in

these cases.

8.3 Focus attention on preventing abductions. Develop a media campaign to educate parents, the public, and organizations and agencies involved in these

cases. Increase public awareness of the Hague Convention. Highlight problems created by dual nationality. Create and disseminate prevention information

(e.g., fact sheets and official letters) to educate

judges and parents on issues related to dual nationality and safeguards that can be included in custody

orders to deter abductions.

8.4 Develop a mentoring approach to encourage

lawyers, prosecutors, and law enforcement officials

who have experience with international abduction

cases to share their experiences and expertise with

similarly situated parties.

GAP 9: Expand the availability of

resources to assist left-behind

parents

At the international level, securing the return of

abducted children, and in the criminal context, the

return of abductors, can entail significant costs—
16

costs that may be beyond the resources of parents

or, when a criminal case is involved, of local law

enforcement officials. Indeed, lack of funds may be a

significant obstacle to recovering abducted children

from another country. Left-behind parents may lack

the means to travel abroad, to retain a lawyer and

pay other legal costs, to engage translators and interpreters, to undertake an international search for the

child, to obtain counseling, or even to transport the

child home. State and local prosecutors may forego

criminal charges in international parental kidnapping cases because of the costs involved in seeking

international extradition of fugitive abducting parents, including translating legal documents and paying to transport the abductor and escort officers

back to the United States. Also, State missing children clearinghouses may have insufficient resources

to effectively assist left-behind parents and local law

enforcement in abduction cases.

Recommendations

9.1 Explore the availability of financial resources,

such as victim assistance funds from the Office for

Victims of Crime, to defray some of the expenses

incurred by left-behind parents in international parental kidnapping cases.

9.2 Consider legislation to make Federal funds available in fiscal year 2000 and thereafter to defray the

cost of extradition in cases involving State offenses.

(The administration supported such legislation in

1998.)

9.3 Encourage States to review the sufficiency of

funding and staffing of State missing children clearinghouses and to consider how these entities can

best help parents of abducted children.

9.4 Encourage States to add parental kidnapping to

the list of offenses for which State victims of crime

compensation is available.

9.5 Support the establishment of a mediation program to help resolve wrongful removal and retention

cases and to foster voluntary return of children from

Hague countries.

9.6 Through the clearinghouses or other appropriate

mechanism, promote the development and expansion

of support services for parents, including counseling

and mentor support networks. (See recommendations 1.5, 3.4, and 8.4.)

Issues for Further Study

1. Further review additional means to interdict abductors before they abduct children from this country.

2. Further review ways to provide meaningful assistance to left-behind parents.

2.1 Consider whether to encourage

States to enact the Uniform Child Custody

Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act

(UCCJEA), including its provisions that

authorize State prosecutors (or other designated public officials) to locate and obtain the return of a child in an incoming

Hague Convention case.

3. Explore the legal and policy issues involved in

authorizing Federal or State law enforcement authorities to place a child, listed on NCIC as missing,

into protective custody when the facts known to the

law enforcement official encountering the child do

not support the arrest of the accompanying adult.

4. Identify specific laws and policies that may encourage abductors or impede resolution of abduction cases, e.g. military regulations.

5. Elaborate NCMEC’s role in international parental kidnapping cases. (See recommendation 1.5.)
Section 3: Current Federal

Responses to International

Parental Kidnapping

Overview .............................................................................................................................................................. 19

International Parental Kidnapping Defined .............................................................................................. 19

Parental Kidnapping Victims ....................................................................................................................... 19

Scope of the Problem .................................................................................................................................... 19

Overview of the Legal Response ................................................................................................................. 20

Part 1: Outgoing Cases .................................................................................................................................. 21

Prevention ...................................................................................................................................................... 21

At the Local Level .................................................................................................................................... 21

At the Federal Level ................................................................................................................................. 21

Locating Abducted Children and Their Abductors ................................................................................... 23

National Crime Information Center ........................................................................................................ 23

Department of State, Office of Children’s Issues ................................................................................... 24

Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service ................................................................................ 24

INTERPOL–U.S. National Central Bureau .......................................................................................... 24

Federal Bureau of Investigation .............................................................................................................. 25

U.S. Postal Service ................................................................................................................................... 26

Federal Inspection Services Personnel at U.S. Ports of Entry: U.S. Customs Service and

Immigration and Naturalization Service ................................................................................................. 26

Defense Department Legal Assistance Offices and Worldwide Military Locator Services ................ 26

Federal Parent Locator Service ............................................................................................................... 26

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ............................................................................ 27

Missing and Exploited Children’s Program Web Site ............................................................................ 27

Civil Remedies to Recover the Abducted Child......................................................................................... 27

Mechanisms for Child Recovery ............................................................................................................. 27

Federal Role in Civil Child Recovery...................................................................................................... 30
Criminal Prosecution and Extradition........................................................................................................ 33

State Law Prosecution, Assisted by Federal Law .................................................................................. 33

Federal Prosecution Under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act ................................... 34

Charging Considerations in Criminal Cases ........................................................................................... 35

Imposition of Sentencing Conditions ...................................................................................................... 35

Federal Victim-Witness Assistance.......................................................................................................... 35

Conduct of International Criminal Investigations .................................................................................. 36

Extradition ................................................................................................................................................ 36

Stopping an Abduction in Progress: Intercepting the Abductor ........................................................... 37

Part 2: Incoming Cases .................................................................................................................................. 38

Locating Abducted Children and Their Abductors in the United States ............................................... 38

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children ............................................................................ 38

Department of State, Office of Children’s Issues ................................................................................... 38

INTERPOL–USNCB ............................................................................................................................. 38

Federal Inspection Service: INS and Customs ....................................................................................... 38

NCIC......................................................................................................................................................... 38

FBI ............................................................................................................................................................ 38

U.S. Postal Service ................................................................................................................................... 39

Defense Department Legal Assistance Offices and Worldwide Military Locator Services ................ 39

Federal Parent Locator Service ............................................................................................................... 39

Civil Remedies for Child Recovery ............................................................................................................. 39

Hague Convention Remedy ..................................................................................................................... 39

Finding a Lawyer ..................................................................................................................................... 40

Criminal Arrest and Extradition ................................................................................................................. 41

Provisional Arrest and Extradition ......................................................................................................... 41

Intercepting Incoming Abductions in Progress ...................................................................................... 41

Conclusion .......................................................................................................................................................... 42
19

Overview

International Parental Kidnapping Defined

International parental kidnapping encompasses taking,

retaining, or concealing a child outside the country in

which the child normally resides by a parent, his or her

agent, or other person in derogation of another’s parental rights, including custody and visitation rights. These

rights may arise by operation of law, by legally binding

agreement of the parties, or by court order.

The terms “international parental kidnapping” and

“international child abduction” are used interchangeably in this report and include both wrongful removals and retentions of children. The “abduction” itself

may range from a taking employing violence, false

identifiers, and altered appearances, to the retaining

of a child after a period of lawful custody or visitation. These cases typically involve the wrongful removal or retention of a child by a parent in derogation

of the other parent’s parental rights. However, they

may also involve takings or retentions by parents or

other family members in violation of custody rights

exercised by nonfamily members, such as lawful

guardians or State agencies.

International abductions or retentions often involve

dual nationals, i.e., a parent who is a citizen of both

the United States and another country. The child

may also be a dual national. Further, it is common

for abductions or retentions to occur before custody

has been decided by a court or even before a divorce

or custody proceeding is underway.

It is important to note that no two cases of international parental kidnapping are identical. Just as

cases differ, so will appropriate and effective responses. What is appropriate for one case may be

counterproductive in another. The challenge is to

use the right combination of private and public

resources to achieve a satisfactory resolution.

Parental Kidnapping Victims

An abducted or wrongfully retained child is a victim,

as are those whose parental rights are obstructed.

The victim child is wrested from a familiar life, cut

off from one parent, and thrust involuntarily into a

new reality. Abductions take an emotional toll on all

involved.

Practical problem: Left-behind parents often lack the resources to obtain counseling for themselves and their children. See section 2, gap 9 and recommendation 9.6.2

 Also see

gap 8, recognizing the extreme stress left-behind parents

may experience, and recommendation 8.2, calling for sensitivity training for agency personnel who interact with leftbehind parents and training on crime victims’ rights.

Scope of the Problem

“Outgoing” cases involve children wrongfully removed from the United States and taken to or

wrongfully retained in a foreign country. In calendar

year 1998, the Department of State had a caseload

of 503 new outgoing cases, for a total caseload of

approximately 1,100 outgoing international child

abduction cases. (Each outgoing “case” represents

one child.) Just under half (49 percent) involved

removals to or retentions in countries that are party

to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of

International Child Abduction (Hague Convention),

discussed below. The actual number of outgoing

Current Federal Responses to International

Parental Kidnapping

2

 Gaps and recommendations referred to in this section appear

in section 2, “Improving Federal Responses to International

Parental Kidnapping.”
20

cases is unknown because some parents never contact the Department, but instead go directly to the

foreign central authority for the Hague Convention

or to the courts abroad.

“Incoming” cases involve children wrongfully removed from other countries and taken to or wrongfully retained in the United States. In 1998 there

were 241 new incoming cases involving the Hague

Convention. (Each incoming case represents a “family group,” i.e., one or more children.) Over the 3-

year period that the Department of State has had

the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) handle incoming cases on its behalf, the organization has processed 1,002 incoming

Hague applications. Data on the number of abductions from non-Hague countries to the United States

are not available.

Practical problem: The total number of international parental

kidnapping cases is not known. Although some entities, including the Office of Children’s Issues (OCI) and NCMEC in the

Department of State, collect data on international parental

kidnapping cases, there is no governmentwide, systematic,

integrated process to gather and analyze data. Such a system

would serve a variety of purposes, which are described in gap

2 and accompanying recommendations.

Overview of the Legal Response

Private international law (i.e., legal recourse that

private parties such as left-behind parents pursue

as the party in interest), facilitated by the Federal

Government, provides for the recovery of children

internationally. Any given effort to recover a child

internationally may call upon public and private

resources, as well as Federal, State, and local authorities. As to the wrongdoer, every State, territory,

and the Federal Government criminalizes the abduction or wrongful retention of a child by his or her

parent. In a particular case, any combination of informal, formal, civil, or criminal means may be the

best course both to recover a child and to serve the

ends of justice.

When a child is removed from the United States and

wrongfully taken to or kept in another country, two

distinct processes exist—one to return the child and

the other to pursue the abductor. Civil legal remedies facilitate the child’s return. Once a child has

been abducted, child recovery is a private civil legal

matter between the parties involved under the laws

of the country in which the child is currently located. Fortunately, a number of countries have

joined the Hague Convention and thereby incorporated into their own domestic law the Convention’s

precepts for the return of internationally abducted

children. The Convention seeks to protect children

from the harmful effects of international abduction

by establishing private civil legal mechanisms to

pursue an abducted child’s prompt return to his or

her country of habitual residence. The Hague Convention is the primary mechanism preferred under

U.S. law for the recovery of children abducted internationally. It is administered by the Department of

State and discussed below.

