Federal Arrest Warrant for all Parental Kidnappers

[jguardad]

I think the drop of charges upon the child's return is a good proposal. You can count on me to write.
 
I also want to add, I am truly sorry for the years you were robbed of with your child. No one should have to go through that and I applaud you for your dedication to the plight of other left behind parents.

Thanks for your empathy. I am happily married and have 3 other beautiful children now. However, nothing can replace the lost companionship of my first daughter... besides the mental anguish and frustration I had to go through which words cannot describe...

However, I cannot change the past, and if I can make sense of all of this and something good can come out of it, is to work as hard as I can so that no other parent in America has to go through the nightmare that I and thousands of others went through.

What has bothered me the most throughout these years is the impunity of the crime and the inaction by many authorities inside and outside the country which see these things as just a "family dispute", when we all know it is the most coward act of violence that you can think of against children and parents alike.

If we all work together we can surely erradicate this hideous and violent crime once and for all.

[Chuckles]

The Hague Convention is specifically about the "Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction".  I can totally understand your desire to seek criminal charges and extradition, but it would work completely contrary to the mechanics of how the Hague is supposed to work.  The Hague is about establishing the jurisdiction in which custody is to be decided, but there's no way in hell an abducting parent is ever going to show up for a custody hearing knowing they are going to be arrested.

That said, if the Hague signatories actually honored their commitments, then criminal charges and extradition wouldn't seem like such an attractive and necessary alternative.  The problem lies not in the civil aspect of the Hague, it is in the utter lack of responsibility in abducting countries in enforcing it.

[jguardad]

The Hague Convention is specifically about the "Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction".  I can totally understand your desire to seek criminal charges and extradition, but it would work completely contrary to the mechanics of how the Hague is supposed to work.  The Hague is about establishing the jurisdiction in which custody is to be decided, but there's no way in hell an abducting parent is ever going to show up for a custody hearing knowing they are going to be arrested.

That said, if the Hague signatories actually honored their commitments, then criminal charges and extradition wouldn't seem like such an attractive and necessary alternative.  The problem lies not in the civil aspect of the Hague, it is in the utter lack of responsibility in abducting countries in enforcing it.

Which custody hearing? This is not about custody, this is a crime. Whoever flees the country trying to hide behind other country's laws should be punished to the full extent of the law. At the same time, the Hague Convention countries MUST return the child regardless of the punishment to the perpetrator. Period. After all, if you kill somebody you will go to jail, whether you have children or not... nobody really cares about parent-child relationships when you have taken somebody's life or property and this should be no different.
Having said that, if some countries will not apply the Hague if an arrest warrant is pending, the US authorities could drop the charges to facilitate the return... I don't see a problem with that. In the mean time we must make sure that the Justice system makes the life of the perpetrator impossible so that nobody even thinks about doing it. It is outrageous that if you commit a serious money crime, the FBI will follow you wherever you are. However, if you kidnap an american child NOTHING happens. Believe me it doesn't... I experienced it first hand...

[SageDad]

The Hague Convention is specifically about the "Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction".  I can totally understand your desire to seek criminal charges and extradition, but it would work completely contrary to the mechanics of how the Hague is supposed to work.  The Hague is about establishing the jurisdiction in which custody is to be decided, but there's no way in hell an abducting parent is ever going to show up for a custody hearing knowing they are going to be arrested.

That said, if the Hague signatories actually honored their commitments, then criminal charges and extradition wouldn't seem like such an attractive and necessary alternative.  The problem lies not in the civil aspect of the Hague, it is in the utter lack of responsibility in abducting countries in enforcing it.

Almost all crimes have a civil AND criminal aspect to them.  A crime is an action that is sanctioned by the state where, even if there is a personal victim, the act is said to be a transgression against society.  The penal consequences of a criminal act are not normally meant to reimbursh the victim (when there is a readily definable one).  An example from popular culture would be the OJ simpson case.  He was found not-guilty of the criminal charge (first degre murder) but subsequently found to be legally liable in the civil suit.

