Commercial Aviation: Program Aimed at High-Risk Parent Abductors Could Aid in Preventing Abductions
Published: 2011-06-23T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Since 2000, the annual number of new international parental child abduction cases reported to the Department of State--many of which likely involved air travel--has nearly tripled. Such abductions occur when a parent, family member, or person acting on behalf thereof, takes a child to another country in violation of the custodial parent's or guardian's rights. Once a child is abducted, the laws, policies, and procedures of the foreign country determine the child's return. Thus, preventing such abductions can help keep parents and children from being separated for a long period or indefinitely. As requested, this report addresses (1) the policies and measures airlines, federal agencies, and others have to prevent international parental child abductions on airline flights and (2) options federal agencies, airlines, and others could consider for helping prevent such abductions on airline flights, as well as the advantages and limitations of those options. To perform this work, GAO reviewed applicable laws and policies, interviewed government officials, and surveyed airlines and nonprofit associations.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: As private sector entities, airlines do not have the authority to verify or enforce court and custody orders in an effort to prevent international parental child abductions and thus, upon request, work in cooperation with law enforcement. The Department of State has measures such as a dual-signature passport requirement and a passport notification program that are focused on preventing abductions before abductors reach an airport. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has measures that are focused on prevention when abductors reach the airport, such as a Prevent Departure list which prevents non-U.S. citizens from departing on an international flight with a child of concern, if certain criteria are met. DHS also checks the National Crime Information Center Missing Persons File and has partnered with other agencies to distribute AMBER Alerts at airports if child abductions meet certain criteria. Two options--a parental-consent letter requirement and a high-risk abductor list--were cited by stakeholders (federal agency, airline, and nongovernmental organization officials) as having potential to prevent abductions, but consent letters may be impractical to adopt while a high-risk list may help prevent some abductions. A consent letter policy could require that children traveling alone, or without both parents, have a note of consent from the nonaccompanying parents authorizing the child to travel. Stakeholders GAO met with and surveyed noted that such consent letters may be effective in deterring some abductions, but the relative ease in forging a letter along with other significant issues indicate that such a requirement is not a practical option. A high-risk abductor list program could operate similarly to the Prevent Departure list program but would apply to U.S. citizens. While stakeholders pointed out certain limitations to such a high-risk abductor list--such as the relatively difficult and time-consuming steps needed to place a child and potential abductor on this list--such a list may be helpful in preventing abductions on airline flights.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that DHS consider creating a program similar to the child abduction component of its Prevent Departure program that would apply to U.S. citizens. DHS concurred with the recommendation, but cited challenges toward implementing it, such as potential constitutional, operational, privacy, and resource issues.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Since 2000, the annual number of new international child parental  abduction cases for which parents requested Department of State (State  Department) assistance has nearly tripled. Such abductions occur when a  parent, family member, or person acting on behalf of a parent or family  member takes a child to another country in violation of the rights of the  custodial parent or guardian. The State Department reported that, from  fiscal year 2007 through 2009, it received 3,011 parental abduction requests  for assistance in returning 4,365 children to the United States from other  countries. Although 36 percent of these children were abducted to a  bordering country, the nonborder countries with the most child  abductions—the United Kingdom, Germany, India, Japan, Brazil, and  Australia—almost all involve cross-oceanic travel and, therefore, likely  involved the parent and child leaving the United States aboard an airline  flight. Once a child is abducted from this country to another, the laws,  policies, and procedures of the foreign country determine whether and  how the child will be returned. Thus, prevention of international parental  child abductions, including through air travel, is critical to ensure that  parents are not separated from their children for a long period or  indefinitely. Preventing abductions involving airline flights, however, can  be difficult. Although the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—in  collaboration with the airlines—screens all travelers boarding  international flights, the United States does not generally exercise exit  controls on its borders that would prevent U.S. citizens holding a valid  passport from leaving the country with a child.
You requested that we study the prevention of international parental child  abductions involving airline flights. This report provides (1) information  on policies and measures airlines, federal agencies, and other entities have  in place to prevent international parental child abductions involving airline  flights and (2) options federal agencies, airlines, nongovernmental  organizations, and others could consider to prevent international parental  child abductions involving airline flights, as well as the advantages and  limitations of those options.
