Cruise Ships and International Parental Child Abduction

Child Abduction Risks Associated With Cruise Ship Travel and the 
Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative

(Excerpt From Peter Thomas Senese & Carolyn Vlk's 'Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative and Human Trafficking Report')

CLICK HERE TO READ THE FULL REPORT

Sea Travel Closed-Loop Voyages

We are also very concerned that the documentary requirements for a “closed loop” cruise ship or other water vessel’s voyage or itinerary to contiguous countries or adjacent islands allows travelers to be exempt from the documentary requirements necessary for other types of travel. The CBP defines “closed loop” as occurring when “a vessel departs from a U.S. port or place and returns to the same U.S. port upon completion of the voyage. U.S. citizens who board a cruise ship at a port within the United States, travel only within the Western Hemisphere, and return to the same U.S. port on the same ship may present a government issued photo identification, along with proof of citizenship (an original or copy of his or her birth certificate, a Consular report of Birth Abroad, or a Certificate of Naturalization). A U.S. citizen under the age of 16 will be able to present either an original or a copy of his or her birth certificate, a Consular Report of Birth Abroad issued by DOS, or a Certificate of Naturalization issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.”


Travel requirements for children traveling at sea are quite alarming. The porous documentation controls in place due to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative facilitate child abduction opportunity at sea in unthinkable ways. For example, there are certain cruise ships that have ports of call in other countries that cater specifically to children. These cruise ships hold over 5,000 passengers and typically have weekly departures. With thousands of children boarding one of these cruise ships, we acknowledge it is clear there is substantial opportunity for a parental or non-parental child abduction to occur.


In a likely scenario for cruise ship related international parental child abduction or child trafficking, an individual could presumably board a cruise ship with a targeted child with limited or fraudulent documentation for the child, travel to WHTI designated foreign ports, disembark with the child at a port of call and simply choose not to re-board the ship, effectively circumventing the necessity of a passport which is required for other types of travel.

The potential to illegally remove a child across international borders via cruise ship travel is substantially magnified because currently there are no systematic data base controls and other security measures that would prevent a child's illegal departure from the United States. Exemplifying this grave concern are direct statements made from the security departments of two of the world's largest cruise lines operators. In statements made by both companies, neither have a security database that would enable a parent nor a court of law to place a child's name on a 'no embarkment' list due to specified court order. So even if a court order is issued that either directly names the cruise ship company as part of the action or if the court order references the cruise ship company to prohibit a child's departure but does not list the cruise ship as part of the legal action, the cruise ship companies have nothing in place that would enable them to comply with the court order.


When representatives in the security departments of both cruise ship companies were asked what could be done with a court order prohibiting a child's departure, each spokesperson suggested that if the targeted parent knew what cruise ship and departure date their child was scheduled to travel on, then it would be up to the parent to contact local law enforcement.


Obviously, the ability for a single parent trying to protect their child's abduction to run from cruise ship port to cruise ship port hoping to determine if their child is traveling on one of the ships is more than daunting and unrealistic, particularly since the vast majority of international child abductions are well planned, and cleverly orchestrated.


In a time of increased international security concerns, it is inconceivable that the only type of data bases most cruise ship operators have in place is a data base that flags previous passengers from traveling on their fleet due to past conduct on board one of their ships.

Remarkably, there is no systematic check to determine if a child’s name has been placed on any law enforcement or government travel alert lists. However, if a U.S. passport was required and the U.S. passport was scanned, then a border patrol agent would have immediate access to potentially critical information regarding the safety of the child. We call upon the cruise ships to act responsibly by establishing security procedures including a 'no-embarkment' database that would assist in the prevention of international parental child abduction and human trafficking.


When we consider there are approximately 760 cruises scheduled to depart from the U.S. and travel in a ‘closed loop’ to the Caribbean during fiscal year 2011, this becomes very concerning. Our worry increases after we consider there are 47 "closed loop" cruises scheduled to depart the U.S. to Canada during the same period. And finally, our concern surges when we realize that there are 379 cruises scheduled to depart the U.S. and travel in a "closed loop" to Mexico.


As previously discussed in this report, Mexico is a hotbed for ‘reported’ and ‘unreported’ incoming and outgoing international parental child abduction cases.  A substantial number of U.S. parents have filed a Hague application due to the criminal international abduction of their child or children.  Unfortunately, very few abducted children return to the U.S. despite court orders demanding the child’s return.  These opinions are substantially backed by the U.S. Department of State, as Mexico has repeatedly been reported to Congress as a non-compliant member of the Hague Convention. In addition, Mexico’s record as a country known for its criminal activity of human trafficking is substantial.


We express our grave concern that cruise ships may be utilized to transport children illegally to and from the U.S., Mexico, and Canada as well island nations of the Caribbean.