In countries not party to the Hague Convention,

child recovery is effected through private lawsuits

under the laws of the country in which the child is

located. Parents generally retain lawyers in the foreign country as well as in the United States to represent them and assist with the proceedings.

Criminal prosecution, in conjunction with international extradition, can address the perpetrator. The

decision to charge a crime rests solely with the prosecutor and is made on a case-by-case basis. Not every abduction or wrongful retention is charged as a

crime. State and Federal criminal parental kidnapping laws target wrongdoers; they do not address

child recovery. Although a child may be located in

the course of a criminal investigation of an abducting

parent and may in fact be recovered as a byproduct

of the criminal process, those left behind cannot rely

upon the criminal process for a child’s return. A

parent must be prepared to pursue civil means to

locate and recover a child simultaneously with the

prosecutor’s pursuit of extradition and criminal

prosecution of the abductor. Parents should be

aware that in some situations pursuing criminal proceedings against the abductor may diminish the

chance of child recovery. A list of civil and criminal

laws that may apply in cases of international parental kidnapping appears in appendix 2.
21

Part 1. Outgoing Cases

Prevention

“In international parental child abduction, an ounce

of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” So states

the Department of State’s International Parental Child

Abduction booklet, and for good reason. The Federal

Government has limited power to respond to international abductions once the abductor and child

reach a foreign country.

Preventing the abduction of a child from this country

is largely accomplished at the local level at the initiative of a parent. A local law enforcement officer or

prosecutor, at the request of a concerned parent, may

be able to deter an abduction by contacting and advising a potential abductor of the criminal consequences

of parental kidnapping. State court judges can be instrumental in safeguarding against abductions through

specific provisions they include in custody orders.

The Federal Government is involved in many aspects

of prevention of international parental child abduction, including education of family court judges, attorneys, and parents; and interdiction at the border and

elsewhere. The Department of State may also deny

issuance of a child’s U.S. passport and revoke previously issued U.S. passports of abductors who are the

subjects of Federal criminal warrants.

It is important to note, however, that U.S. passport

controls may not deter an abductor. The vast majority of abductors are citizens of the country to which

they are returning and therefore their children—

although they may be U.S. citizens—may also be

citizens of that other country. If dual nationals, these

children are eligible for passports of both the United

States and the other country of nationality. The Office of Children’s Issues at the Department of State

provides extensive prevention materials for parents,

which underscore the importance of preventing abduction given the difficulties posed by dual nationality and foreign sovereignty once the child is abroad.

At the Local Level

Law Enforcement Intervention

If abduction threats have been made or can be inferred from the other parent’s conduct (for example,

quitting a job, selling property, closing bank accounts, requesting a child’s school records or birth

certificate, or contacting relatives in another country

with unusual frequency), a concerned parent may

ask a local law enforcement officer or prosecutor to

contact a likely abductor to explain that parental

kidnapping is a crime. This may put a stop to an

abduction in the planning stages.

Court-Ordered Prevention Measures

Judges should include prevention provisions in custody orders when there is a risk of international

abduction. Strict measures are needed if there is a

strong likelihood of abduction, if the child is likely

to suffer serious harm, or if the left-behind parent

would face many obstacles in seeking to recover the

child from abroad. Provisions should be tailored to

identified objectives.

A variety of provisions, alone or in combination,

may limit the risk of removal from the United States.

These include prohibitions on visitation beyond a

specified geographical area, restrictions on the removal of a child from the United States, supervised

visitation, surrender of passports and other travel

documents prior to visits, a substantial bond, and

notification to the foreign embassy. If an order allows for visitation in another country, it may condition such visits on a substantial bond, purchase of

roundtrip airline tickets, entry of an order in the

foreign court containing custody and visitation provisions identical to those in the U.S. order (a “mirror

image order”), and the provision of names and addresses of all relatives living abroad.

At the Federal Level

Prevention Packets

The Office of Children’s Issues offers comprehensive prevention packets to parents who fear that

their children may be abducted abroad. OCI has

Hague and non-Hague prevention packets. Both

packets contain extensive information, including the

OCI booklet, “International Parental Child Abduction”; a prevention flyer; a list of countries party to

the Hague Convention; texts of the Hague Convention, the International Child Abduction Remedies

Act, and the International Parental Kidnapping
22

Crime Act; materials written by the American Bar

Association; and various articles by private practitioners and judges.

These packets are also supplemented with additional

country-specific information as appropriate, including 19 country-specific child custody flyers; a flyer

on Islamic family law; and a flyer on passport issuance in child custody cases. Also available for parents

are 25 country-specific flyers on judicial assistance

abroad; flyers explaining how to obtain evidence

abroad, the service of process abroad, enforcement of

judgments abroad, authentication of documents for

use abroad, and dual nationality; and Consular Information Sheets and attorney lists for every country of

the world. These flyers are also available at the Department of State Web site, www.travel.state.gov.

This information is often helpful to parents in supporting requests for preventive measures in custody

orders. These flyers educate attorneys, parents, and

judges about child abduction and the obstacles parents face in recovering children from abroad, particularly when the child is a dual national or when the

country to which the child is taken is not party to the

Hague Convention. OCI also drafts case-specific

letters to parents addressing particular issues of concern.

NCMEC is also involved in prevention efforts, fielding prevention calls through its toll-free telephone

number and providing requesting parents and attorneys with a prevention packet containing relevant

information.

Passport Issuance and Denials

Flagging applications for U.S. passports. As a general rule, either parent may request U.S. passport

information about his or her minor child from the Department of State. If a parent fears that a child might

be taken abroad by the other parent without the mutual consent of both parents, that parent ordinarily can

request that the child’s name be put in the U.S. passport namecheck system. Then, if an application is received, the requesting parent will be informed before

issuance of the passport.

Denying issuance of a child’s U.S. passport. The

U.S. Department of State may deny a child a U.S.

passport if the concerned parent has provided the

Passport Office with an order from a court of competent jurisdiction, which either grants that parent sole

custody or which, in effect, forbids the child’s travel

without the consent of both parents or the court.

This process does not apply to the issuance of passports by other countries. A child who has or may

have citizenship in another country (which could

happen if one parent is a foreign national) may be

eligible to hold or be included in a foreign passport,

in addition to a U.S. passport. The concerned parent

may contact the embassy of the other country for

information and assistance.

Revoking a child’s passport. Current practice does

not include revocation of minors’ passports on the

basis of a custody dispute or court order, and current regulations do not provide for such revocation

in all cases of concern. Courts can reduce the likelihood of flight by ordering a parent to surrender a

child’s passport for safekeeping.

Denying or revoking an abductor’s passport. The

Department of State can take revocation action

against the abductor. A request to deny or revoke a

passport may be a useful tool in limiting the movement of a fugitive who is a U.S. citizen only. However, revocation or denial of a passport does not

guarantee the return of the abductor or the child.

Requests for denial or revocation of a U.S. citizen’s

passport must come from Federal law enforcement

authorities, i.e., the FBI, U.S. Attorney, or the Department of Justice. The Department of State will not

accept such requests from private individuals or attorneys. Denial and revocation actions against U.S. citizens are protected by the Privacy Act. The State

Department can discuss such actions with law enforcement authorities only, not with left-behind parents.

Limitations. Revocation or denial of a passport to a

parent is not a foolproof method to prevent an abduction. In the case of a dual national parent, revocation or denial of a U.S. passport does not affect

the ability of that parent to obtain or retain travel

documents from his or her other country of nationality.

As in the case of the dual national child, a request can

be made to the foreign embassy or consulate for reciprocity, but there is no international law obligation to
23

cooperate, and there may be limitations under the

foreign domestic law.

Entry controls: Denying visas. If a consular officer

abroad has reason to believe that an alien may be

proceeding to the United States in order to abduct a

child or cause harm to a family member, that officer

may deny a visa to the alien or revoke any existing

visa under section 212(a)(3)(A)(ii) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. The law makes inadmissible any alien whom the consular officer has reason

to believe is seeking to enter the United States for

the purpose of engaging in unlawful activity.

Departure controls. Section 215 of the Immigration

and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1185) could conceivably be used to prevent an abductor who is an alien

from leaving the United States with a child, although

it is not presently used for this purpose. The law and

implementing regulations (8 CFR Part 215 and 22

CFR Part 46) authorize departure-control officers to

prevent an alien’s departure from the United States if

the alien’s departure would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States. These regulations should be

amended if a decision is made to attempt to use section 215 to prevent child abductions.

Entry-exit control system. The Illegal Immigration

Reform and Immigration Responsibility Act of 1996

(section 110, Public Law 104–208; 8 U.S.C. 1221

note) requires the development of an automated entryexit control system for aliens entering and departing

the United States at airports in the United States not

later than October 15, 1998 (this deadline has since

been extended), and at land and sea ports of entry not

later than March 31, 2001. This system will collect a

record of departure for every alien leaving the United

States and match it with records of the alien’s arrival in

the United States. Tracking the inbound and outbound

travel of aliens may help to identify and stop abductors

as they attempt to enter or leave the United States.

Practical problems:

◆ Prevention measures are effective only if they are used. A

concerted effort must be made to alert parents, lawyers,

judges, and law enforcement about the steps that can be

taken to safeguard against international abductions. See

gap 7, recommendation 7.2.1; gap 8, recommendations

8.2 and 8.3.

◆ Currently, a concerned parent seeking to prevent the

abduction of his or her dual national child bears the

burden of informing the relevant foreign government

about measures taken by the U.S. Passport Office, in the

Department of State, either denying issuance of a passport for the child or flagging any passport application for

the child. The Department of State should notify the

appropriate foreign government when it denies a passport

for a dual national child or places such a child in its

namecheck system. See gap 7, recommendation 7.2.2.

◆ A child’s passport is not subject to revocation on the basis

of a custody dispute or court order under current practice.

The ability to revoke a child’s passport may be helpful in

securing return to this country of a U.S. citizen child who

is abducted to a non-Hague country. Upon revocation of

the passport, such a child might be undocumented and

therefore subject to return by the foreign government.

See gap 7, recommendation 7.2.3.

Locating Abducted Children and

Their Abductors

Both non-law enforcement and criminal justice authorities may assist those left behind in locating a

child. The location of an abducted or wrongfully

retained child often is known by those left behind.

In some cases, however, those left behind may need

assistance in locating or confirming the location of

a child. In Hague cases, the relevant central authority must make efforts to locate or to confirm the

location of a child. In addition, abducted children

may be found during the course of a criminal investigation focused on the abductor; certain search

tools are available only within the context of a criminal investigation of the abductor. What follows is

a description of Federal agencies and tools that

may be involved in a search for a child, an abductor,

or both.