In determining policies and measures that are in place to prevent these  types of abductions, we examined relevant laws and regulations. We met  with officials from the DHS and the Departments of Justice (DOJ), State,  and Transportation (DOT), and seven nongovernmental child advocacy  organizations. During these meetings, we obtained and analyzed  information related to major policies and measures in place to prevent  such abductions. We also met with and obtained and analyzed information  provided by two airline associations to determine what policies and  measures airlines have in place to prevent international parental child  abductions. In addition, we received information from eight cross- continental airlines regarding their policies and measures to prevent  international parental child abductions. Our focus was primarily on  abductions that occur when a parent, family member, or person acting on  behalf of the parent or family takes a child from the United States,  violating the rights of the parent left behind. In determining additional  options that federal agencies and others could consider to prevent  abductions involving airline flights, we developed a list of hypothetical  options from the federal agencies, nongovernmental child advocacy  organizations, and airline associations mentioned above. We then designed  and implemented a Web-based survey of domestic and foreign airlines, as  well as nongovernmental child advocacy organizations to obtain their  views regarding the effectiveness, advantages, limitations and key issues  of two specific options for further preventing these types of abductions  involving airline flights. Of the 14 airlines in our sample, 6 domestic and 3  foreign airlines responded. We also used a survey to obtain views on  additional options for preventing abductions from five nongovernmental  child advocacy organizations, all of which responded to our survey. We  assessed the advantages, limitations, and key issues the airlines and  nongovernmental organizations identified for the two specific options  detailed later in our report to determine their practicality. For more  information on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2010 to June 2011,  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: International parental child abductions reported to the State Department  have been increasing. The State Department reported that it received 1,135  new requests for assistance in international parental child abduction cases  in fiscal year 2009, the most recent fiscal year with comparable data. The  annual number of new requests received has increased each fiscal year  since fiscal year 2000 (see fig. 1).
According to literature we reviewed, such abductions can take an emotional  toll on children—who can encounter serious psychological effects—and on  the parent whose child has been abducted. Research shows that recovered  children often experience a range of problems, including anxiety, eating  problems, nightmares, mood swings, sleep disturbances, and aggressive  behavior. Parents whose children have been abducted may encounter  substantial psychological, emotional, and financial problems in fighting for  the return of their children. When a child has been abducted across  international borders, a parent may face an unfamiliar legal system, as well  as significant cultural differences and linguistic barriers that can hinder a  parent’s attempts to reunify with his or her child.
Although we could not find definitive data on the extent to which parents  and others have used airline flights to abduct children abroad, many  international parental child abductions most likely involve airline flights.  The State Department reported that, from fiscal year 2007 through 2009, it  received 3,011 requests for assistance in returning 4,365 children to the  United States from other countries. About 30 percent of these children  were abducted to Mexico, while about 6 percent were abducted to  Canada. The remaining 64 percent were abducted to other countries that  do not share a border with the United States. The State Department and  other organizations told us that an airline flight was likely the primary  means of transportation for most abductions to these nonborder  countries. Of the six nonborder countries that had the most child  abductions, it is highly likely that an airline flight was used in many of  these abductions (see fig. 2).
Child custody and abduction issues have historically been addressed at the  state and local level. State family courts determine child custody status,  including issuing custody and court orders that can limit the travel of  children. According to State Department officials, currently there is no  nationwide database that captures information from custody and court  orders. State and local law enforcement are generally tasked with  enforcing the provisions of these custody and court orders. When a child is  at risk of imminent abduction or harm, a judge may issue an order and  direct law enforcement to take physical custody of a child. A court order  can prohibit the removal of a child from the United States and that can  allow a parent or law enforcement official to contact the airport authority  police, who may assist in intercepting the abductor. However,  enforcement of such orders is difficult, in part because of the lack of a  nationwide database that maintains custody orders, and because the  United States does not generally exercise exit controls on its borders that  would prevent an adult U.S. citizen holding a valid passport from leaving  the country with his or her child who also holds a valid passport.  Generally, any citizen holding a valid passport may leave or enter the  United States freely. According to a DOJ report on international child  abductions, parents who fear that their children may be abducted can  request a court order to have the other parent surrender his/her passport  and the child’s passport to the court. Foreign governments, however, are  not bound by U.S. custody orders and may issue passports to children who  are their nationals.
The lack of exit controls makes timing crucial in preventing international  parental child abductions involving an airline flight. If a child has a valid  passport, preventing an abduction on an international airline flight could  be very difficult even if a parent has obtained a custody order barring such  travel because that parent would not only need to involve law enforcement  but do so with enough time to intercept the abducting parent and the child  before they board an international flight. Once a parent reports a child as  abducted, rapid communication and coordination among law enforcement,  airport, and airline authorities are necessary to prevent a child from  boarding an international flight. What can often happen in these cases,  however, is that a parent does not know that another family member plans  to board the child on an international flight, and thus may not contact law  enforcement in time. For example, the American Bar Association led a  survey of 97 left-behind parents that found that nearly half of the  abductions reported by the left-behind parents occurred during a legal  visitation between the abducting parent and abducted child. The left- behind parent was likely unaware of the other parent’s abduction  intentions.
section_title: Airlines Do Not Have Authority to Adopt a Preventative Role; the State Department and DHS Have Programs That Attempt to Prevent International Parental Child Abductions
subsections: section_title: Airlines Do Not Have the Authority to Enforce Court and Custody Orders but Have Policies and Procedures for Boarding Children Traveling Alone
paragraphs: As private sector entities, airlines in the United States do not have the  authority to verify or enforce court and custody orders. Stakeholders we  interviewed stated that the airline’s main role related to the prevention of  international parental child abductions is cooperating upon request with  law enforcement officials or prosecutors. For example, a few alleged  abductions in progress have been intercepted when local court officials or  law enforcement officers contacted airport police and airline personnel to  prevent a suspected abducting parent and at-risk child from leaving on an  international airline flight. Several airline stakeholders told us that law  enforcement should take the main role in preventing international parental  abductions, but that airlines work to support the law enforcement  agencies in this role.