It is inconceivable that U.S. children are still permitted to travel to specific foreign countries in accordance with the WHTI without a passport.  Today, nearly 30% of all U.S. citizens possess a passport. As that number continues to grow substantially each year it is unthinkable not to require a passport for a child to travel abroad.  In 2011 cruise ships are scheduled to originate from the U.S and travel to 63 ports of call in Mexico, 48 ports in the Caribbean, and from 20 ports of call in Canada. We contend that a failure to require children to present a passport for all international travel is an act of misguided negligence.


Closed-Loop Foreign Destination        Number of Cruises       Number of Ports

Caribbean                                              760                                63

Canada                                                  43                                  20

Mexico                                                  379                                48

                                               Watch Peter expalin the issues of WHTI

The CBP does state that a U.S. Citizen “may” be required to present a U.S. passport if disembarking at a foreign port but that this requirement is up to the individual ports-of-entry. We must also consider that smaller personal watercrafts traveling to foreign ports under a “closed-loop” journey offer distinct opportunity for child abductors and human traffickers to circumvent our nation’s laws or court orders. The lack of formidable travel documentation for cruise ship or other water vessel excursions originating from and returning to the United States is a black hole for would-be child abductors or traffickers.


The fact that cruise ships are being utilized in human trafficking is not unrecognized within the U.S. or in other countries. The following statements come directly from a human rights watchdog organization in Belize.

The Belize Organization for Responsible Tourism (ORT) issues this appeal to cruise lines bringing passengers to Belize, a superhighway for human trafficking. “We are asking for your help in stopping human trafficking in Belize. In particular, we appeal to Norwegian Cruise Line and Carnival Cruise Lines, which bring a combined 700, 000 tourists to Belize annually.


Cruise lines have a moral responsibility to help stop human trafficking in Belize. Each year thousands of human trafficking victims are transited through Belize via its porous and corrupt borders. Many are exported to other countries and never seen again by their families. Many endure lives of forced prostitution in Belize ficha bars.”

As these serious challenges come to light, we need to create a comprehensive short-term and long-term strategy that will prevent child abduction and human trafficking from occurring due to limited WHTI child travel documentation requirements for land and sea travel. There remains a significant amount of work necessary to enhance border security so that current weaknesses will no longer be available to be exploited. Our children must become a priority and the risk of abduction and human trafficking be lessened through mandating legitimate and uniform travel documentation.


The issues of child abduction and child slavery have received relatively limited public exposure. There has been limited government reaction directed toward changing public policy, government agency operations and protocol, and reform of laws that may facilitate or enable international abduction. It is important to recognize that over the past two years there have been over 1,000 ‘reported’ cases of U.S. child citizens being criminally abducted to Mexico and untold numbers of unreported cases. Imagine how our nation would act if:


1.     25 school buses containing 40 defenseless 5th grader American students disappeared in Mexico; or,

2.     4 Boeing 757 passenger jets containing 250 middle school children each was hijacked; or,

3.     A cruise ship with 1,000 high school students on a spring break trip was pirated off of Mexico’s borders; or,

4.     A train traveling with 1,000 students and their teachers was hijacked.

Undoubtedly, there would be public outcry and reform at every level. However, our public and government concern has not reached levels that it should. The many voices of this unthinkable crime tend to be diluted due to the singular reporting methodology. It is imperative that immediate revisions in law and government policy be initiated including reform of the WHTI land and sea travel requirements for minors.

One of the great challenges at-risk parents of international parental child abduction face is that the cruise ships do not presently have a centralized way of determining if a child embarking on their ship has a legal right to depart.  The United States does not have any exit controls. The only way a child could be flagged is if their passport is flagged.  However, if a child's travel documentation only requires presentation of a naturalization document such as a photocopy of a birth certificate, it is up to targeted parents to contact the security departments of each potential cruise ship a child may be put on and request that the cruise ship company review its reservation manifests.

The WHTI may in fact have many benefits, including ease of travel; however, there are many problems, one of which is putting our children at risk of abduction.

Peter Senese Prevents Abduction To Croatia

Stopping A Little Girl's Abduction To Croatia: How Abductors Will Create Sophisticated Schemes To Abduct Children.  

I recently was forwarded an article written by an uncle of a young child who the I CARE Foundation and I were able to help prevent her international abduction.

I have to admit, juggling my full time career, making quality time for my family (and me), and volunteering the amount of time I do to help other parents and children targeted for abduction could be exhausting at times. 
Particularly the advocacy work.

Despite the mission of the I CARE Foundation to conduct research that will guide new laws and policy, IPCA is very personal. And so at times we do get involved.

How could we . . . how could I not? I know my responsibility. 

The uncle, Ray, was very kind to say that "Peter Thomas Senese is a heroic child advocate." 