National Crime Information Center

Local, State, and Federal criminal justice agencies

throughout the United States can use the Federal

Bureau of Investigation’s vast National Crime

Information Center (NCIC) database of records

(including missing persons, wanted persons, and

vehicles) to help locate the abductor and child.
24

Immediate Entry of a Child into the Missing

Person File

The Missing Children Act and the National Child

Search Assistance Act, enacted in 1982 and 1990

respectively (28 U.S.C. 534; 42 U.S.C. 5779 and

5780), together require Federal, State, and local law

enforcement agencies to enter descriptions of missing children into the NCIC Missing Person File

(MPF) without any waiting period and without

regard to whether a crime has been committed. If

local law enforcement fails to enter a valid case into

NCIC as required by law, the left-behind parent

may request assistance from the FBI. The FBI has

a concurrent mandate to make the entry, provided

NCIC entry criteria are met. NCMEC can confirm

entries into NCIC–MPF, but it does not have the

authority to make entries.

NCIC Entries on the Abductor: Wanted Person File

and Vehicle File

Law enforcement should enter an abductor into

the NCIC Wanted Person File if the abductor is

charged with parental kidnapping under State or

Federal law. The abductor’s vehicle should be entered in the NCIC Vehicle File.

Practical problem: Law enforcement needs training to ensure the timely, complete, and correct entry of all appropriate NCIC records when international abductions occur. See

gap 6 and accompanying recommendations.

Department of State, Office of Children’s Issues

OCI, located in the Office of Overseas Citizens Services, Bureau of Consular Affairs of the U.S. Department of State, can assist, both directly and

indirectly, in locating a U.S. citizen child and checking on the child’s welfare.

If a child is believed to be in a Hague Convention

country, OCI, as the U.S. Central Authority for the

Convention, can request its foreign counterpart to

“discover the whereabouts of a child who has been

wrongfully removed or retained.” (Art. 7(a), Hague

Convention) The Convention requires the foreign

central authority to take steps to locate the child.

There need be neither a criminal warrant as to the

abductor nor a custody order. A left-behind parent

or the U.S. Central Authority can also ask the

foreign central authority to report on the child’s

condition.

Welfare and Whereabouts Visits for U.S.

Citizens Abroad

In Hague and non-Hague countries, OCI or a leftbehind parent may request a consular officer in the

U.S. Embassy or consulate to conduct a welfare and

whereabouts check on a U.S. citizen child (including

a dual national). The Embassy works with local authorities to locate the child. A consular officer then

attempts to visit the child and report back on his or

her condition. If an abducted child is a national only

of the country to which she or he has been taken (and

not also a U.S. citizen), the embassy of that country

should be contacted for assistance.

The abductor may refuse to allow U.S. authorities to

visit the child and/or to disclose the child’s foreign

address to the left-behind parent. If the abductor will

not permit the consular officer to see the child, the

U.S. Embassy or consulate can request the assistance

of local authorities, either to arrange for such a visit

or to have the appropriate local official make a visit

and provide a report on the child’s health and welfare.

Department of State, Diplomatic Security Service

The Diplomatic Security Service (DSS) Criminal

Investigative Liaison Branch serves as the primary

contact for law enforcement seeking assistance from

Regional Security Officers (DSS–RSO). In many

countries, the DSS–RSO is the sole representative

of U.S. law enforcement physically located in the

country. In conjunction with efforts by OCI, the

DSS–RSO at the U.S. Embassy abroad may request

that foreign police contacts ascertain the child’s location, whether or not there is a warrant for the abductor, and the location of the abductor when there

is a criminal investigation.

INTERPOL–U.S. National Central Bureau

INTERPOL is a 178-nation police communications

network that enables police forces around the world

to coordinate international criminal investigations

and to exchange humanitarian information, such as

missing persons inquiries. Each of INTERPOL’s

member countries maintains a national central bureau
25

(NCB) to serve as the country’s point of contact with

the international law enforcement community. In this

country, the INTERPOL–U.S. National Central

Bureau (INTERPOL–USNCB, or USNCB) is an

office within the Department of Justice.

The USNCB serves Federal, State, and local law

enforcement, as well as its foreign police counterparts. The USNCB and almost all INTERPOL

national central bureaus operate 24 hours per day,

7 days per week, 365 days per year. They communicate with one another only at the request of law enforcement, using a dedicated telecommunications

system or, in some instances, telefax. INTERPOL

national central bureaus may also communicate by

telephone in urgent circumstances, such as attempts

to stop an abduction in progress.

Specifically, the USNCB can at any time transmit

immediate, text-only messages, called “diffusions,”

to one or any number of other national central bureaus, asking police authorities of each recipient

country (1) to search for a fugitive charged with a

crime carrying more than 1 year’s imprisonment,

whom the prosecutor is willing to extradite; (2) to

trace and locate an abductor, whether or not

charged with a crime; and/or (3) to locate and ascertain the safety and welfare of a missing or abducted

child. Diffusions may also inform foreign authorities

of any medical conditions that a child may have or

any particular danger to the child and/or ask that an

abducted child be placed into protective custody.

Any national central bureau may in addition apply to

INTERPOL headquarters in Lyons, France, for

color-coded notices. Each notice includes the subject’s

identification, photograph, and (if available) fingerprints, in addition to case information. INTERPOL

headquarters translates notices into four languages

and sends them to all 178 INTERPOL members. The

process takes at least several months.

Red (fugitive) notices seek persons wanted for extradition. A red notice requires a State or Federal arrest

warrant for at least one crime that carries more than

1 year’s imprisonment, plus the prosecutor’s written

agreement to extradite the fugitive (generally, from

any country that can extradite the fugitive to the

United States for the crime in question). A red notice

asks police in all INTERPOL member countries to

locate the fugitive and, if permissible under the law of

the country in question, to detain or even arrest the

fugitive for a limited period so that the seeking country can make a formal request for extradition through

the prescribed channel.

Blue (trace and locate) notices seek persons, including abductors, whether or not they have been

charged with any crime. Yellow (missing person)

notices seek missing persons, including abducted

children. It is possible to request a yellow notice on

an abducted child and a red or blue notice on the

abductor. Whether to request a diffusion and/or

notice in any given case is a decision for law enforcement and the prosecutor.

Each foreign law enforcement authority handles all

INTERPOL diffusions and INTERPOL notices

that it receives according to its country’s law and

practice. The USNCB has no authority whatsoever

over how a foreign country handles INTERPOL

communications. The USNCB, however, promptly

conveys any response it receives to the relevant U.S.

authorities. This includes responses received by

telephone during abductions in progress.

Practical problems:

◆ INTERPOL is underutilized by law enforcement in

international parental kidnapping cases. Federal, State,

and local law enforcement could make significantly

greater use of INTERPOL as to abductions in progress

and completed abductions. INTERPOL’s communications network may facilitate the interception of an urgent

matter or the resolution of a longstanding one. Law enforcement needs training on immediate responses following an abduction, as well as on completed abductions,

including contacting INTERPOL for appropriate assistance. See gap 6 and accompanying recommendations.

◆ The USNCB needs additional resources to support its

efforts in halting and in locating fugitives and abducted

children.

Federal Bureau of Investigation

The FBI is the law enforcement agency tasked with

investigating international parental kidnapping cases

under Federal law. The FBI may discover the whereabouts of an abducted child when assisting State

authorities in locating a fugitive or when conducting
26

its own criminal investigation of an international kidnapping matter. If an abductor is in another country, the

FBI Legal Attache (Legat) stationed at the U.S. Embassy abroad may request assistance from local law

enforcement in that country either to locate or to confirm a location as to the abductor and child. Although

the FBI will not divulge criminal investigative information to the left-behind parent, the case agent may

notify the parent if the child is found so that the parent can pursue appropriate civil remedies to secure

the child’s lawful return.

Practical problems:

◆ When international parental kidnappings occur, prompt

law enforcement response may result in intercepting an

abduction in progress and/or may incidentally help to

locate an abducted child. FBI agents should continue to

receive training on the agency’s responsibilities in international parental kidnapping to ensure effective responses in

these cases. See gap 8 and recommendation 8.2.1.

◆ Resources are needed to support FBI efforts in locating

abducted children.

U.S. Postal Service

The U.S. Postal Inspection Service can provide

change-of-address information upon the request of

local, State, or Federal law enforcement officers

investigating an international child abduction case.

Federal Inspection Services Personnel at U.S.

Ports of Entry: U.S. Customs Service and

Immigration and Naturalization Service

Federal inspectors from the U.S. Customs Service

(Customs), the Immigration and Naturalization

Service (INS), and other Federal agencies comprise

the Federal Inspection Service (FIS). Customs and

INS inspectors are cross-designated to carry out

their respective responsibilities at land borders.

They are referred to collectively as “Federal inspection services” (FIS) personnel.

Customs inspectors have legal authority to check

persons entering and leaving the United States for

merchandise and contraband. They may stop vehicles

at the border and board vessels and aircraft without a

warrant in order to perform inspections. They work

side-by-side with INS inspectors, who play a gatekeeper role at designated air, land, and sea ports of

entry to guard against the illegal entry of aliens. INS

inspectors may question any person coming into the

United States to determine his or her admissibility.

FIS personnel use the Interagency Border Inspection System (IBIS) to check the status of those entering and sometimes of those leaving the country.

IBIS is an online system that links various Federal

agency databases—including NCIC, the INS National Alien Lookout System (NAILS), and the Department of State Consular Lookout and Support

System (CLASS)—to streamline inquiries as to

critical information checked at U.S. ports of entry.

IBIS is critical to stopping an abduction at a U.S.

border or international airport, as an IBIS query

will reveal NCIC records and lookouts placed in

IBIS by the FBI, INTERPOL, or other Federal law

enforcement agencies, any of which may result in

locating an abductor and child as they attempt to

leave or reenter the country.

Practical problem: Heightened awareness on the part of

border personnel could potentially result in stopping more

incoming and outgoing abductions. Training for FIS personnel on how to recognize and respond to international

abduction cases should be provided. See gap 7 and recommendations 7.1 and 8.2.1.

Defense Department Legal Assistance Offices

and Worldwide Military Locator Services

When children are abducted from the United States

by a member of the armed services or family member accompanying the service member, the Legal

Assistance Office for the particular branch of the

service can help find the child by providing information on the service member’s location. Location information on service members can also be obtained

by family members and by State and Federal agencies from the Military Worldwide Locator Services

for each service branch.

Federal Parent Locator Service

Pursuant to the Parental Kidnapping Prevention

Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 663), “authorized persons”

may request address information on abductors and

abducted children from the Federal Parent Locator

Service (FPLS), for purposes of making or enforc-
27

ing child custody determinations and for enforcing

State or Federal criminal parental kidnapping law.