While airlines may not be in a position to question the appropriateness of a  child and adult traveling together, airlines have procedures in place for  children traveling alone internationally or domestically. Although policies  and procedures can vary by airline, most domestic airlines will permit  children who have reached their fifth birthday to travel unaccompanied.  Children aged 5 through 11 who are flying alone must usually travel  pursuant to special “unaccompanied minor” procedures, which involve an  additional fee. On many domestic carriers, children aged 5 through 7 may  only fly unaccompanied on nonstop and through flights; children 8 and  over may take connecting flights unaccompanied. As a common procedure  for unaccompanied minors, airlines require the names and contact  numbers of the persons dropping the child off and picking the child up.  The person picking up the child may be asked to show his or her  identification. However, because airlines do not have authority to verify  court or custody orders, the unaccompanied minor procedures would not  include checking the parentage or legal guardianship status of any of those  persons dropping off or picking up children traveling unaccompanied.  Once a child has reached the age of 12 (or 15 on some airlines), most  domestic carriers do not apply “unaccompanied minor” procedures or  seek parental permission for the child to travel. Airlines may apply some  additional procedures for unaccompanied minors traveling internationally;  for example, some airlines automatically apply the unaccompanied minor  procedures to children through age 17 for international travel.
For certain international destinations, airlines can request that children  traveling with only one parent have a letter of consent from the  nonaccompanying parent to help passengers meet the entry requirements  of the country of destination. For example, according to the State  Department, Mexico and Chile require that children entering or departing  those countries by airline flight without both parents have such a letter of  consent. As such, the airlines in our study reported instructing passengers  to be ready with such documentation if traveling with children to  countries that may have such requirements. Representatives of the Air  Transport Association told us that any airline flying to these countries may  be forced to provide the passengers with a free trip back to the United  States for accepting children onto their flight without having  documentation showing that both parents or guardians consented to the  international travel. We discuss this parental-consent letter requirement in  more detail later in our report.
section_title: The State Department Has Measures Related to the Issuance of Children’s Passports, while DHS Has Measures to Intercept an Abductor at the Airport
paragraphs: The State Department has preventative measures that are focused outside  of the airport environment, before a suspected abductor reaches an airport  with a child, while DHS’s measures focus on preventing child abductions  once an abductor reaches an airport with a child. Figure 3 illustrates these  measures, which are described in greater detail in the next section.
The State Department has a signature requirement and a passport issuance  alert program in place to directly address international parental child  abductions. A law passed in 1999 requires both parents to execute and  provide documentary evidence of custodial rights on any application for a  passport for a minor. If this cannot be done, a parent can take certain  steps, in accordance with the law, to execute the passport application,  such as by providing documentary evidence that he or she has sole  custody of the child, has the documented consent of the other parent to  the issuance of the passport, or is acting in place of the parents and has  the documented consent of both parents.
The State Department also administers the Children’s Passport Issuance  Alert Program, a service through which a parent can request State  Department notification if a passport application is submitted for his or  her child of less than 18 years of age. State Department officials told us  that if a passport application is received for a child listed in the alert  program, State Department officials would contact the parent who  requested the alert notice to see if the parent’s concern still exists before  determining whether to issue the passport. The issuance alert program  enhances prevention opportunities since there are exceptions to the two- parent signature requirement. State Department officials told us that about  42,000 children are currently registered in the program and that the  program’s database includes information such as name, date, and place of  birth for each child. Before adding a child to this alert system and adding  the parent as the person to alert, State Department officials verify the  relationship between the parent and the child through documentation such  as the birth certificate, custody orders, and other identifying  documentation. State Department officials noted that, even if a parent  requesting an issuance alert loses custody of the child after the child has  been entered into the alert system, the State Department would still notify  a parent if the other parent or another person applies for that child’s  passport. According to the State Department, in some instances,  enrollment in the issuance alert program has succeeded in locating  children whose whereabouts were unknown before the new passport  application was submitted, which thereby allowed the State Department to  assist the left-behind parent in seeking the child’s return.
However, the signature requirement and passport issuance alert programs  have the following limitations:    Once it issues a passport to a child, the State Department may not  revoke that passport except in limited situations. Thus, some children  may have been lawfully issued passports before a possible  international abduction situation arose.
The State Department does not have a way to track the use of a  passport once it has been issued since the United States does not  generally exercise exit controls for citizens leaving the country.
Parents with citizenships from other countries can obtain a foreign- issued passport for their child, which can circumvent State  Department’s signature requirement and the passport issuance alert  program.