I am not sure abot that . . . I am simply a father who is familiar with the path of child abduction, learned the roads traveled upon by abductors, and now use my knowledge to try and help protect children and their parents who are targeted for abduction. 

And every once in a while we get lucky and we either stop an abduction or reunite a parent. We've been fairly successful at this, but clearly not as good as we would like to be. Often our work and effort, most of which is never spoken about (as most of you who we are assisting know the protocol we establish). 

I am very happy knowing a little girl was not abducted to Croatia. A very special thank you to Joel S. Walter for his big assist on protecting this little girl.

There are times when reading articles or letters such as this recharge your battery and keep you going forward. After all, chasing the cyclones of abduction are not easy.

The I CARE Foundation will be moving on a series of legislative initiatives in the near future that if successful will help stop abduction.

However, the singular most important thing to child abdution prevention is education. Parents need to know the warning signs of abdution as shared in Chasing The Cyclone.

International Child Custody and Abduction Risk. Use the Prevent Departure Program To Prevent Abduction

Over the course of the past few years, I have assisted other targeted parents and their children who are at risk of being criminally abducted overseas. One of the most useful tools to prevent an international parental child abduction from occurring on U.S. soil is the 'Prevent Departure Program' (PDP). The details of the program are contained herein.

Presently, I am involved in assisting several parents and their children who are at risk of abduction whereas the PDP program is ideal prevention tool for their children.

Here are a few potential abduction cases which I am assisting with, and the risk factors that are associated with each situation. As you will come to understand, the key to preventing a child's abduction truly is in the hands of the courts and their ability to consider risk factors associated with an abduction. However, having a court order all to often can mean very little because the United States has limited exit controls, and in certain cases, a person who has intent to abduct may be able to get around laws that may prevent that person from departing.

Case #1:
Parent 1 is a U.S. citizen and has custody of the child of the marriage. Parent 2 is a non-U.S. citizen who presently has a court order to remove the child of their marriage from the United States and travel to Parent 2's hometown in Europe for 6 weeks. The problem is Parent 2 has no means of purchasing a return ticket to the U.S., does not have employment in the U.S., and does not have a home to go to upon returning to the U.S. In granting Parent 2 the right to leave with the child of the marriage, we must scrutinize whether the court weighed the risk factors properly before issuing an order for Parent 2 to travel overseas with the child. In this case, there is no capacity for Parent 2 to return, no strong attachment within the U.S. to return.

To make matters worse for Parent 1, Parent 2 recently made a police complaint against Parent 1 and that person's significant other. Parent 1 countered that complaint by filing a similiar complaint and also making a second complaint for false police charges. I bring this up because Parent 2's actions demonstrate part of a carefully orchestrated agenda seen in many other cases: laying the foundation for an Article 13 abduction defense under the Hague Convention. For those of you who are not aware of what this is, under the Hague Convention an abducting parent may be permitted by the international courts to remain in the 'arriving country' that they abducted to if they are able to demonstrate to the court that returning the child would not be in the child's best interest. 'The best interest of the child' can take the form of many things, one of them being that the child and the child's abducting parent were at grave risk from the other parent. Now, does abuse really exist in some cases where a person is truly in fear of their life? You bet it does. And when this occurs, and the legal system systematically fails an abused and at risk person, I believe a person should follow the laws of good parenting and survival. However, all too often we have seen the false and manipulative use of Article 13 by an abductor in order to mislead the courts so to have a judge sanction their misbehavior. In the case that I am dealing with, Parent 1 has never had any previous complaints made. Nevertheless, the line in the sand has been created by Parent 2.

Unfortunately for most targeted parents once a child is illegally removed or detained, the heavy cost and financial burden to fight a Hague case are substantial. And even if a targeted parent wins their Hague case, there is this thing called 'an appeal'. The point being every person can appeal their case, causing long delays that very well may wear down the targeted parent's desire to bring their child home.

Obviously it is critical for the courts to prevent an abduction from occurring at all costs. In this case, Parent 2 has no capacity to return, no reasonable prospects to sustainability upon return, and has now begun a clever strategy that could raise flags under Article 13. Clearly, the probability of Parent 2 returning are low while the risks of a criminal abduction are high (Click here for more information on international parental child abduction risk factors).

Case #2.
In this case Parent 1 has custody of two children, while Parent 2 has access. Parent 2 is from a Non-Hague country (kingdom) located in the Middle East. Parent 2 has made abduction threats to Parent 1 in the past. Parent 2 is presently in flight training school in the United States. Parent 2's father also oversees the entire operations, including security for the national airline of Parent 2's country of origin.

When Parent 2's family travels into the U.S. due to government business connected to that nation's royal family, there are limited entry and departure controls due to diplomatic conditions. This includes arriving and departing at private airport terminals and being able to have access to their fleet of jets while grounded the same way any person has access to their private aircraft located at a private airport: you simply walk through the FBO's doors and out onto the tarmac.