Authorized persons are the U.S. Central Authority

and OJJDP for Hague cases; any agent or attorney

of any State with the duty or authority under State

law to enforce child custody determinations; courts

(or their agents) with jurisdiction to make or enforce

a child custody determination; and Federal and

State attorneys authorized to investigate, enforce, or

prosecute the unlawful taking or restraint of a child.

Federal prosecutors and FBI agents may submit

location requests directly to FPLS. Authorized State

and local authorities may submit requests to the

relevant State Parent Locator Service, which forwards them to FPLS.

National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children

The Missing Children’s Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.

5771 et seq.) directs OJJDP to address the problem

of missing and exploited children by, among other

things, establishing a toll-free telephone line to receive reports of missing children; establishing and

operating a national clearinghouse of information

about missing and exploited children; and providing

technical assistance to law enforcement agencies,

nonprofit agencies, and families to help locate and

recover missing children. OJJDP provides funding

to NCMEC to fulfill the Act’s requirements. NCMEC

is not a Federal agency or instrumentality. It is an independent nonprofit organization.

Since its establishment in 1984, NCMEC has had a

significant impact on how the criminal justice community responds to stranger abductions and interstate and international parental kidnapping cases.

NCMEC has been successful in locating missing

children around the world. NCMEC’s Web site,

www.missingkids.com, posts pictures of missing children that may be accessed anywhere in the world.

NCMEC is currently partnering with police agencies around the world to place their photos of missing children on the NCMEC site.

Practical problem: NCMEC’s role in international parental

kidnapping cases in relation to the various Federal agencies

is neither fully developed nor clearly delineated. Federal

agencies have an interest in defining an expanded role for

NCMEC in outgoing cases, particularly on behalf of leftbehind parents and other interested parties. See gap 1, recommendations 1.1, 1.4, 1.5, 8.4, and 9.6; and Issues for

Further Study, 6.

Missing and Exploited Children’s

Program Web Site

OJJDP’s Missing and Exploited Children’s Program (MECP) Web site, www.ncjrs.org/ojjdp/missing/

index.html, offers practical information to parents

and law enforcement in connection with parental

kidnapping and missing children cases.

Practical problem: Many different Federal agencies are

potentially involved in international parental kidnapping

situations. However, although a network exists among Federal officials who regularly work these cases, there are no

designated Federal points of contact for left-behind parents

or law enforcement to refer them to appropriate agencies for

help. See gap 1 and accompanying recommendations.

Civil Remedies to Recover the

Abducted Child

Mechanisms for Child Recovery

Hague Convention Remedy

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provides the legal basis

to seek the prompt return of children wrongfully

removed to or retained in countries that are party to

the Convention. The Convention took effect in the

United States in 1988 following enactment of the

International Child Abduction Remedies Act

(ICARA) (42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq.), which establishes procedures for its implementation in this

country. The Department of State, Office of

Children’s Issues is the U.S. Central Authority for

the Hague Convention.

Fifty-four countries have become party to the Convention, with the expectation that others will join in

the future. As of March 1999, the Convention is in

force between the United States and 47 countries:

Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Belize,

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Canada,

China (Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

only), Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark (except the Faroe Islands and
28

Greenland), Ecuador, Finland, the Former Yugoslav

Republic of Macedonia, France, Germany, Greece,

Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy,

Luxembourg, Mauritius, Mexico, Monaco, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, Poland,

Portugal, Romania, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Slovenia,

South Africa, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United

Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,

Venezuela, and Zimbabwe.

When a child is removed from the United States and

wrongfully taken to or kept in another Hague Convention country, the left-behind parent can use the

Convention’s administrative and legal remedies to

seek the return of and access to the child. The Convention provides an immediate right of action to seek

a child’s prompt return to the country where he or she

was habitually resident prior to the abduction. The

premise of the Hague Convention is that the abducted child’s custody should be determined by a

court in the child’s country of habitual residence and

not by the unilateral actions of one parent. The goal

is to restore the child to his or her home country for

further custody proceedings in the courts there. A

return order does not represent a decision regarding

the merits of custody. By denying abductors the opportunity to litigate custody in their country of choice

and promptly restoring the child to his or her habitual

residence, the Convention is intended to deter abductions from occurring in the first place. A key feature

of the Convention is that a parent does not need a

custody order to seek a child’s return. This is very

important because so many abductions occur before

a custody order has been issued.

Each country party to the Convention must establish

a central authority to perform a variety of functions,

including locating abducted children; facilitating the

voluntary return of abducted children; assisting,

either directly or indirectly, in the institution of legal

proceedings for the child’s return; and in some countries, arranging legal assistance for the left-behind

parent.

Help is available from the U.S. Central Authority

and from the central authority in the country in

which the child is located or believed to be located.

The U.S. Central Authority is the primary source of

information on the Hague Convention in the Federal

Government. The U.S. Central Authority provides

left-behind parents with a copy of the application

used to seek return of the child (or enjoyment of

access rights) under the Convention. Although the

foreign central authority has primary responsibility

for operation of the Convention in that country, the

U.S. Central Authority serves as liaison to the foreign central authority until the case is resolved. The

U.S. Central Authority does not act as an attorney

or agent on behalf of the applicant parent.

The person seeking the child’s return may file an application for return either with the U.S. Central Authority, which forwards the application to the foreign

central authority, or directly with the foreign central

authority. After filing the application, the applicant,

usually through his or her attorney in the other country, may need to bring a civil legal action for return in

a court in the foreign country. (Left-behind parents

are not required to contact central authorities to invoke the Convention. They may bypass both central

authorities and file directly in a foreign court for return of the child under the Convention.)

The Convention requires the court to order the child’s

return forthwith if it finds the removal or retention to

be wrongful and less than 1 year has elapsed from the

date of the wrongful removal or retention to the date

the proceedings commenced. The Convention provides limited exceptions to the return obligation, as

follows: (1) more than a year has elapsed and the

child is now settled in the new environment; (2) the

person seeking return did not actually exercise custody rights or consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; (3) there is a grave

risk that return would expose the child to physical or

psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an

intolerable situation; (4) a sufficiently mature child

objects to being returned; and (5) return would not

be permitted by the fundamental principles of the

requested State relating to the protection of human

rights and fundamental freedoms. However, a court

retains discretion to order the child returned even if

one of these exceptions is proved.

The return process is meant to be expeditious. The

Convention requires countries party to it to use the

“most expeditious” procedures available to implement

it and requires judicial or administrative authorities to

act “expeditiously” in proceedings for the return of

children. If a decision is not made within 6 weeks,
29

the applicant parent or the central authority of the

requested country has the right to request a statement of the reasons for the delay. The U.S. Central

Authority can initiate such inquiry through the central authority in the country in which return proceedings are pending.

Practical problems:

◆ Implementation problems with respect to the Hague Convention, which have arisen in some countries, need to be

addressed. See gap 4 and accompanying recommendations.

◆ Although the Convention purports to ensure that rights of

access (visitation) may be exercised across international

borders, in reality parents continue to face great difficulties

gaining access to their children who are in other countries.

See gap 5 and accompanying recommendations.

Although it is probably the best remedy in international parental kidnapping cases, the Convention is

not the exclusive remedy in countries party to it.

Left-behind parents also may seek a child’s return

under foreign domestic law, as discussed below.

Non-Hague Convention Country Recovery

If a child is abducted from the United States to a

country that is not party to the Hague Convention,

the parent can petition a court in that country to

enforce a custody order made by a U.S. court. However, Federal and State laws of this country that

govern State court jurisdiction to make, modify, and

enforce custody determinations—the Uniform Child

Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) (9 U.L.A.123

(1988)) and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention

Act (PKPA) (28 U.S.C. 1738A)—do not apply in

other countries. Courts in other sovereign countries

apply their own family law. They are not legally

bound to enforce custody orders made in the United

States, although some may do so voluntarily as a

matter of comity (i.e., the principle of reciprocity

among sovereigns).

If the foreign court refuses to honor the U.S. custody

order, it may be necessary to file for custody in the

foreign court under the laws and customs of that

country. In some countries the parent may encounter

religious laws and customs or biases based on gender

or nationality that preclude an award of custody.

Recovery by Department of Defense Mechanisms

It is Department of Defense (DoD) policy, with due

regard for mission requirements, international agreements, and ongoing DoD investigations and courtsmartial, to cooperate with courts and Federal, State,

and local officials who request assistance in enforcing

court orders relating to active-duty members of the

Armed Forces (DoD members) and civilian employees (DoD employees) stationed outside the United

States, and family members who accompany them,

who have been charged with or convicted of a felony

in a court, have been held in contempt by a court for

failure to obey the court’s order, or have been ordered

to show cause why they should not be held in contempt for failing to obey the court’s order.

The policy and applicable procedures are set forth in

Department of Defense Directive 5525.9, Compliance of DoD Members, Employees, and Family

Members Outside the United States With Court

Orders. The directive requires the head of the DoD

component concerned or a designee to attempt to

resolve the matter to the satisfaction of the court

without the return of or other action affecting the

member, employee, or family member (the subject).

When that is not possible, the directive specifies

procedures the DoD component head or designee

must follow with respect to the subject, unless an

exception is granted. If a request pertains to a felony

or to contempt involving the unlawful or contemptuous removal of a child from the jurisdiction of a

court or the custody of a parent or other person

awarded custody, the DoD component head or

designee is required to order the DoD member to

return expeditiously to the United States. DoD

employees and family members accompanying DoD

members and employees are to be strongly encouraged to comply with the court order. Adverse consequences may result for those who do not comply,

including withdrawal of command sponsorship and

possible removal from Federal service.

Although the child is not the subject of a return order or other adverse action, the practical effect may

be the same. The child may return to the United

States with the service member who is ordered back

to the United States. Or the child may return with

or be returned by a DoD member, employee, or
30

accompanying family member who stands to lose a

job, sacrifice benefits, or face other adverse consequences for noncompliance.

Practical problem: Participants in an international parental abduction focus group cited problems enforcing custody

orders and recovering their children from parents connected

with the U.S. military overseas. See Issues for Further

Study, 4.

Encouraging Returns Through Visa Denials

Section 212(a)(10)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(10)(C)), providing

for the denial of visas to certain international child

abductors, is another statutory tool that may bring

about the return of an abducted child to the lawful

custodian under U.S. law. This ground of denial

provides that any alien who detains, retains, or withholds a child of U.S. citizenship outside the United

States in violation of a U.S. custody order is inadmissible until the child is surrendered to the person

granted custody by that order. The exclusion does

not apply if the child is located in a country that is

party to the Hague Convention. Thus, U.S. border

inspectors have authority to deny entry and U.S.

consular officials abroad have authority to deny a

visa to any alien parent who has abducted a child

from the United States to a non-Hague country in

violation of a U.S. custody order until the alien surrenders the child to the left-behind parent.