While the State Department’s efforts are focused on passport issuance,  DHS administers a child abduction component of its broader Prevent  Departure program, designed to keep non-U.S. citizens identified as  potential abductors from leaving the country with a child at risk for  abduction. DHS’s broader Prevent Departure program is aimed at  preventing the departure of non-U.S. citizens whose departure could be  harmful to the security of the United States. Such persons could include,  for example, suspected fugitives fleeing prosecution for felony crimes. The  Prevent Departure program originated from the Immigration and  Nationality Act, which authorized departure control officers to prevent  non-U.S. citizens’ departure from the United States under certain specified  circumstances. Specifically, DHS implementing regulations do not permit  such departure if the departure would be prejudicial to the interests of the  United States, as enumerated in regulation. DHS established a parental  child abduction component of the Prevent Departure program in 2003.  DHS officials have interpreted international parental abductions by non- U.S. citizens to be prejudicial to national interests, thus falling under its  Prevent Departure program authority.
DHS policy stipulates that only law enforcement officers and specified  State Department officials can request an alert for a non-U.S. citizen  potential abductor traveling with an identified at-risk child under this  program. Although parents cannot contact DHS directly, parents, family  members, prosecutors, and others concerned about a forthcoming  abduction could contact the State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues  to add names to the list. In addition, DHS requires law enforcement  officers and State Department officials to provide court orders specifying  that a child, regardless of age, is banned from traveling internationally  with a non-U.S. citizen parent or person acting on behalf of the parent. If  State Department officials determined that a case meets all the criteria for  inclusion on the list, the agency would pass this information to DHS  officials who would then place a potential abductor on the list. DHS  officials told us that, once a potential abductor is on the list, an  accompanying note is made identifying the at-risk child who is not to  travel internationally with the potential abductor. Subsequently, if a  person on the list is identified as attempting to board an international  flight with an identified child, the airlines and DHS collaborate with law  enforcement to prevent the boarding of the non-U.S. citizen with the child.
DHS officials told us that this measure is an effective tool at preventing  some cases of international parental child abductions. Prevent Departure  is the only program we identified that has the potential to prevent  international child abductions at the airport when it is not known that an  abduction is in progress, but the potential abduction risk and the potential  abductor have been identified. However, the usefulness of this program is  limited because it only applies to non-U.S. citizens.
DHS also checks the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s National Crime  Information Center (NCIC) Missing Persons File routinely for travelers  leaving the United States, which, in very limited circumstances, may result  in intercepting a child before an international flight departs. For  passengers traveling internationally on a commercial flight, airlines are  required to provide passenger manifest data (generally, information listed  on government-issued passports) obtained at check-in from all passengers  to DHS’s Customs and Border Protection no later than 30 minutes prior to  the securing of the aircraft doors, or transmit manifest information on an  individual basis as each passenger checks in for the flight up to but no  later than the securing of the aircraft. DHS officials told us that they have  automated systems to check this passenger manifest data against the NCIC  Missing Persons File and, that if a match is made, DHS officials contact the  law enforcement officials who originally entered the case into the missing  persons file to determine what action to take. Actions could include  collaborating with law enforcement and airlines to, among other things,  prevent the child from departing on an international flight.
According to DHS officials, however, even if there were a match between  passenger manifest data and the missing person’s file, they still may not be  able to prevent an international parental child abduction on an airline;  DHS officials can receive passenger manifest data as late as 30 minutes  before securing an aircraft, making it difficult to coordinate with law  enforcement, airport, and airline officials in enough time to prevent the  abducted child from departing on an international flight. Furthermore,  names might not be entered into the database in time for a match to be  made. To include an abducted child in this database, a parent would need  to contact a local or state law enforcement agency and file a missing  person’s report. In addition, local law enforcement officers may not enter  reported parental abduction cases into the NCIC database because they  may not view them as qualifying; they may view them as private family  disputes instead of criminal matters. DHS could only confirm two cases in  which it identified a match using this system, and an official who  administers the matching stated that she did not know if the two matched  cases resulted in preventing the child from boarding an international flight.
Other federal agencies also have efforts in place that may indirectly  support the prevention of international parental child abductions involving  airline flights. DOJ, in particular, has educational efforts and the AMBER  Alert (America’s Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response) program that  may help to prevent abductions. DOJ’s Office of Juvenile Justice and  Delinquency Prevention develops educational materials and training  programs aimed at increasing the awareness among parents, the law  enforcement community, and others about the issue of international  parental abductions. For example, A Family Resource Guide to  International Parental Kidnapping is an educational guide for parents,  intended to provide them with information on how to better prevent these  abductions or stop them while in-progress, among other things. DOJ also  provides training to more than 4,500 local law enforcement officers each  year about how to respond to cases of missing children, including parental  abduction cases.