In this case, Parent 2 has made previous threats that Parent 1 will never see the children of the marriage again. So, Parent 1 sought supervised visitation of the children for Parent 2 in order to ensure that Parent 2 would not take the children of the marriage and get onto a private foreign government jet and depart to the Middle East (because of that happens, a return of a child, particularly from this kingdom is unlikely). Obviously Parent 2 has the means and capability of an abduction. In this case, risk factors are so grave because of the potential ability of Parent 2 to bypass exit departure controls. (Click here to read what to do when an abduction is in progress).


International Parental Child Abduction (IPCA) has become a global epidemic best exemplified in an assortment of distinct government reports including the most recent 2010 United States Department of State’s Hague Compliance Report prepared for Congress, as well as various non-government reports including the findings published in ‘Crisis In America: International Parental Child Abduction’ Carolyn Vlk and I prepared.


Statistically, the number of international child abductions originating from the United States is alarming. This number, similar to other nations throughout the world, is growing.


According to the most recent Compliance Report issued by the Department of State (2010 Compliance Report measures statistics created during Fiscal Year 2009), there were 1,135 reported cases of parental child abduction in 2009 representing 1,621 children. The number of new outgoing cases has almost doubled since Fiscal Year 2006, from 642 reported cased to now 1,135 reported cases. It is anticipated that the number of reported cases will continue to escalate substantially.


However, many individuals consider these statistics to be inaccurate because they do not reflect the anticipated large unreported immigration population that has migrated to the United States. There are also substantial numbers of international child abductions associated with undocumented migratory parents living in the US with their legally born American child-citizens.


Additionally, historical precedent indicates there exists parents who are left behind in the wake of their child’s international parental abduction who purposefully do not file a child abduction report due to their belief that their chance of recovering their parentally abducted child is slim and that the costs involved in recovery are substantial. Additionally, foreign government’s courts typically favor the abducting parent as a civil order issued by the United States is rarely honored by a foreign nation, particularly if that abducting parent is a national of the country where the child was illegally taken to. There is not question that the crime of international parental child abduction is a well-orchestrated cruel crime against both the child and the Chasing Parent left behind.


Critical to protecting our targeted children and their targeted parent from the nightmare that awaits them if a child successfully is removed from our nation’s borders exists federal and in certain states, abduction prevention laws.Tragically, many states still have not implemented prevention laws. This needs to change immediately.However, in states where there are laws in place and courts have issued orders in order to prevent a parental child abduction from occurring, there are too many loop holes that, if planned carefully, will allow certain individuals the opportunity to abduct a child and flee to another country. This is particularly true if the parent intending to abduct their US citizen child is a non-US - national and that person still holds citizenship to another nation.


This report was created to share certain information about the United State’s Prevent Departure Program, (PDP) and how this particular program may be utilized to assist certain at-risk US citizen children from the horrible fate of international parental child abduction.


Perhaps the best way to discuss the Prevent Departure Program is to discuss a typical scenario where the PDP may be useful.


Case Study


Lets begin by suggesting Parent A is a citizen of another country but lives in the United States with Parent B. Parent B is a United States citizen. Parent A need not be married to Parent B.


During the course of A and B’s relationship, a child is born in the United States. When this occurs, the child is automatically a United States Citizen by birth.


In all likelihood, the child also will retain automatic citizenship to the nation that Parent A is a national of.


Let us assume both parents enjoy a right of custody to the child either through marriage, or, in cases where there is no marriage, either by state statue or by court orders.


During the course of time, Parent A decides to end the relationship and desires to return to their nation of origin with the child.


Now, Parent B, having great concern that Parent A intends to take the child and flee the United States and go to another country, obtains court orders forbidding Parent A from taking the child out of the country. The court orders for Parent A to turn over to the court the child’s US passport if one has been issued, and further directs the child’s name to be registered with the Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program, thus essentially removing the potential abducting parent from being able to remove the child from the United States using an American passport issued in the child’s name.


In addition, Parent B successfully requests that the court notify the embassy of the country Parent A is a citizen of, whereas, the court informs the embassy that a child custody dispute is alive and well in the jurisdiction of the child’s country of habitual residency, and the court requests for that foreign embassy not to issue a passport in the child’s name, thus securing the inability of the child from departing until the court proceedings are finalized.


Problem solved? No


In many circumstances, a pending departure is already well planned before the targeted parent becomes aware of it. Parent A may already have in their possession a passport issued by their nation of origin for the child. If this is the case, it is very difficult for the US court to seize the foreign passport of the child, particularly if it is not known whether a passport has been issued in the child’s name.


If a passport has not been issued in the child’s name, then in all likelihood, Parent A will attempt to obtain one regardless if the child’s passport application requires Parent B’s signature or not. In fact, certain countries do not require the signature of the mother of a child, only the father.