Effective October 21, 1998, section 212(a)(10)(C)

also in certain circumstances makes an alien who

intentionally assists or provides support to an alien

abductor ineligible to enter the United States until

the child is surrendered to the person granted custody of the child. This section also does not apply

when children are in Hague countries.

Federal Role in Civil Child Recovery

Recovering a child who has been abducted from the

United States or wrongfully retained in another

country is a daunting challenge for a left-behind

parent. The Federal Government may facilitate the

process in a number of ways, including helping to

locate the child, reporting on the child’s welfare,

facilitating negotiations for voluntary return, helping

to find attorneys, providing country-specific information, facilitating legal proceedings abroad, intervening diplomatically, and facilitating travel back to

this country.

Welfare and Whereabouts

Finding the child is the first priority when the child’s

whereabouts are unknown. Federal resources for

locating abducted children and checking on their

welfare are described in Locating Abducted Children and Their Abductors, above.

Voluntary Return

The Hague Convention charges central authorities

to take appropriate measures, directly or indirectly,

“to secure the voluntary return of the child or to

bring about an amicable resolution of the issues.”

OCI and NCMEC, in both Hague and non-Hague

cases, may facilitate negotiations between the disputants and make arrangements for the child’s return

if negotiations succeed, but they may not represent

either party. Family members, other nongovernmental organizations such as Child Find, and sometimes

law enforcement also may negotiate with an abductor or between the disputants in order to effect a

return without litigation. A successful voluntary

return is the best possible result, because it provides

the best opportunity for the custody contestants to

resolve their differences amicably.

Practical problem: Voluntary return of children is often

elusive because few mechanisms exist to promote nonlitigated solutions to international abduction and retention

cases. See recommendation 9.5.

Finding a Lawyer

Left-behind parents ordinarily seek the services of

an attorney to bring legal proceedings to recover the

child if efforts to secure voluntary return have been

or would be unproductive. This normally requires

finding and retaining a lawyer in the foreign country

who speaks English, is versed in family law, and has

affordable fees. The Federal Government cannot act

as a private lawyer for the left-behind parent seeking the return of an abducted child from another

country. However, the State Department, through

OCI, can help parents find lawyers abroad.
31

If a left-behind parent plans to bring legal proceedings under the Hague Convention to secure return

of the child, the foreign central authority may be

responsible to provide or to help the parent find

counsel. Unless the Hague country in which the

child is located has taken a reservation to the Convention regarding legal counsel, the applicant may

be eligible for free legal counsel provided by the

foreign country, if he or she meets the foreign

country’s eligibility standards. The U.S. Central

Authority can query the foreign central authority as

to the availability of counsel in that country for the

applicant parent in the United States.

In non-Hague cases (and in Hague cases in which

the foreign government does not provide a lawyer),

OCI can provide the left-behind parent with information on retaining a foreign attorney and a list,

prepared by U.S. Embassies and consulates abroad,

of attorneys in the foreign country who speak English and have expressed a willingness to represent

U.S. citizens abroad. However, the attorneys on the

list do not necessarily have family law expertise.

Nongovernmental sources of lawyer referrals (e.g.,

the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers)

are also available. The Legal Assistance Office for

each branch of the military also provides legal assistance to members of the U.S. armed services whose

children are abducted.

Practical problem: Left-behind parents in this country often

need help in finding affordable, knowledgeable counsel in

other countries and in paying for their services. See recommendations 4.4, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, and 4.4.3; gap 9 and recommendations 9.1 and 9.4.

Facilitating Legal Proceedings Abroad

Civil proceedings before courts in foreign countries

for return of a child, whether pursuant to the Hague

Convention or other law, are private international

law matters. As such, the Federal Government’s role

is limited to providing assistance to facilitate the

private right of action. In Hague cases, the U.S.

Central Authority assists in processing return applications and reports on the status of return proceedings. Embassy consular officers assist when there

are communication problems with a foreign attorney, and they provide updates on cases pending in

the foreign country. OCI and consular officers also

provide general information on the customs and

legal practices in the country in which the child is

located and on procedures for serving process, obtaining evidence, and authenticating documents for

use in that country.

Practical problem: Left-behind parents and their lawyers

would benefit from other services, including mentoring programs (parent-to-parent and lawyer-to-lawyer), mediation

programs, and other efforts to resolve abduction and retention disputes short of litigation. See recommendation 8.4;

gap 9 and recommendations 9.5 and 9.6.

Diplomatic Initiatives

Part of the Department of State’s role as the chief

U.S. foreign affairs agency is protecting the welfare of all U.S. citizens abroad (including abducted children) and seeking the fair and equal

treatment of U.S. citizens abroad (including parents seeking return of their abducted children).

The Department of State uses a variety of diplomatic initiatives to pursue U.S. interests abroad.

These initiatives range from the negotiation of

international conventions and treaties to direct

actions in specific cases. These direct actions may

include diplomatic intervention at the highest levels, formal written diplomatic communications

such as diplomatic notes, or less formal communications such as an exchange of letters. As noted

above, in Hague Convention cases, the established

mechanism for return is a private civil action.

Various forms of diplomatic action, however, can

be important to promote and improve implementation of the Convention in order to foster the

return of and access to children.

The Department of State attaches high priority to

seeking participation in the Hague Convention by

countries not yet parties to that agreement and systematically pursues outreach to countries that would

make good treaty partners.

Practical problems: Left-behind parents expect the U.S.

Government to intercede directly with foreign governments

on their behalf to recover their children. When diplomatic

action is not taken, some may feel the Government has let

them down. Federal law and policy must be articulated and

explained to parents. In addition, the United States should
32

undertake further bilateral and multilateral efforts to improve operation of the Hague Convention, promote its adoption by select countries, and develop better solutions in

non-Hague countries when international custody and visitation disputes occur. See gap 3 and accompanying recommendations; gap 5.

Facilitating a Child’s Return to the United States

The Federal Government can help remove obstacles

that stand in the way of returning abducted children

to this country.

Travel documents. If the child is a U.S. citizen but

lacks a passport, the U.S. Embassy abroad may issue a passport on an urgent basis to prevent delay in

returning the child to the United States.

Transportation costs. Transportation expenses may

be prohibitive for many left-behind parents who

bear the cost of the child’s return. The Hague Convention does not require countries to pay these expenses. Federal victim assistance funds may be

available to cover some or all of these expenses in

criminal cases. NCMEC, through a grant from the

Justice Department’s Office for Victims of Crime, is

able to provide parents who meet needs-based criteria

financial assistance to attend court hearings in foreign countries or for transportation costs for U.S.

citizen children to return to the United States.

Practical problem: In a word, money. Left-behind parents incur

expenses, often beyond their means, seeking recovery of their

abducted children. See gap 9, recommendations 9.1 and 9.4.

Repatriation loans. The U.S. Embassy abroad can

arrange repatriation loans for U.S. citizens meeting

needs-based eligibility criteria. Repatriation loans

must be repaid. The foreign government may offer

similar loan programs to its nationals.

Practical problem: See Transportation costs, above.

Significant public benefit parole. A “parole” within

the immigration context permits an alien to enter the

United States for a particular purpose when the alien

would otherwise be ineligible under U.S. law to enter

the country. Either the abductor or the child, if not a

U.S. citizen, may require a parole to enter the United

States. Courts in some Hague Convention proceedings have been reluctant to order a child returned

under the Convention when the abducting parent

cannot enter the United States under U.S. immigration laws and is therefore unable to return to this

country to participate in custody proceedings.

When these concerns arise (e.g., after the abductor

is denied a visa by the U.S. Embassy or consulate),

the foreign government may request that a parole be

granted for the abductor for purposes of participating in custody or related proceedings in a U.S.

court. The Department of State’s Visa Office submits the request for Significant Public Benefit Parole to the Immigration and Naturalization Service,

Parole Unit, which adjudicates the parole request.

In addition to the possibility of parole for an ineligible

alien, there is also the possibility of a waiver of visa

ineligibility pursuant to section 212(d)(3)(A) of the

Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1182 (d)(3)(A)).

A waiver would require the recommendation of the

consular officer or the Department of State (Bureau

of Consular Affairs/Visa Office) and the approval of

the Attorney General (INS).

Stopping an Abduction in Progress: Intercepting

the Child

It may be possible to recover a child by stopping an

abduction in progress at a land border or airport in

the United States or as the child enters, leaves, or

transits another country. Successful interdiction

usually depends upon there being a criminal warrant

or investigation in connection with the abductor.

Foreign governments may be responsive to a Hague

application transmitted on an urgent basis, or they

may take other measures as to the welfare of the

child. (This is discussed in Criminal Prosecution and

Extradition, below.)

Intercepting the child in the United States. In the

United States, absent a criminal warrant or facts

supporting probable cause to arrest, it is unlikely

that an abduction in progress can be stopped and a

child intercepted. However, if a child is identified at

a land border or at an airport in the United States as

a result of an NCIC inquiry, FBI and FIS personnel

may detain the child at least temporarily, even if

there is no criminal warrant for the abductor, pending questioning of the suspected abductor to determine whether the International Parental Kidnapping
33

Crime Act (IPKCA) or Fugitive Felon Act statute

(discussed below) is being violated. If the person

accompanying the child is ultimately detained on

this basis, agents and inspectors may be able to detain the child temporarily until the relevant State

authorities arrive. If, upon further investigation, the

facts do not support a violation of IPKCA or the

Fugitive Felon Act by the person accompanying the

child, there is no basis under Federal criminal law to

continue to detain the child.

Intercepting the child abroad. The Department of

State, Office of Children’s Issues may request foreign governments (in Hague and non-Hague countries) to exercise any power they may have under

their own domestic law to protect an abducted child.

Foreign authorities may have discretion to arrest,

admit, or deport an abductor and child at a foreign

port of entry. Some foreign authorities will use their

domestic police powers to act as to the child alone if

they find a factual basis to believe the child is endangered without regard to whether the abductor is

subject to a criminal arrest warrant.

In very rare instances, certain cooperative Hague

countries will intervene to take a child in transit

with an abductor into protective custody upon the

urgent filing of a Hague application. When pursuing

this option, the Office of Children’s Issues at the

Department of State takes the lead coordinating

with the central authority in the destination country

and with law enforcement there as to itinerary and

arrival times. Abductions in progress to or through

Canada reported to the Royal Canadian Mounted

Police Missing Children’s Registry may be stopped

and the child intercepted.