Criminal consequences for international parental kidnapping do not run counter to the Hague Convention much more than a wrongful death suit is counter-productive to a criminal murder charge.  They can both be used simultaneously.  The Hague Convention simply does not address the criminal aspects of international abduction.  It in no way implies that the abduction of children should not be sanctioned criminally.

In my opinion international parental kidnapping should absolutely be treated as a criminal offense.  There are very few personal crimes that I would not rather be a victim of than having my child ripped out of my life -- and that does not even begin to address the impact it has on the minor children.

In the US we already have laws classifying international child abduction as a federal offense but these laws are very rarely enforced in, particularly if the offender is the child's mother.

I can list many reasons why greater enforcement of the criminal apsects of international kidnapping would be a good thing but I've droned on long enough for one day.

[Chuckles]

Just to clarify, I was strictly speaking of there being no criminal element to the Hague.  Of course these people should be punishable under the law.

[Angel For Justice]

To be honest, it is discouraged to press charges against the abducting parent as it doesn't help get the child(ren) back. Look at the recent case of Maria Jose Carrascosa. She took her daughter to Spain despite a court ordering custody to the father. I'm not positive of the details of how she came back to the US but she's been in jail for 3 years for not complying with several court orders to return the child. After facing a hearing in NJ, the court gave her 2 weeks to accept a deal where both parents would have visitation rights. For whatever reason, she refused and has now been sentenced to 14 years in prison. Has justice prevailed here? No, it hasn't...the child has been ordered to stay in Spain until she is 18 and she hasn't seen either parent since 2005.
 
One can certainly understand the frustration of the LBP and the need for action and vindication. However, having Federal Arrest Warrants could potentially encourage abducting parents to find refuge in countries that have policies that do not return people to countries where Federal charges are in place (Roman Polanski is a good example) Parents seeking refuge in these countries would leave even LESS chance of the child being returned.

[SageDad]

To be honest, it is discouraged to press charges against the abducting parent as it doesn't help get the child(ren) back. Look at the recent case of Maria Jose Carrascosa. She took her daughter to Spain despite a court ordering custody to the father. I'm not positive of the details of how she came back to the US but she's been in jail for 3 years for not complying with several court orders to return the child. After facing a hearing in NJ, the court gave her 2 weeks to accept a deal where both parents would have visitation rights. For whatever reason, she refused and has now been sentenced to 14 years in prison. Has justice prevailed here? No, it hasn't...the child has been ordered to stay in Spain until she is 18 and she hasn't seen either parent since 2005.
 
One can certainly understand the frustration of the LBP and the need for action and vindication. However, having Federal Arrest Warrants could potentially encourage abducting parents to find refuge in countries that have policies that do not return people to countries where Federal charges are in place (Roman Polanski is a good example) Parents seeking refuge in these countries would leave even LESS chance of the child being returned.

Criminal charges are discouraged but by who?  Family law attorneys who make a fortune litigating Hague cases?  Child abductors?  Diplomats seeking to avoid situations that could endanger "more important" bi-lateral agreements?  The one group you will not find against criminal remedies is the parents of children that have been abducted or their families.  It is great when criminal remedies can help to return a child but society has several other vested interests in seeing these criminals punished.  One of the largest of which is the deterrence it creates for future would-be child abductors.  Carrascosa made her bed and chose to lie in it.  She is a lawyer from a wealthy family who expected she could manipulate the civil aspects of child abduction only to run face first into the rarely applied criminal aspects of it.  Had those criminal remedies been used more consistently she would have thought things through differently.  I'm sure anyone with knowledge of her case will think twice about taking a child from NJ to Spain and Spain will think twice about usurping jurisdiction for custody decisions from a US court -- particularly a NJ one.  Mexico and Spain are making for excellent bedfellows with each country not respecting the decisions of the other.  It's good to see they are both paying each other in the same currency.  Perhaps it will help them understand that without mutual trust and respect for other countries' laws and jurisdiction we all lose.

And by the way, has justice prevailed in th case of Maria?  Yes.  To the extent possible given Spain's intransigence in returning Ines' daughter or honoring the Hague Convention.  Maria holds the key to her prison.  Her own unwillingness to admit she was wrong and allow her daughter to have a father is what keeps her in jail.  It is unfortunate that she would rather her daughter have neither parent than allow her ex-husband to see her.  I'm not sure her daughter is missing much of a mother if she is willing to do that to her rather than admit she was wrong.