In addition, since 2007, the Transportation Security Agency (TSA) within  DHS has partnered with the National Center for Missing and Exploited  Children (NCMEC) and other agencies to distribute AMBER Alerts at  airports across the country to help prevent child abductions involving  airline flights. AMBER Alert programs are voluntary partnerships between  law enforcement agencies, broadcasters, and transportation agencies to  use the Emergency Alert System to air a description of an abducted child  and the person suspected of abducting the child to assist in the search for  and safe recovery of the child. Since the first local AMBER Alert program  was launched in Texas in 1996, similar programs have been implemented  at state and local levels across the United States creating a nationwide  alert network that has successfully led to the recovery of over 500  children. However, because a main criterion for disseminating an AMBER  Alert is that law enforcement officials must believe the abducted child is in  imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, many international  parental child abductions may not be entered into the AMBER Alert  system since physically harming a child is usually not the abducting  parent’s intent. According to DOJ, in many parental abduction cases, the  abducting parent’s goal is to permanently alter custodial access by taking  the child across state or international borders.
Nongovernmental organizations also indirectly support the prevention of  international parental child abductions, often in collaboration with local,  state, and federal agencies. For example, NCMEC offers a variety of  services that aid in national and international searches for missing  children, including a toll-free hotline; photograph and poster distribution;  technical case analysis and assistance; recovery assistance; training and  coursework for investigators; and legal strategies, among other services  which indirectly support the prevention of abductions involving airline  flights. In addition, the Association of Missing and Exploited Children’s  Organizations, Inc., has a “sub-AMBER alert” program that allows local  law enforcement officers to contact businesses in airport terminals to  notify them to look out for a child believed to be abducted and possibly at  their airport so that staff can contact local law enforcement officers or  airport police to halt the abduction.
Even with these efforts in place, preventing international child abductions  can be very difficult and depends on a number of factors, including the  parent’s knowledge of the abduction risk and the existence of clear  custody status for the child. While prevention efforts available to parents,  such as contacting the State Department to request a passport alert for a  child, generally require that the parent has some knowledge beforehand of  the risk that an abduction might occur, abductions often occur when the  parent has no such knowledge. In general, prevention efforts also require  clear child custody status. For example, in order for a parent to add a child  and suspected abductor to DHS’ Prevent Departure list, the requesting  parent must demonstrate that he or she has parental or custodial rights to  the child and that there is a court order barring the child from traveling  internationally with the suspected abductor. However, custody laws vary  by state, and many parents may not have such clear custody  documentation available. For example, according to DOJ, many unmarried  parents may not be aware that they would need to pursue court  procedures to obtain a custody order for their child. Such documentation  is often essential for a parent who wishes to demonstrate custodial rights  in any context when no court order exists because states vary widely in  their statutory presumptions regarding the child custody rights of  unmarried parents. In addition, according to DOJ, many parents in these  situations cannot afford to hire attorneys to obtain the necessary  documentation of custody. In cases where the parent is unaware of the  abduction risk, and where there is no documentation of the child’s custody  status, preventing such abductions is extremely difficult.
section_title: Stakeholders Identified Two Additional Options— a Parental-Consent Letter Requirement and a High-Risk Abductor List—That May Help Prevent International Parental Child Abductions, but Cited Limitations
subsections: section_title: Federal Agency Officials, Nongovernmental Organizations, and Others Identified Two Potential Options: a Parental- Consent Letter Requirement and a High- Risk Abductor List
paragraphs: Concerns about increasing cases of international parental child abductions  have led federal agency officials, nongovernmental organizations, and  others to suggest a number of potential options aimed at preventing such  abductions. Based on input from various stakeholders, we identified two  options that directly address the issue of international parental child  abductions involving airline flights: a parental-consent letter requirement  and a high-risk abductor list of adults. We further explored these options  with airlines, federal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations to  understand their views on the potential effectiveness of these options and  to identify advantages and limitations of these options.
A parental-consent letter requirement could specify that children traveling  alone or without both parents on international flights be required to have a  note of consent from the nonaccompanying parent(s) authorizing the child  to travel. DHS recommends, but does not require, parents to travel with  such documentation. As previously mentioned, certain foreign countries  have similar parental consent letter requirements in place. Under such a  consent requirement option (and pending the grant of authority), airline or  security staff, such as TSA employees, could check that all children  traveling internationally have such parental-consent letters as a condition  to boarding an international flight.
A program to identify adults at high risk for committing child abductions  could operate similarly to DHS’s Prevent Departure program but would  apply to U.S. citizens—such a program may require additional statutory  authority. DHS could provide a list of children at high risk for abduction,  and family members identified as potential abductors, to the airlines, who  would then prevent those placed on the list from boarding international  flights if traveling together. DHS would only add names of potential  abductors and children at risk to this list if the request came from  designated law enforcement officers or federal officials, but not from the  parents. Similar to Prevent Departure, DHS could require law enforcement  officers and State Department officials to provide court orders specifying  that a child, regardless of age, is banned from traveling internationally  with a U.S. citizen parent or someone acting on behalf of the parent.
section_title: Stakeholder Views Indicate That Consent Letters May be Impractical, while a High-Risk Abductor List May Help Prevent Some Abductions
subsections: section_title: Parental Consent Letters Appear Impractical
paragraphs: Federal agency, airline, and nongovernmental organization stakeholders  reported that the presence of some type of parental-consent letter  requirement may be effective in deterring some parents from attempting to  abduct their children abroad. One nongovernmental organization official  noted that, this requirement may deter a parent from attempting an  abduction, since the parent would have to take this parental consent  requirement into consideration before going to the airport thus deterring  abductions that might occur without advance planning.