Criminal Prosecution and Extradition

All 50 States, the District of Columbia, the territories,

the Federal Government, and many foreign governments recognize the abduction of a child by his or her

parent as a “serious crime,” subject to penalties in

excess of 1 year in prison. A State or Federal criminal

prosecution, coupled with international extradition,

addresses the perpetrator. In appropriate cases, either

State or Federal authorities may prosecute the abductor. The FBI, with its jurisdiction over both interstate

flight and the Federal international parental kidnapping statute, may be contacted immediately in any

matter involving a parental abduction from the

United States. Either a State prosecution facilitated

by Federal efforts or a direct Federal prosecution

may serve as a basis for the international extradition

of the abductor. The facts of the case and any relevant

extradition treaty may indicate that State or Federal

prosecution is preferable.

When the facts of an international parental abduction

warrant criminal process, the left-behind parent still

must ensure that civil efforts to locate and recover the

child go forward as expeditiously as possible. Criminal prosecution (and the attendant investigation) may

incidentally locate the child, but the arrest, extradition, prosecution, and incarceration of the abductor

will not necessarily result in the child’s recovery. In

some cases, criminal process may frustrate child recovery, particularly in Hague countries.

State Law Prosecution, Assisted by Federal Law

Federal authorities can assist State criminal investigations and prosecutions in locating the fugitive and

facilitating international extradition. With this assistance, State law is usually sufficient to address the

criminal aspects of an international parental kidnapping and to seek international extradition. State

prosecutors are not obliged to seek FBI assistance,

but they must contact the Department of Justice,

Office of International Affairs (OIA) for assistance

regarding international extradition. State and local

prosecutors may consult with the American Prosecutors Research Institute for information concerning the investigation and prosecution of parental

kidnapping crimes, developed under a grant from

OJJDP.

Fugitive Felon Act: Unlawful Flight to Avoid

Prosecution Warrants

The Fugitive Felon Act (18 U.S.C. 1073) is a Federal statute in aid of State prosecution. It enhances

the ability of States to pursue abductors beyond

State and national borders. Because it permits the

FBI to investigate an otherwise State case, it also

may facilitate investigation internationally. In addition, the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (18

U.S.C. 1073 note) clarifies congressional intent that

Federal fugitive felony warrants (i.e., unauthorized

flight to avoid prosecution, or UFAP warrants) may
34

be issued in parental kidnapping cases when the

abductor has fled the State or this country to avoid

prosecution under applicable State felony statutes.

The local or State prosecutor requests a UFAP warrant in writing from a Federal prosecutor (United

States Attorney) or the FBI. The requirements for

obtaining a UFAP warrant in parental kidnapping

cases are the same as in other fugitive felony cases: (1)

existence of a State or local felony warrant; (2) probable cause to believe the fugitive has fled the jurisdiction of the State in order to avoid prosecution or

confinement; and (3) assurance that the State or local

prosecutor will extradite the fugitive for prosecution.

If satisfied these requirements are met, the United

States Attorney may authorize the FBI agent assigned

to the case to file a request for a Federal UFAP warrant with the U.S. District (i.e., Federal) court.

The focus in UFAP matters is to locate and apprehend the abductor for a criminal law violation. If

agents discover during a UFAP investigation that the

abductor has left the country with the child, the FBI

may be able to continue its investigation internationally by requesting the assistance of law enforcement

authorities in one or more countries. In addition, if

FBI agents discover the child’s whereabouts during

the course of their efforts to locate and apprehend the

abductor, they may be authorized to alert local child

welfare authorities and left-behind parents so that

they can pursue recovery of the child.

Federal Prosecution Under the International

Parental Kidnapping Crime Act

In 1993 Congress enacted the International Parental

Kidnapping Crime Act (18 U.S.C. 1204). IPKCA

makes it a Federal felony to remove a child under 16

from the United States or to retain a child outside

the United States with the intent to obstruct the

lawful exercise of parental rights. The statute defines parental rights as the right to physical custody

of the child (including visitation rights), whether the

right is joint or sole and whether the right arises by

operation of law, court order, or legally binding

agreement of the parties. IPKCA provides affirmative defenses if the defendant: (1) was acting within

the provisions of a valid custody or visitation order;

(2) was fleeing an incidence or pattern of domestic

violence; or (3) failed to return the child due to circumstances beyond his or her control, notified or

made reasonable attempts to notify the other parent

within 24 hours, and returned the child as soon as

possible. Violation of this statute is punishable by

fine, up to 3 years’ imprisonment, or both.

IPKCA clearly establishes international parental

kidnapping as a crime. (See H.R. Rep. No. 103–390

(1993).) The House Report articulates that IPKCA

is intended to send a strong message to the international community that the United States views parental kidnapping as a serious crime it will not

tolerate. With the passage of IPKCA, Congress

hoped to deter at least some abductions and enhance

the force of U.S. diplomatic representations in seeking the return of children, particularly from countries not party to the Hague Convention.

The IPKCA statute expresses the sense of Congress

that the Hague Convention should be the option of

first choice for a parent seeking a child’s return in

cases in which the Hague Convention applies. Although IPKCA provides a criminal remedy in international abduction cases, it is not intended to detract

from the operation of the Hague Convention.

The FBI investigates IPKCA violations, usually

following a complaint by the left-behind parent. The

U.S. Attorney, usually in the district from which the

child was taken, may bring Federal charges after

weighing a number of factors. The initial requirement

under IPKCA—that Federal prosecutors seek approval before bringing an IPKCA case—has expired.

However, Federal prosecutors still may consult with

and obtain information concerning the statute from

the Department of Justice, Child Exploitation and

Obscenity Section. Federal prosecutors must seek

assistance regarding international extradition from

the Department of Justice, Office of International

Affairs. Because State charges assisted by Federal

resources may be just as effective as Federal charges

in the international arena, pursuit of an IPKCA

charge may not be appropriate if State charges are

already pending. However, IPKCA may be the only

available charging option if an abduction cannot be

charged under State law (e.g., abductions occurring

before the entry of a custody decree in States requiring violation of such orders for prosecution;

abductions interfering with visitation rights not encompassed by a State statute).
35

Practical problem: Many State and Federal prosecutors

have little or no experience with parental kidnapping prosecutions. Detailed guidance should be made available to

these attorneys and those who assist them. See gap 8, recommendations 8.2 and 8.2.1.

Charging Considerations in Criminal Cases

Abductions to Hague Countries

The decision to charge a parental kidnapping crime

under State or Federal law must be made on a caseby-case basis, depending upon the facts of the case

and whether the child has been taken to or kept in a

Hague country.

The prosecutor must weigh countervailing considerations before seeking criminal charges in an abduction

to a Hague Convention country. First, if criminal

charges are being considered, IPKCA expresses the

sense of Congress that the Convention, if applicable, is

the preferred remedy for child recovery. Second,

criminal charges under IPKCA (or any other State or

Federal statute) may adversely affect return proceedings under the Hague Convention. An outstanding

criminal warrant may deter a voluntary or negotiated

return; in other cases the outstanding warrant may be

useful to locate and facilitate return of a child. In

Hague proceedings, some foreign judges have been

reluctant and others have refused to order a child’s

return to the United States if the parent’s return would

result in his or her arrest and attendant inability to

participate in civil custody proceedings.

On the other hand, use of State and Federal criminal remedies may also be appropriate when abductors violate Hague court orders and refuse to return

the child.

Abductions to Non-Hague Countries

When a child is abducted to a non-Hague country,

filing criminal charges against the abductor may be

useful in locating the abductor and child, but the

criminal process and extradition address only the

alleged offender and do not assure the child’s return.

Unfortunately, many countries not party to the

Hague Convention also do not recognize this type of

abduction or wrongful retention as a crime, making

international extradition unavailable. Although extradition from a given country may not be available,

INTERPOL alerts of various kinds may facilitate

the detection of the abductor’s travel to other countries from which extradition might be possible. As to

the child, left-behind parents should pursue efforts

specific to child recovery.

Imposition of Sentencing Conditions

When a State or Federal prosecutor secures a conviction against a defendant in a criminal international

parental kidnapping case, it may be possible for the

prosecutor to seek conditions in the sentence imposed

as to the return of the child. The conviction of a father for the abduction of his three children to Egypt

(a non-Hague country) under IPKCA, as well as the

sentencing court’s imposition of a special condition

that the father return the children to the United

States, were upheld on appeal. (See United States v.

Amer, 110 F.3d 873, 877 (2d Cir. 1997).) The imposition of such conditions has proven ineffective to date;

therefore, the imposition of such conditions must be

considered on a case-by-case basis.

Federal Victim-Witness Assistance

The Federal Victims of Crime Act (42 U.S.C. 10607;

18 U.S.C. 3509) provides for the rights of and services to victims of Federal crimes, including international parental kidnapping. The Attorney General’s

Guidelines on Victim-Witness Assistance provides

further direction for investigators, prosecutors, and

victim-advocates handling child victims and witnesses. Statutes require the investigating and prosecuting agencies to: (1) identify child victims of an

offense and provide the nonoffending parent or

guardians with notice of their rights and the services

for which they may be eligible, including counseling,

support, compensation, and restitution; and (2) notify

victims of major events in the conduct of the cases.

The use of a multidisciplinary team and appointment

of a guardian ad litem are encouraged in appropriate

situations. Congress mandates that all Federal agencies dealing with victims of Federal crime maintain

and adhere to written guidelines consistent with Federal law on victim-witness assistance. However, the

decision as to the release of sensitive case information

ultimately rests with the prosecutor in conjunction

with the Federal investigator.
36

Practical problem: All Federal agencies that deal with international parental kidnapping crime victims must become conversant with their responsibilities under Federal victim-witness

guidelines and regulations. See gap 8, recommendation 8.2.

Conduct of International Criminal Investigations

Those left behind, as well as State and local law

enforcement, may engage FBI assistance by contacting the local FBI field office. INTERPOL may also

facilitate foreign police assistance. The FBI or the

State investigator may request that INTERPOL–

USNCB send appropriate messages on their behalf.

International Legal Assistance

Although police-to-police contacts may secure investigative information, when the information sought

from another country requires a judicial order or

other form of compulsion for its production, the

State or Federal prosecutor must seek assistance

from the foreign government via mutual legal assistance treaty or letters rogatory requests. The prosecutor may seek evidence, records, and testimony in

support of substantive charges or to locate the fugitive. These requests, sought through the Department of Justice, Office of International Affairs,

although usually productive, may sometimes take a

very long time, and in some countries may not be

entirely productive. Further, seeking foreign information, e.g., foreign bank records, may result in

notice to the fugitive. The lead prosecutor should

discuss and pursue these issues and matters with

the country specialist from OIA.

Extradition

International extradition is a means to return the

abductor to the United States for prosecution. The

Department of Justice, Office of International Affairs assists Federal and State prosecutors in the

international extradition of fugitives. Both Federal

and State prosecutors must contact OIA at the outset of a case in which they intend to seek extradition.