In addition, each nation obtains a sovereign right to oversee their own citizens, and since the child may be considered a citizen of the country of Parent A too, the embassy is not required or obligated to follow the U.S. court’s orders. They have every right and may issue a passport in the child’s name despite requests not to do so. And make no mistake about this, in more cases than not, particularly if Parent A is very persuasive when communicating with someone from their own embassy, they will successfully obtain the passport.


If Parent A has possession of a non-US passport for their child, they very well may be able to physically leave the country with the child and illegally abduct the child. What is perhaps even more troubling is the fact that Parent B has no way or right to know if a passport was issued from the native country of Parent A in the name of the child.


A disaster waiting to happen? You bet it is.


But there is hope for those parents who find themselves in a scenario where Parent A is not an American citizen living in the United States with their child and, Parent A possess a foreign passport for the child of the relationship.


Since 2003, United States citizens have had available a very effective international child abduction prevention tool called ‘The Prevent Departure Program’. Unfortunately, many parents at risk of having their child internationally abducted are not aware that this incredibly useful tool is available to them.


In the aftermath of 911, the Department of Homeland Security’s ‘Prevent Departure Program’ was created to stop non-U.S. citizens from departing the country. The program applies to non-US citizens physically located in America considered individuals at risk of child abduction. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) oversees this program and it is monitored 24 hours a day.


What the ‘Prevent Departure Program’ does is provide immediate information to the transportation industry, including all air, land, and sea channels a single point of contact at Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and provides a comprehensive database of individuals the United States believes may immediately depart to a foreign country.


The program only applies to aliens, and is not available to stop U.S. citizens or dual U.S./foreign citizens from leaving the country.


Under Section 215 of the ‘Immigration and Nationality Act’ (8 U.S.C. 1185) and it’s implementing regulations (8 CFR Part 215 and 22 CFR Part 46), it authorizes departure-control officers to prevent an alien’s departure from the United States if the alien’s departure would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States. These regulations include would-be abductions of U.S. citizens in accordance to court orders originating from the child’s court of habitual residency.


If the abductor and child are identified, they will be denied boarding. In order to detain them after boarding is denied, there must be a court order prohibiting the child’s removal or providing for the child’s pick-up, or a warrant for the abductor.


In order for an at risk parent to participate in the program, all of the following must be demonstrated:


1. Subject may NOT be a US citizen; and,


2. The nomination must include a law enforcement agency contact with 24/7 coverage; and,


3. There must be a court order showing which parent has been awarded custody or shows that the Subject is restrained from removing his/her minor child from certain counties, the state or the U.S.; and,


4. The Subject must be in the US; and,


5. There must be some likelihood that the Subject will attempt to depart in the immediate future.


With respect to the established guidelines listed above, note that in order to request the listing of the other parent, that person must be an alien of the United States. The program does not apply to US citizens at risk of leaving the country.


The second mandate states a request to place an individual’s name on the Prevent Departure Program must include support by a law enforcement agency or from the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues, which has the authority of requesting for the Department of Homeland Security to list a suspected child abductor on the ‘Prevent Departure Program’.


The third criteria: possessing a custodial order, is essential. Regardless if the other parent has joint custody or rights of visitation, critically, you must make sure that there are injunction orders in place prohibiting the child from being removed from the jurisdiction of habitual residency. Unfortunately, many international parental child abductions are well planned out in advance of the actual abduction, and the targeted parent has no idea that an abduction is in progress until it is too late. This is why it is essential for parents in partnership with non-nationals to be fully aware of the warning signs associated with a potential international child abduction.


The fourth criteria states the obvious: in order to prevent an alien-parent suspected of abducting a child on U.S. soil, that parent must be on U.S. soil.


The fifth criteria requests that the applying parent demonstrate that the alien-parent has demonstrated the likelihood of abducting the child across international borders in the immediate future. Remember – you need to document and record as much evidence as possible.


For many parents who face the risk of having their child abducted and removed across international borders, the nightmare that both targeted parent and victimized child face is unbearable.


The Prevent Departure Program is not for everyone and should not be abused; however, in situations where an abduction threat is real and the targeting parent intent on abducting a child is a non-US citizen possessing the capacity to breach court orders and abduct a child of a relationship, the Prevent Departure Program may be a useful tool.

If you believe your child is at risk, it is critical that you prepare your child on what to do if they are taken (Click here to view how to prepare your child).


For more information on the ‘Prevent Departure Program’, please visit the U.S. Department of State’s website or contact the Office of Children’s Issues directly at 888.407.4747 or 202.501.4444.


If you are interested in understanding the terrifying aspects and difficulties associated with international parental child abduction, I invite you to read 'Chasing The Cyclone' (Click here to read the reviews).