However, these stakeholders also identified a limitation that may  compromise the effectiveness of such a consent requirement: most  stakeholders pointed out that it would be very easy to produce fraudulent  consent letters. Of the eight airlines we surveyed on the two options, half  reported that this measure would not be effective. Several stakeholders  noted that a parental-consent requirement could be more effective if  parents were required to have the letters notarized. Even with a  notarization requirement, however, the majority of stakeholders we met  with told us that parents who want to abduct their children abroad could  still try to forge the consent letter documents, and airline or TSA staff may  have difficulty verifying the authenticity of such letters, if they had the  authority to do so. Airline officials told us that their staff does not have the  training or authority to verify the authenticity of such documentation. DOT  officials added that, if a consent document were required on all children  traveling internationally, airline employees would not be able to call the  parent not traveling to verify and confirm the parent’s consent, given the  sheer volume of children traveling. As a result, another organization may  need to provide airline and security staff with assurance of the  authenticity of these consent letters. An official at Child Find of America  stated that the consent letters would only be successful if the letters came  with an additional requirement for parents to submit the letters to a  federal authority in advance to verify the authenticity of the letters. She  added, however, that this additional verification step would be very  burdensome for parents and the federal agency tasked with the  verification responsibility.
Stakeholders also cited the following three key issues to consider before  implementing such a requirement:    Parental-consent letters could place a major burden not only on  parents—particularly single parents—but on all airline travelers.  Several stakeholders said that single and divorced parents would have  to take burdensome additional steps to contact the other parent and  obtain their permission for the international travel. This requirement  could be particularly difficult for a single parent traveling legitimately  with a child if that single parent faced an uncooperative ex-spouse or if  the parent had to provide documentation such as custody papers. This  requirement could impact and burden parents and children traveling  when there is very little risk of an abduction situation. A State  Department official noted that a separate line may be needed at the  airport for children traveling internationally if a parental-consent letter  requirement were in place, so as to not delay other travelers. Similarly,  NCMEC officials told us in the current airport configuration—where  travelers with domestic and international destinations enter the same  security screening lines—checks to verify parental consent that occur  during security screening would be quite burdensome for all travelers  due to the extra time needed to make such verifications.
A parental-consent requirement could significantly increase an airline’s  liability. For example, a domestic airline official told us that, if a family  member were to forge such a note and abduct a child to another  country, the left-behind parent could file a lawsuit against the airline  for failing to prevent the abduction. An International Air Transport  Association official added that airlines do not keep copies of  documents presented at check-in, so it could be difficult for an airline  to defend against such a lawsuit. He added that carriers do not capture  and hold copies of passengers’ documents following check-in because  this could, among other things, violate national personal data  protection or data privacy laws.
Airlines may face financial losses depending on whether airlines would  have to deny boarding to passengers not having the required parental  consent letter. For example, a domestic airline official told us that this  requirement could impact the airlines financially if airlines were  required to deny boarding, and potentially refund travelers, for lacking  the required parental consent letter. Four of the seven domestic  airlines that responded to our survey offer refunds to passengers they  refuse to transport due to a lack of identification. Consequently, these  airlines may be financially liable for denying boarding to those that do  not have the required consent letters.
In addition, neither the airlines nor DHS currently have the authority to  implement a parental-consent letter requirement and would thus need to  seek authority and necessary resources before such a requirement could  take effect.
section_title: High-Risk Abductor List May Help Prevent Abductions
paragraphs: A high-risk abductor list may be helpful in preventing international  parental child abductions involving airline flights in cases where a U.S.  citizen has been identified as a high risk for attempting an abduction.  Stakeholders, however, pointed out that the relatively difficult and time- consuming steps needed to place a child and potential abductor on this list  may limit its effectiveness. A majority of the airline stakeholders surveyed  on the options added that such a list would only be effective if  incorporated into the security screening processes already in use and  would not be effective if the airlines were charged with managing this list.  In addition, DHS will not be able to establish such a high-risk abductor list  without statutory authority and potentially additional financial resources.