Federal and State prosecutors may seek to immobilize those charged with international extradition by

seeking an urgent “provisional arrest with a view

towards extradition” (often used in efforts to intercept an abduction). If the requested foreign government provisionally arrests the defendant, the United

States (by its prosecutor) must submit the full extradition request (including sufficient evidence) via the

Department of State to the foreign government

within the deadline provided by the applicable extradition treaty. If an abductor’s further flight appears unlikely, the prosecutors may omit the

provisional arrest step and take the time to prepare

and submit a full request for extradition with all

necessary evidence at the outset. Either a State or

Federal felony violation may serve as the basis for

an extradition request, provided the potential maximum penalty exceeds 1 year’s imprisonment.

Extradition for both State and Federal prosecutors

reflects a commitment to prosecute the abductor.

The prosecutor must commit in writing to prepare

the extradition request with supporting evidence; to

pay the costs of extradition (translation and travel

costs for escorts and fugitive); and to prosecute the

abductor, if extradition is successful, whether or not

the child can be returned.

Practical problem: State prosecutors may forego prosecuting

abductors for international child abduction because of the

costs associated with international extradition. See gap 9,

recommendation 9.2.

Extradition depends upon whether the United States

has a bilateral extradition treaty with the country of

refuge, whether the treaty partner can extradite for

international parental kidnapping, and whether the

country of refuge will extradite its own nationals. The

United States has more than 100 extradition treaties

in effect. The Extradition Treaties Interpretation Act

of 1998 (Title II of Public Law 105–323) authorizes

the United States to interpret extradition treaties

listing “kidnapping” as encompassing the offense of

parental kidnapping. It is understood that this interpretation will be adopted only where it is shared by

the other country. (See Federal Register, Vol. 64, No.

15, January 15, 1999, pp. 3735–36.) Ultimately, decisions to extradite offenders rest entirely with the foreign state, through its judiciary and other authorities.

The abducted child is not subject to extradition. The

prosecutor and law enforcement should consider

the effect that any effort to arrest and extradite an

abductor may have upon the welfare of the child and

his or her recovery. When the whereabouts of the

abductor and child are not known, efforts to locate
37

the abductor for purposes of arrest and extradition

may indirectly facilitate child recovery. However,

particularly in Hague countries, such efforts may

hinder civil child recovery under the Convention.

Those left behind will not necessarily be informed of

any or all efforts to locate and arrest the abductor,

for a variety of reasons, including the use of informants and the maintenance of sensitive law enforcement relationships abroad. However, when an

abductor is arrested, authorities will inform the leftbehind parent so that he or she can take steps to recover the child. The foreign government also may use

its own child welfare authority to take the child into

protective custody, pending further proceedings.

Stopping an Abduction in Progress: Intercepting

the Abductor

When an abduction is in progress and law enforcement is notified immediately, it may be possible to

stop the abduction before the abductor leaves the

United States, while the abductor is transiting

through a second country, or upon arrival but before

admission to the foreign destination country.

In the United States

As a general rule, law enforcement efforts to stop an

abduction in progress will be directed at intercepting

and detaining the suspected abductor for violating

State or Federal criminal law. Once the suspected

abductor is located, if there is no criminal warrant

pending against him or her and if there is no other

basis to detain the abductor further for criminal

investigative purposes (such as indications the child

is in danger), law enforcement authorities must release the abductor and the child to continue on their

journey. The conclusion to draw is that, although a

suspected abductor and victim child may be temporarily detained for a variety of reasons, the only

effective means of stopping an abduction in

progress is through criminal process.

Immediately upon being informed by the left-behind

parent of an international abduction in progress,

local law enforcement may contact the FBI field

office and/or INTERPOL for assistance. Once contacted, the FBI works with the lead prosecutor and

local investigator and coordinates with other appropriate agencies (including, depending upon the facts

of the case, the Department of State, INTERPOL,

OIA, Customs and INS, and local law enforcement

authorities such as port authority police) to investigate and, if possible, stop an abduction in progress.

Prompt NCIC entries on the child (Missing Person

File) and abductor (Wanted Persons File if there is a

warrant) improve the chances for detection in the

United States. The FBI agent may treat the abduction in progress as a UFAP matter or an IPKCA

investigation and open a preliminary or full investigation. The FBI will use the resources and tools that

are used to track and arrest any criminal fugitive

attempting international flight. The INTERPOL–

USNCB immediately contacts all appropriate U.S.

and foreign authorities in an effort to halt the abduction and to recover the child.

(In cases relying solely upon the Hague Convention

or the exercise of foreign police powers as to the

welfare of the child, the Department of State, Office

of Children’s Issues will take the lead. See Stopping

an Abduction in Progress: Intercepting the Child,

above.)

Upon Arrival or Entry at Foreign Country

Interception abroad may be possible through the use

of a U.S. criminal arrest warrant coupled with a

request pursuant to any applicable extradition treaty

for urgent provisional arrest and/or through the

expedited revocation of passports or other travel

documents. However, all discretion to intercept an

abductor and child at a foreign port of entry rests

with the foreign law enforcement and immigration

authorities. The United States may request but cannot dictate what steps will be taken. Foreign authorities may execute a request from the United

States for the urgent provisional arrest of the abductor for purposes of extradition. The foreign government involved may also be able to exercise authority

under its domestic law to prevent the entry of the

abductor, to expel or deport the abductor, and/or to

address the welfare of the child. If the abductor is

arrested, foreign authorities generally take steps to

protect the child pending efforts by those left behind

in the United States to recover the child.
38

Part 2. Incoming Cases

Locating Abducted Children and Their

Abductors in the United States

Many of the resources available to find children and

their abductors in outgoing cases are also available to

find abducted children and their abductors in this

country. In addition, non-U.S. citizens seeking return

of their children from the United States should contact their embassy in the United States for assistance.

National Center for Missing and

Exploited Children

Child Abducted From a Hague Convention Country

NCMEC handles incoming Hague cases on behalf

of the Office of Children’s Issues under a tri-party

agreement with the Department of State, as U.S.

Central Authority, and OJJDP. In this capacity

NCMEC assists in discovering the whereabouts of

wrongfully removed and retained children in the

United States. NCMEC receives Hague Convention

applications for incoming cases and helps locate

children abducted from Hague countries. NCMEC,

handling incoming cases for the U.S. Central Authority, may also be requested by the foreign central

authority or left-behind parent to report on the abducted child’s condition. NCMEC coordinates with

its State contacts to carry out such requests.

Child Abducted From a Non-Hague

Convention Country

NCMEC also provides location assistance in nonHague cases. NCMEC’s considerable locating capabilities include broadcasting fax posters of abducted

children to more than 9,000 law enforcement agencies, FBI field offices, missing children clearinghouses, and border offices. It provides informational

materials to any parent or law enforcement officer

searching for a child missing in the United States

from another country.

Department of State, Office of Children’s Issues

The Department of State plays no role in locating a

child abducted to this country from a non-Hague

Convention country. The foreign government would

call upon its own consular officers in the United

States to locate, visit, and report on the condition of

the child.

INTERPOL–USNCB

Foreign police usually send messages through

INTERPOL to alert U.S. authorities about an abduction if they believe that the abductor may travel

or is traveling to the United States. As part of its

humanitarian mission, INTERPOL–USNCB forwards to U.S. authorities, as appropriate, incoming

foreign messages concerning children abducted to or

retained in the United States and relays all U.S.

responses. USNCB may coordinate with NCMEC

(which has a mandate to locate missing children)

and/or with appropriate Federal, State, or local authorities to locate a child abducted to the United

States from a Hague Convention country or a nonHague country.

If the abduction is in progress, INTERPOL–

USNCB forwards any foreign investigative request

to appropriate State and U.S. port-of-entry liaisons.

They notify USNCB if the abductor and/or the child

attempt to enter the United States.

Federal Inspection Service: INS and Customs

Abducted children and their abductors may be identified at U.S. borders and international airports by

FIS personnel as a result of their observations or of

IBIS queries in connection with border inspections.

NCIC

U.S. law enforcement in any capacity (e.g., State,

local, FBI, and FIS personnel) and anywhere (e.g.,

at ports of entry or elsewhere in the country) may

query NCIC directly or through IBIS to crosscheck information before them against NCIC files.

When an NCIC record matches the inquiry, the

record will be confirmed and appropriate action

taken.

FBI

At the request of a foreign police agency, the FBI

may attempt to locate a child abducted to the United
39

States in violation of the criminal laws of the requesting country. The FBI Legal Attache assigned to the

country from which the child was abducted transmits

the request to the appropriate FBI field office. If the

child is located by U.S. law enforcement, the FBI

notifies the requesting foreign police agency.

U.S. Postal Service

Local, State, or Federal law enforcement officers

investigating an incoming child abduction case may

request change-of-address information through the

U.S. Postal Inspection Service. The Postal Service

also has a photo distribution program to fax flyers

of abducted children to post offices nationwide for

display and for dissemination by mail carriers.

Defense Department Legal Assistance Offices

and Worldwide Military Locator Services

When a child residing abroad is wrongfully taken to

or retained in the United States by a member of the

armed services or other family member accompanying the service member, the Legal Assistance Office

for the particular branch of the service can help find

the child by providing information on the service

member’s most recent duty assignment and location.

This information can also be obtained by family

members and by Federal and State agencies from

the Military Worldwide Locator Services for the

specific branch of the service in which the abductor

(or family member) serves.

Federal Parent Locator Service

Address information on abductors and abducted children may be available from FPLS. The directory of

new hires may be the most useful source of address

information in incoming abduction cases, particularly

if the abductor has no previous employment history in

the United States. However, a Social Security number

is needed to do a search.

Civil Remedies for Child Recovery

Hague Convention Remedy

The Hague Convention can be used to seek return

of a child who has been wrongfully taken to or kept

in this country from another Hague Convention

country. A left-behind parent in another country

may file an application for return with the foreign

central authority or with the U.S. Central Authority,

but is not required to do so. Instead, a return proceeding may be filed directly in court.

At present, NCMEC handles incoming applications

for return under the Hague Convention on behalf of

OCI. NCMEC receives applications for assistance

pursuant to the Hague Convention, corresponds

with foreign central authorities, assists in locating

abducted children, coordinates with State missing

children clearinghouses, provides legal referrals and

parental support, and acts as liaison to law enforcement. Once a child is located, NCMEC facilitates

negotiations between family members and the initiation of legal proceedings for return of the child under the Hague Convention.

Legal Proceedings Under the Convention

A left-behind parent abroad may bring legal proceedings in the United States for return or access under

the Convention. Procedures for using the Convention

in this country are set forth in the International Child

Abduction Remedies Act (42 U.S.C. 11601 et seq.).