To read Chapter 1 of 'Chasing The Cyclone' please Click Here.

For more information on the growig epidemic of international parental child abduction, please Click Here.


For more information on best-selling author Peter Thomas Senese, please Click Here. or to read more about Peter Thomas Senese's books, please Click Here.

For more information on child abduction and child slavery risks associated with the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, please Click Here.

To read more essays and articles on international parental child abduction, please Click Here.

The Prevent Departure Program Can Be Used To Stop International Parental Child Abduction

Over the course of the past few years, I have assisted other targeted parents and their children who are at risk of being criminally abducted overseas. One of the most useful tools to prevent an international parental child abduction from occurring on U.S. soil is the 'Prevent Departure Program' (PDP). The details of the program are contained herein.

Presently, I am involved in assisting several parents and their children who are at risk of abduction whereas the PDP program is ideal prevention tool for their children.

Here are a few potential abduction cases which I am assisting with, and the risk factors that are associated with each situation. As you will come to understand, the key to preventing a child's abduction truly is in the hands of the courts and their ability to consider risk factors associated with an abduction. However, having a court order all to often can mean very little because the United States has limited exit controls, and in certain cases, a person who has intent to abduct may be able to get around laws that may prevent that person from departing.

Case #1:
Parent 1 is a U.S. citizen and has custody of the child of the marriage. Parent 2 is a non-U.S. citizen who presently has a court order to remove the child of their marriage from the United States and travel to Parent 2's hometown in Europe for 6 weeks. The problem is Parent 2 has no means of purchasing a return ticket to the U.S., does not have employment in the U.S., and does not have a home to go to upon returning to the U.S. In granting Parent 2 the right to leave with the child of the marriage, we must scrutinize whether the court weighed the risk factors properly before issuing an order for Parent 2 to travel overseas with the child. In this case, there is no capacity for Parent 2 to return, no strong attachment within the U.S. to return.

To make matters worse for Parent 1, Parent 2 recently made a police complaint against Parent 1 and that person's significant other. Parent 1 countered that complaint by filing a similiar complaint and also making a second complaint for false police charges. I bring this up because Parent 2's actions demonstrate part of a carefully orchestrated agenda seen in many other cases: laying the foundation for an Article 13 abduction defense under the Hague Convention. For those of you who are not aware of what this is, under the Hague Convention an abducting parent may be permitted by the international courts to remain in the 'arriving country' that they abducted to if they are able to demonstrate to the court that returning the child would not be in the child's best interest. 'The best interest of the child' can take the form of many things, one of them being that the child and the child's abducting parent were at grave risk from the other parent. Now, does abuse really exist in some cases where a person is truly in fear of their life? You bet it does. And when this occurs, and the legal system systematically fails an abused and at risk person, I believe a person should follow the laws of good parenting and survival. However, all too often we have seen the false and manipulative use of Article 13 by an abductor in order to mislead the courts so to have a judge sanction their misbehavior. In the case that I am dealing with, Parent 1 has never had any previous complaints made. Nevertheless, the line in the sand has been created by Parent 2.

Unfortunately for most targeted parents once a child is illegally removed or detained, the heavy cost and financial burden to fight a Hague case are substantial. And even if a targeted parent wins their Hague case, there is this thing called 'an appeal'. The point being every person can appeal their case, causing long delays that very well may wear down the targeted parent's desire to bring their child home.

Obviously it is critical for the courts to prevent an abduction from occurring at all costs. In this case, Parent 2 has no capacity to return, no reasonable prospects to sustainability upon return, and has now begun a clever strategy that could raise flags under Article 13. Clearly, the probability of Parent 2 returning are low while the risks of a criminal abduction are high (Click here for more information on international parental child abduction risk factors).

Case #2.
In this case Parent 1 has custody of two children, while Parent 2 has access. Parent 2 is from a Non-Hague country (kingdom) located in the Middle East. Parent 2 has made abduction threats to Parent 1 in the past. Parent 2 is presently in flight training school in the United States. Parent 2's father also oversees the entire operations, including security for the national airline of Parent 2's country of origin.

When Parent 2's family travels into the U.S. due to government business connected to that nation's royal family, there are limited entry and departure controls due to diplomatic conditions. This includes arriving and departing at private airport terminals and being able to have access to their fleet of jets while grounded the same way any person has access to their private aircraft located at a private airport: you simply walk through the FBO's doors and out onto the tarmac.

In this case, Parent 2 has made previous threats that Parent 1 will never see the children of the marriage again. So, Parent 1 sought supervised visitation of the children for Parent 2 in order to ensure that Parent 2 would not take the children of the marriage and get onto a private foreign government jet and depart to the Middle East (because of that happens, a return of a child, particularly from this kingdom is unlikely). Obviously Parent 2 has the means and capability of an abduction. In this case, risk factors are so grave because of the potential ability of Parent 2 to bypass exit departure controls. (Click here to read what to do when an abduction is in progress).