Stakeholders who viewed this list as effective emphasized that it would be  helpful in keeping family members already identified as high risk for  abducting a child from boarding an international flight with the child of  concern. The results of the aforementioned American Bar Association  survey of 97 left-behind parents suggested that at least some of the parents  were aware of the abduction risk before the abduction occurred; 51  percent of the surveyed parents reported that they had taken measures to  prevent the abduction beforehand, such as seeking supervised visitation  arrangements, custody orders prohibiting removal of the child from the  jurisdiction, and passport denial or restrictions. As previously discussed,  DHS officials told us that their Prevent Departure list—which requires a  custody or court order specifically banning the child in question from  traveling internationally with a specified parent or someone acting on  behalf of the parent—is quite effective at preventing abductions involving  non-U.S. citizen abductors. Officials at the State Department added that a  similar list for U.S. citizens would be very effective in cases where there  was already a custody or court order preventing the child from traveling  abroad with the specified parent. Some nongovernmental organization  stakeholders reflected similar views. For example, an official at Child Find  of America noted that a list would be helpful in cases where an abduction  attempt is anticipated.
Several stakeholders cited the relatively difficult, time-consuming steps  needed to place a child and potential abductor on a high-risk abductor list  as a factor limiting its effectiveness. Parents would need to obtain a  custody or court order banning the child from traveling internationally  with the suspected adult to provide assurance that their request to include  a child on the list stems from authentic abduction concerns rather than  other conflicts between parents, but they may face difficulty in having a  judge issue such a ban. DHS officials told us that many judges who deal  with custody issues simply are not aware of the risk for international  parental child abductions and thus may fail to issue a court order banning  such travel. Officials at the State Department added that some judges are  not adequately trained to issue court or custody orders that ban  international travel in cases where abduction is a real concern. Obtaining  such a custody order may require a parent to obtain support from local  law enforcement to prove that a suspected abductor has previously  attempted to abduct the child or has refused to follow a child custody  determination, among other things. Stakeholders emphasized, however,  that local law enforcement may view such custody disputes as a private  matter and would thus be reluctant to get involved. In addition, the steps  needed to put a potential abductor on such a list may not occur swiftly  enough to prevent an anticipated abduction. Three nongovernmental  organization stakeholders told us that an abduction could occur before a  parent succeeds in involving law enforcement, courts, and others and then  taking the needed steps to put the abductor on the high-risk list.
Six of the eight airline stakeholders we surveyed about the options reported  that a high-risk abductor list would only be effective if the list was  incorporated into current security screening processes already in use, such  as Secure Flight; the Prevent Departure list is not part of Secure Flight. A  few airline stakeholders added that any other administration of the list  would burden them with creating new systems for administering such a list.  Officials at two airlines told us that a high-risk abductor list would benefit  from additional information beyond just names, such as biometric  information, to ensure that the correct travelers are identified. An official at  a foreign airline added that his airline would have to develop a customized  program to input such biometric information, which would be costly. DHS’s  Prevent Departure list is not incorporated into Secure Flight, however,  indicating that airlines may not need to develop a customized program to  administer a high-risk abductor list. Thus, a high-risk abductor list similar to  Prevent Departure may not significantly burden airlines.
As a final barrier, DHS may need additional statutory authority and  potentially additional financial resources to implement a high-risk  abductor list for U.S. citizens. As previously discussed, the Immigration  and Nationality Act provided departure control officers with the statutory  authority necessary to prevent non-U.S. citizens from departing the  country through the Prevent Departure program. This authority is  insufficient to establish and administer such a list for U.S. citizens.  Consequently, DHS would need to explore other current existing statutory  authority or seek new authority to administer a program similar to the  Prevent Departure program that would apply to U.S. citizens. In addition,  DHS and the State Department may need additional financial resources to  hire additional staff to handle incoming requests and collaborate with  airlines to prevent boarding. These departments’ potential success in  obtaining additional resources is unclear.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Although it is very difficult to prevent an international parental child  abduction, and we found that the options for doing so are limited, DHS  may have the potential to better prevent high-risk abductors—as identified  through court and custody orders—from taking children out of the  country. DHS already has a program it finds to be effective at preventing  non-U.S. citizens identified as high risk from undertaking international  parental child abductions. Thus, a similar program designed to prevent  U.S. citizens identified as high risk for undertaking these abductions from  departing on an international flight with an identified child could be  appropriate. While such a program will not prevent all international  parental child abductions on airline flights, it may help in developing a  comprehensive approach to keep people identified as high risk for  attempting such abductions from succeeding. Where options for directly  preventing international parental child abductions on airline flights are  limited, such an improvement may be a step forward.
section_title: Recommendation for Executive Action
paragraphs: To further help prevent international parental child abductions involving  airline flights, particularly for persons identified as high risk for attempting  such abductions, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security  consider creating a program similar to the child abduction component of  the Prevent Departure program that would apply to U.S. citizens.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Homeland  Security, Justice, State, and Transportation for review and comment. The  Departments of Justice and State had no comments. The Department of  Transportation provided technical clarifications, which we incorporated  into the report as appropriate. The Department of Homeland Security  provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix II.  DHS  concurred with our recommendation and agreed with our conclusions.   However, while stating its commitment to working with the Department of  State and other stakeholders to better prevent these abductions, DHS also  discussed challenges, including "potential constitutional, operational,  privacy, and resource issues," to viably implementing a high-risk abductor  list for U.S. citizens.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees and the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Justice, State, and  Transportation. The report is also available at no charge on the GAO Web  site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact points for  our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to  this report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: In response to your request, this report provides (1) information on  policies and measures airlines, federal agencies, and other entities have to  prevent international parental child abductions involving airline flights and  (2) options federal agencies, nongovernmental organizations, airlines, and  others could consider to prevent international parental child abductions  involving airline flights, as well as the advantages and limitations of those  options.