[jguardad]

Criminal charges are discouraged but by who?  Family law attorneys who make a fortune litigating Hague cases?  Child abductors?  Diplomats seeking to avoid situations that could endanger "more important" bi-lateral agreements?  The one group you will not find against criminal remedies is the parents of children that have been abducted or their families.  It is great when criminal remedies can help to return a child but society has several other vested interests in seeing these criminals punished.  One of the largest of which is the deterrence it creates for future would-be child abductors.  Carrascosa made her bed and chose to lie in it.  She is a lawyer from a wealthy family who expected she could manipulate the civil aspects of child abduction only to run face first into the rarely applied criminal aspects of it.  Had those criminal remedies been used more consistently she would have thought things through differently.  I'm sure anyone with knowledge of her case will think twice about taking a child from NJ to Spain and Spain will think twice about usurping jurisdiction for custody decisions from a US court -- particularly a NJ one.  Mexico and Spain are making for excellent bedfellows with each country not respecting the decisions of the other.  It's good to see they are both paying each other in the same currency.  Perhaps it will help them understand that without mutual trust and respect for other countries' laws and jurisdiction we all lose.

And by the way, has justice prevailed in th case of Maria?  Yes.  To the extent possible given Spain's intransigence in returning Ines' daughter or honoring the Hague Convention.  Maria holds the key to her prison.  Her own unwillingness to admit she was wrong and allow her daughter to have a father is what keeps her in jail.  It is unfortunate that she would rather her daughter have neither parent than allow her ex-husband to see her.  I'm not sure her daughter is missing much of a mother if she is willing to do that to her rather than admit she was wrong.

Carlos: I agree with you totally. If abductors were detained by Interpol immediately after a kidnapping took place there would not be a need for the Hague Convention. Bruna Bianchi should have been issued a Federal Arrest warrant immediately after taking Sean and the economic sanctions against Brazil applied immediately after for refusing to return a kidnapper. Period. For God's sake, if the most fundamental rights of one parent, to be with his child, are violated, the authorities should react immediately and everywhere in unison and stop this joke once and for all. Why is every country so interested in protecting their own criminals at the expense of law abiding citizens everywhere?
If you rob a bank the FBI and Interpol will be after you and you will return to the US handcuffed in no time. Kidnap an american citizen and you can hide in Spain for 20 years. That has been my experience, and to this day I cannot make sense out of it... I just can't...
Can somebody explain to me how stolen money can be more important than the rights of parents and children everywhere? Why are these criminals protected so much and left behind parents left with no recourse? I think LBP's should unite and sue the governments of the world for the holocaust we have been subject to for the last 20+ years. We were told to respect the law and return the children to their potential abductors every week... and all we were left with was a piece of paper saying that we have custody of the child... but no enforcement whatsoever by anybody... and left to our own financial means and time to fight an impossible battle. It is simply not fair...

[Angel For Justice]

Criminal charges are discouraged but by who? Family law attorneys who make a fortune litigating Hague cases? Child abductors? Diplomats seeking to avoid situations that could endanger "more important" bi-lateral agreements? The one group you will not find against criminal remedies is the parents of children that have been abducted or their families. It is great when criminal remedies can help to return a child but society has several other vested interests in seeing these criminals punished. One of the largest of which is the deterrence it creates for future would-be child abductors. Carrascosa made her bed and chose to lie in it. She is a lawyer from a wealthy family who expected she could manipulate the civil aspects of child abduction only to run face first into the rarely applied criminal aspects of it. Had those criminal remedies been used more consistently she would have thought things through differently. I'm sure anyone with knowledge of her case will think twice about taking a child from NJ to Spain and Spain will think twice about usurping jurisdiction for custody decisions from a US court -- particularly a NJ one. Mexico and Spain are making for excellent bedfellows with each country not respecting the decisions of the other. It's good to see they are both paying each other in the same currency. Perhaps it will help them understand that without mutual trust and respect for other countries' laws and jurisdiction we all lose.
 