International Parental Child Abduction (IPCA) has become a global epidemic best exemplified in an assortment of distinct government reports including the most recent 2010 United States Department of State’s Hague Compliance Report prepared for Congress, as well as various non-government reports including the findings published in ‘Crisis In America: International Parental Child Abduction’ Carolyn Vlk and I prepared.


Statistically, the number of international child abductions originating from the United States is alarming. This number, similar to other nations throughout the world, is growing.


According to the most recent Compliance Report issued by the Department of State (2010 Compliance Report measures statistics created during Fiscal Year 2009), there were 1,135 reported cases of parental child abduction in 2009 representing 1,621 children. The number of new outgoing cases has almost doubled since Fiscal Year 2006, from 642 reported cased to now 1,135 reported cases. It is anticipated that the number of reported cases will continue to escalate substantially.


However, many individuals consider these statistics to be inaccurate because they do not reflect the anticipated large unreported immigration population that has migrated to the United States. There are also substantial numbers of international child abductions associated with undocumented migratory parents living in the US with their legally born American child-citizens.


Additionally, historical precedent indicates there exists parents who are left behind in the wake of their child’s international parental abduction who purposefully do not file a child abduction report due to their belief that their chance of recovering their parentally abducted child is slim and that the costs involved in recovery are substantial. Additionally, foreign government’s courts typically favor the abducting parent as a civil order issued by the United States is rarely honored by a foreign nation, particularly if that abducting parent is a national of the country where the child was illegally taken to. There is not question that the crime of international parental child abduction is a well-orchestrated cruel crime against both the child and the Chasing Parent left behind.


Critical to protecting our targeted children and their targeted parent from the nightmare that awaits them if a child successfully is removed from our nation’s borders exists federal and in certain states, abduction prevention laws.Tragically, many states still have not implemented prevention laws. This needs to change immediately.However, in states where there are laws in place and courts have issued orders in order to prevent a parental child abduction from occurring, there are too many loop holes that, if planned carefully, will allow certain individuals the opportunity to abduct a child and flee to another country. This is particularly true if the parent intending to abduct their US citizen child is a non-US - national and that person still holds citizenship to another nation.


This report was created to share certain information about the United State’s Prevent Departure Program, (PDP) and how this particular program may be utilized to assist certain at-risk US citizen children from the horrible fate of international parental child abduction.


Perhaps the best way to discuss the Prevent Departure Program is to discuss a typical scenario where the PDP may be useful.


Case Study


Lets begin by suggesting Parent A is a citizen of another country but lives in the United States with Parent B. Parent B is a United States citizen. Parent A need not be married to Parent B.


During the course of A and B’s relationship, a child is born in the United States. When this occurs, the child is automatically a United States Citizen by birth.


In all likelihood, the child also will retain automatic citizenship to the nation that Parent A is a national of.


Let us assume both parents enjoy a right of custody to the child either through marriage, or, in cases where there is no marriage, either by state statue or by court orders.


During the course of time, Parent A decides to end the relationship and desires to return to their nation of origin with the child.


Now, Parent B, having great concern that Parent A intends to take the child and flee the United States and go to another country, obtains court orders forbidding Parent A from taking the child out of the country. The court orders for Parent A to turn over to the court the child’s US passport if one has been issued, and further directs the child’s name to be registered with the Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program, thus essentially removing the potential abducting parent from being able to remove the child from the United States using an American passport issued in the child’s name.


In addition, Parent B successfully requests that the court notify the embassy of the country Parent A is a citizen of, whereas, the court informs the embassy that a child custody dispute is alive and well in the jurisdiction of the child’s country of habitual residency, and the court requests for that foreign embassy not to issue a passport in the child’s name, thus securing the inability of the child from departing until the court proceedings are finalized.


Problem solved? No


In many circumstances, a pending departure is already well planned before the targeted parent becomes aware of it. Parent A may already have in their possession a passport issued by their nation of origin for the child. If this is the case, it is very difficult for the US court to seize the foreign passport of the child, particularly if it is not known whether a passport has been issued in the child’s name.


If a passport has not been issued in the child’s name, then in all likelihood, Parent A will attempt to obtain one regardless if the child’s passport application requires Parent B’s signature or not. In fact, certain countries do not require the signature of the mother of a child, only the father.


In addition, each nation obtains a sovereign right to oversee their own citizens, and since the child may be considered a citizen of the country of Parent A too, the embassy is not required or obligated to follow the U.S. court’s orders. They have every right and may issue a passport in the child’s name despite requests not to do so. And make no mistake about this, in more cases than not, particularly if Parent A is very persuasive when communicating with someone from their own embassy, they will successfully obtain the passport.