In determining policies and efforts federal agencies, airlines, and others  have to prevent international parental child abductions, we examined  relevant laws and regulations and met with and obtained and analyzed  information provided by the federal agencies (Departments of Homeland  Security, Justice, State, and Transportation) and seven child advocacy  associations. During these meetings, we obtained and analyzed  information related to major policies and measures taken to prevent  international parental child abductions. We also met with, and obtained  and analyzed information provided by, two airline associations to  determine what policies and measures airlines had in place to prevent  international parental child abductions. In addition, we surveyed eight  airlines regarding their policies and measures to prevent international  parental child abductions. See our discussion later for more detail  regarding the eight airline companies we surveyed. Our focus was  primarily on international parental child abductions that occur when a  parent, family member, or person acting on behalf of the parent or family  takes a child from the country violating the rights of the custodial parent  or guardian left behind.
In determining options federal agencies and others could consider to  prevent international parental child abductions on airline flights including  advantages and limitations of these options, we obtained a list of  hypothetical options for preventing international parental child abductions  on airline flights from federal agencies, child advocacy associations, and  airline associations mentioned above. From the list of all hypothetical  options, we identified two that directly addressed international parental  child abductions on airline flights. We then designed and administered a  Web-based survey of domestic and foreign airlines and interviewed  nongovernmental organizations representing child advocacy associations  on their views regarding the effectiveness, key issues, advantages, and  limitations of the two measures that directly address preventing  international parental child abductions on airline flights. A large number of  the questions on the survey were closed-ended, meaning that respondents  were provided with a list of possible responses. Most of the questions,  however, were open-ended, meaning that respondents were provided with  space to explain or elaborate on their answers. In developing the  questionnaires, we took steps to ensure the accuracy and reliability of the  responses. To ensure that the questions were clear, comprehensive, and  unbiased, and to minimize the burden on respondents, we sought input on  our question set from the Air Transport Association and officials from a  domestic airline, as well as internal GAO stakeholders, including  methodological specialists.
In determining which airlines to survey, we initially selected all eight  major domestic airlines that travel internationally. We also selected seven  flag carriers (airlines registered under the laws of countries whose  respective governments give them partial or total monopoly over  international routes) representing countries from which parents requested  State Department assistance in recovering children to which about 50  percent of children abducted from the United States from fiscal years 2007  through 2009 were taken. These countries include Mexico, Canada, United  Kingdom, Germany, India, Japan, and Nigeria. See table 1 for a listing of  the destination countries that accounted for the most international  parental child abductions from the United States. We learned that the  United States had only recently allowed Nigerian airlines to conduct  operations in the United States and consequently eliminated that airline  from our sample. The eight domestic airlines we contacted accounted for  64 million of the 83 million (77 percent) international passengers flying on  U.S. airlines in 2009. Of the eight domestic airlines we contacted, six  responded to our survey, and another domestic airline (United) completed  less than half. These six airlines accounted for 42 million (51 percent) of  the 83 million international passengers flying on U.S. airlines in 2009. Of  the six foreign airlines remaining in our sample, two completed the entire  questionnaire—representing the countries that had the second and sixth  most children abducted from the United States between fiscal years 2007  and 2009—and another foreign airline (Aero Mexico) completed less than  half—representing the country that had the most children abducted from  the United States from fiscal year 2007 through 2009. Because only two  foreign carriers provided us with usable information, our data are not  reflective of the views of most foreign carriers representing countries  outside the continent of North America, including Europe and Africa. The  airlines who fully responded to our survey are listed in table 2.
We also obtained views on additional measures for preventing  international parental child abductions from five nongovernmental child  advocacy organizations. From the seven nongovernmental child advocacy  organizations we initially met with or gained preliminary information  from, we surveyed (through interviews) the five that had nonprofit status  according to Internal Revenue Service information, four of whom fully  responded to our survey, while another (the Association of Missing and  Exploited Children’s Organizations) provided responses from their  membership on the high-risk abductor list option. The nongovernmental  child advocacy organizations who fully responded to our survey are listed  in table 3. We analyzed airline and nongovernmental child advocacy  organization responses to assess the advantages, limitations, and key  issues the airlines and nongovernmental organizations identified for the  two main options to determine their practicality.
section_title: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the individual named above, Maria Edelstein (Assistant  Director), Samer Abbas, Jessica Bryant-Bertail, Lauren Calhoun, Pamela  Davidson, and Amy Rosewarne made key contributions to this report.