Implementation of the Convention is further clarified

in the Code of Federal Regulations (Chapter 22, Part

94). As with outgoing cases, neither NCMEC nor the

U.S. Central Authority is a party to the return proceeding. OCI as the U.S. Central Authority may send

an informational letter about the Convention to the

court and the parties. The U.S. Central Authority is

also authorized by the Convention to request a status

report on the case from the court if a ruling is not

made within 6 weeks.

The Hague Convention is not the exclusive remedy in

international child abduction cases. A left-behind parent may use any means available under State law to

seek return of abducted children or to exercise visitation rights. He or she need not notify the U.S. Central

Authority or NCMEC to invoke the Convention or to

bring any other lawsuit concerning the child.

Lawsuits to Enforce Foreign Custody and

Visitation Orders

In the United States, the Uniform Child Custody

Jurisdiction Act gives parents in other countries
40

a civil remedy to recover a child who has been

wrongfully taken to or kept in this country in violation of a foreign custody or visitation order.

UCCJA, as adopted in nearly every State, requires

State courts to recognize and enforce foreign custody orders if reasonable notice and opportunity to

be heard were given to all affected persons.

An even more explicit requirement for enforcement

of foreign custody determinations is contained in the

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), which was promulgated in

1997 as a replacement for UCCJA. As a uniform

State law, UCCJEA is available for adoption nationwide; to date, two States have enacted it.

UCCJEA requires State courts to enforce foreign

custody determinations as if they were made by sister States. UCCJEA also empowers State law enforcement and prosecutors to assist in the location

and civil recovery of children abducted from other

States and countries, including Hague countries.

Through a private attorney, a left-behind parent

may file a petition in State court pursuant to

UCCJA (or UCCJEA, as States adopt that statute)

to enforce the custody and/or visitation provisions of

a custody order. The Federal Government plays no

role in these proceedings.

In States that adopt UCCJEA, the designated State

public official (who is likely to be the local prosecutor) would assist in locating internationally abducted

children; securing compliance with the Hague Convention; and, subject to conditions set forth in the

statute, enforcing foreign custody orders. The public

official acts on behalf of the court and does not represent any party.

Practical problem: UCCJEA is a uniform State law. For

UCCJEA to have the greatest impact, all 50 States and the

District of Columbia must enact it. Federal support for the

statute might accelerate its consideration by the States. In

that UCCJEA may facilitate incoming Hague and nonHague cases, relevant Federal agencies should review it and

consider promoting its adoption. See Issues for Further

Study, 2.1.

Finding a Lawyer

Hague Cases

International Child Abduction Attorney Network.

The International Child Abduction Attorney Network

(ICAAN) is a network of attorneys willing to represent parents in incoming Hague cases on a pro bono

or reduced-fee basis. NCMEC now maintains and

endeavors to expand ICAAN, which was originally

established by the American Bar Association’s Center

on Children and the Law under an OJJDP grant.

NCMEC, under its agreement with the Department

of State to handle incoming cases, makes every effort,

using ICAAN, to find lawyers for parents. The need

for ICAAN arose because the United States, when it

ratified the Hague Convention, took a reservation to

Article 26, pursuant to which this country is not obligated to provide free lawyers to foreign applicants

who seek return of or access to their children under

the Convention except to the extent provided by our

legal aid system. Also with OJJDP funding, the

American Bar Association developed materials for

practitioners and judges about the Hague Convention. NCMEC provides attorneys participating in

ICAAN with these and other educational materials.

California’s public prosecutors. California has a

statewide network of prosecutors who handle incoming Hague matters involving children abducted

to that State. NCMEC refers incoming Hague cases

to the California State Attorney General’s Office,

which refers the matter to the district attorney for

the county in which the child is located. Although

the State prosecutors do not represent any party,

their efforts may obviate the need for the left-behind

parent to hire his or her own lawyer, particularly if

the return proceeding is uncontested.

Defense Department legal assistance. Members of

the armed services may be able to secure legal help

from the Legal Assistance Office for their respective

branch of the service.

Non-Hague cases. In non-Hague cases (and in

Hague cases in which the applicant does not obtain

a lawyer via ICAAN or from the U.S. legal aid system), OCI refers parents to nongovernmental

sources of lawyer referrals (e.g., the American
41

Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers, the American

Bar Association Section on Family Law, and the

International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers).

California district attorneys (and other States’ authorities if empowered by UCCJEA or otherwise)

may provide assistance with respect to children abducted to that State. As is true in Hague cases, legal

assistance may be available to military personnel

through the Legal Assistance Office for their specific branch of service.

Intercepting a child at U.S. ports of entry. See Intercepting Incoming Abductions in Progress, below.

Criminal Arrest and Extradition

Many foreign governments send INTERPOL messages to alert U.S. authorities about an abductor

who may enter or already may have entered the

United States and whom the requesting country

may wish to extradite.

Provisional Arrest and Extradition

Persons charged with violating foreign criminal statutes who are located in the United States may be

subject to provisional arrest and extradition at the

request of a foreign government if the United States

has an extradition treaty in place that covers parental child abduction. When a foreign arrest warrant is

outstanding and the foreign government seeks provisional arrest in the manner provided by the applicable treaty, the Department of State and/or OIA

reviews the request and, as appropriate, forwards it

for action. Provided the fugitive is arrested, the requesting country must submit a formal extradition

request and supporting documents pursuant to the

applicable treaty. OIA generally attempts to crosscheck incoming extradition requests against pending

incoming Hague matters.

A fugitive arrested for purposes of extradition is

entitled to a full hearing, appellate review, and a

final determination by the Secretary of State regarding his or her surrender to the country requesting

extradition. As in outgoing cases, separate and coordinated efforts must be made to secure the recovery

of the child when the extradition of the fugitive is

pursued.

Intercepting Incoming Abductions in Progress

Incoming abduction cases may be stopped at U.S.

ports of entry by border authorities. The best chance

of interception is when a flight arrives at an airport in

this country, assuming foreign authorities have notified

U.S. authorities. The full panoply of border lookouts,

international police-to-police communication, and

quick responses by those concerned bears on the success of stopping an incoming abduction in progress.

Additional tools for alien exclusion and deportation are

also available under U.S. law, which may serve in the

recovery of a child, as discussed elsewhere.

FIS personnel, who are cross-designated to carry out

their respective duties at land borders, are usually the

first U.S. officials encountered by travelers who seek

to enter the United States. If an FIS inspector discovers and confirms a lookout for an abductor or a child

(e.g., an IBIS or NCIC record), that inspector may

detain the person who is the subject of the lookout.

The agency originating the NCIC record generally

provides further instructions and information as to

the disposition of the subject. Any person is subject to

arrest at the border if there is probable cause to arrest

or if a U.S. criminal warrant is outstanding as to him

or her. Further, under immigration authority FIS

personnel can deny admission to the United States of

certain aliens. If deemed inadmissible, FIS personnel

can direct that the alien return to the country from

which he or she came.

If NCIC has an entry for a fugitive from foreign

justice for whom there is an INTERPOL red notice,

INS ordinarily detains the subject briefly. Foreign

fugitives cannot be arrested based solely upon an

NCIC record regarding a foreign warrant. The foreign government must seek provisional arrest with a

view toward extradition. If the abductor is the subject of a red notice, OIA is notified without delay so

that, if possible, provisional arrest and extradition

can be coordinated with the State Department and

the foreign government.

If the abductor is arrested, INS coordinates with

local law enforcement and State welfare authorities

to secure temporary care for the child if age and

circumstances warrant. Information on the child

and abductor’s whereabouts is transmitted to the

foreign NCB.
42

Conclusion

Federal policy and practice pertaining to international parental kidnapping have evolved significantly in the last 20 years in tandem with changes

nationwide at the State level. As this report documents, the Federal Government may respond in

many different ways when international abductions

are threatened or occur. Responses aim to prevent

abductions, and if they occur, to facilitate civil child

recovery and, as appropriate, the investigation, extradition, and prosecution of abductors.

Even the best efforts will not ensure the return of

every parentally abducted child and the satisfactory

resolution of any case as to all parties. However, the

current U.S. responses can improve, particularly in

the areas of prevention, training, and education of

parents and all who address these cases; technical

and case coordination; and international outreach.

All such efforts will benefit victim children and

those left behind.

All such efforts have resource implications. Both

specific measures and the resources to support them

must be available to ensure that the Federal Government is doing its utmost to protect children from the

harmful effects of international parental kidnapping.
Appendices

Appendix 1: Members of the Interagency Working Group........................................................... 45

Appendix 2: Laws That May Apply in International Parental Kidnapping Cases................... 47
Appendix 1: Members of the Interagency

Working Group

45

U.S. Department of State, Chair

Office of Children’s Issues*

Office of the Legal Advisor

U.S. Department of Justice

Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section,

Criminal Division*

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Office of Crimes

Against Children*

INTERPOL—U.S. National Central Bureau*

Office of International Affairs, Criminal Division*

Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency

Prevention

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children*

* Member of the core interagency working group.
◆ Defense Department Regulations (32 CFR Part

146); Department of Defense Directive 5525.9,

Compliance of DoD Members, Employees, and

Family Members Outside the United States With

Court Orders.

◆ Extradition Treaties Interpretation Act of 1998

(Title II of Public Law 105–323). (See also Federal

Register, Vol. 64, No. 15, January 25, 1999, pp.

3735–36.)

◆ Fugitive Felon Act (18 U.S.C. 1073).

◆ Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Senate Treaty (Document Number 99–11, 1985; 19 ILM 1501). (See

also Federal Register, Vol. 51, No. 58, March 26,

1986, pp. 10498 et seq.)

◆ Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigration

Responsibility Act of 1996 (section 110, Public

Law 104–208; 8 U.S.C. 1221 note).

◆ Immigration and Nationality Act (section

212(a)(3)(ii), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(3)(ii)).

◆ Immigration and Nationality Act (section

212(a)(10)(C), 8 U.S.C. 1182(a)(10)(C)).

Appendix 2: Laws That May Apply in

International Parental Kidnapping Cases

47

◆ Immigration and Nationality Act (section 215, 8

U.S.C. 1185).

◆ International Child Abduction Remedies Act (42

U.S.C. 11601 et seq.).

◆ International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (18

U.S.C. 1204 and 28 U.S.C. 1738A).

◆ Missing Children Act (28 U.S.C. 534).

◆ Missing Children’s Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.

5771 et seq.).

◆ National Child Search Assistance Act (42 U.S.C.

5779, 5780).

◆ Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980 (18

U.S.C. 1073 note, 42 U.S.C. 502; 94 Stat. 3573;

42 U.S.C. 663).

◆ State criminal parental kidnapping statutes.

◆ State flagging laws.

◆ Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (9

U.L.A. at 123 (1988)).

◆ Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (9 U.L.A. at 115 (Part 1) (1997)).