If Parent A has possession of a non-US passport for their child, they very well may be able to physically leave the country with the child and illegally abduct the child. What is perhaps even more troubling is the fact that Parent B has no way or right to know if a passport was issued from the native country of Parent A in the name of the child.


A disaster waiting to happen? You bet it is.


But there is hope for those parents who find themselves in a scenario where Parent A is not an American citizen living in the United States with their child and, Parent A possess a foreign passport for the child of the relationship.


Since 2003, United States citizens have had available a very effective international child abduction prevention tool called ‘The Prevent Departure Program’. Unfortunately, many parents at risk of having their child internationally abducted are not aware that this incredibly useful tool is available to them.


In the aftermath of 911, the Department of Homeland Security’s ‘Prevent Departure Program’ was created to stop non-U.S. citizens from departing the country. The program applies to non-US citizens physically located in America considered individuals at risk of child abduction. The Customs and Border Protection (CBP) oversees this program and it is monitored 24 hours a day.


What the ‘Prevent Departure Program’ does is provide immediate information to the transportation industry, including all air, land, and sea channels a single point of contact at Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and provides a comprehensive database of individuals the United States believes may immediately depart to a foreign country.


The program only applies to aliens, and is not available to stop U.S. citizens or dual U.S./foreign citizens from leaving the country.


Under Section 215 of the ‘Immigration and Nationality Act’ (8 U.S.C. 1185) and it’s implementing regulations (8 CFR Part 215 and 22 CFR Part 46), it authorizes departure-control officers to prevent an alien’s departure from the United States if the alien’s departure would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States. These regulations include would-be abductions of U.S. citizens in accordance to court orders originating from the child’s court of habitual residency.


If the abductor and child are identified, they will be denied boarding. In order to detain them after boarding is denied, there must be a court order prohibiting the child’s removal or providing for the child’s pick-up, or a warrant for the abductor.


In order for an at risk parent to participate in the program, all of the following must be demonstrated:


1. Subject may NOT be a US citizen; and,


2. The nomination must include a law enforcement agency contact with 24/7 coverage; and,


3. There must be a court order showing which parent has been awarded custody or shows that the Subject is restrained from removing his/her minor child from certain counties, the state or the U.S.; and,


4. The Subject must be in the US; and,


5. There must be some likelihood that the Subject will attempt to depart in the immediate future.


With respect to the established guidelines listed above, note that in order to request the listing of the other parent, that person must be an alien of the United States. The program does not apply to US citizens at risk of leaving the country.


The second mandate states a request to place an individual’s name on the Prevent Departure Program must include support by a law enforcement agency or from the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues, which has the authority of requesting for the Department of Homeland Security to list a suspected child abductor on the ‘Prevent Departure Program’.


The third criteria: possessing a custodial order, is essential. Regardless if the other parent has joint custody or rights of visitation, critically, you must make sure that there are injunction orders in place prohibiting the child from being removed from the jurisdiction of habitual residency. Unfortunately, many international parental child abductions are well planned out in advance of the actual abduction, and the targeted parent has no idea that an abduction is in progress until it is too late. This is why it is essential for parents in partnership with non-nationals to be fully aware of the warning signs associated with a potential international child abduction.


The fourth criteria states the obvious: in order to prevent an alien-parent suspected of abducting a child on U.S. soil, that parent must be on U.S. soil.


The fifth criteria requests that the applying parent demonstrate that the alien-parent has demonstrated the likelihood of abducting the child across international borders in the immediate future. Remember – you need to document and record as much evidence as possible.


For many parents who face the risk of having their child abducted and removed across international borders, the nightmare that both targeted parent and victimized child face is unbearable.


The Prevent Departure Program is not for everyone and should not be abused; however, in situations where an abduction threat is real and the targeting parent intent on abducting a child is a non-US citizen possessing the capacity to breach court orders and abduct a child of a relationship, the Prevent Departure Program may be a useful tool.

If you believe your child is at risk, it is critical that you prepare your child on what to do if they are taken (Click here to view how to prepare your child).


For more information on the ‘Prevent Departure Program’, please visit the U.S. Department of State’s website or contact the Office of Children’s Issues directly at 888.407.4747 or 202.501.4444.


If you are interested in understanding the terrifying aspects and difficulties associated with international parental child abduction, I invite you to read 'Chasing The Cyclone' (Click here to read the reviews).

To read Chapter 1 of 'Chasing The Cyclone' please Click Here.

For more information on the growig epidemic of international parental child abduction, please Click Here.


For more information on best-selling author Peter Thomas Senese, please Click Here. or to read more about Peter Thomas Senese's books, please Click Here.

For more information on child abduction and child slavery risks associated with the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative, please Click Here.

To read more essays and articles on international parental child abduction, please Click Here.