And by the way, has justice prevailed in th case of Maria? Yes. To the extent possible given Spain's intransigence in returning Ines' daughter or honoring the Hague Convention. Maria holds the key to her prison. Her own unwillingness to admit she was wrong and allow her daughter to have a father is what keeps her in jail. It is unfortunate that she would rather her daughter have neither parent than allow her ex-husband to see her. I'm not sure her daughter is missing much of a mother if she is willing to do that to her rather than admit she was wrong.

 
I don't think anyone who is in a situation where they feel they have to escape, to return home to where they would feel safe, would stop to think of the legal ramifications at all. In my case, I did my homework; I consulted attorneys, the US Embassy and the local police and was certain I had the legal right to leave an abusive situation with my children to come back home where I was SAFE. That didn't prevent my (ex) husband from convincing his Central Authority to grant a Hague application and subsequently dragged me and my family through Federal mud for 2 years. Fortunately, I prevailed in both the District and Appellate courts but now have thousands of dollars of debt to show for it. Where's the monetary compensation for me, the person who was in the right the entire time? There isn't any, period. Of course the parents want criminal remedies against the opposing parent...I certainly do. However, that's just not how it works.
 
Not every LBP is in the right and because of what happened to me, I am less apt to simply take the word of the LBP in that their partner just up and took the child(ren) for no reason other than on a whim. There are always 2 sides to every story and then there's the truth. I am not suggesting, by any means, that the LBP's on this forum are not victims, I am sure they are. However, the 'abducting' parents may be victims as well, like I was.
 
Yes, Maria made her bed and is lying in it...kudos to her for the fortitude to sacrifice 14 years of her life to protect her child from her husband...nobody can tell me there isn't a damn good reason she doesn't want her daughter with her ex where she was willing to go to jail for 14 years for it. We don't know the whole story here and probably never will. It is unfortunate that the child is without either of her parents and will be for quite some time but I'm inclined to think the child is way better off with the grandparents in Spain than she would be with the dad in NJ.

[SageDad]

I don't think anyone who is in a situation where they feel they have to escape, to return home to where they would feel safe, would stop to think of the legal ramifications at all. In my case, I did my homework; I consulted attorneys, the US Embassy and the local police and was certain I had the legal right to leave an abusive situation with my children to come back home where I was SAFE. That didn't prevent my (ex) husband from convincing his Central Authority to grant a Hague application and subsequently dragged me and my family through Federal mud for 2 years. Fortunately, I prevailed in both the District and Appellate courts but now have thousands of dollars of debt to show for it. Where's the monetary compensation for me, the person who was in the right the entire time? There isn't any, period. Of course the parents want criminal remedies against the opposing parent...I certainly do. However, that's just not how it works.
 
Not every LBP is in the right and because of what happened to me, I am less apt to simply take the word of the LBP in that their partner just up and took the child(ren) for no reason other than on a whim. There are always 2 sides to every story and then there's the truth. I am not suggesting, by any means, that the LBP's on this forum are not victims, I am sure they are. However, the 'abducting' parents may be victims as well, like I was.
 
Yes, Maria made her bed and is lying in it...kudos to her for the fortitude to sacrifice 14 years of her life to protect her child from her husband...nobody can tell me there isn't a damn good reason she doesn't want her daughter with her ex where she was willing to go to jail for 14 years for it. We don't know the whole story here and probably never will. It is unfortunate that the child is without either of her parents and will be for quite some time but I'm inclined to think the child is way better off with the grandparents in Spain than she would be with the dad in NJ.

Sorry Angel, but I'm at a loss to understand what the point you're dancing around is.  Kidnappers are human beings with fellings too?  You said:

I don't think anyone who is in a situation where they feel they have to escape, to return home to where they would feel safe, would stop to think of the legal ramifications at all. In my case, I did my homework; I consulted attorneys, the US Embassy and the local police and was certain I had the legal right to leave an abusive situation with my children to come back home where I was SAFE

Is it just not registering that the statement in red completely contradicts the rest of that exact same paragraph?  You just said you "don't think anyone would stop to think of the legal ramifications" but yet you yourself did exactly that?  No offense intended but kidnappers seem to be really good with the Orweillian doublethink in which they hold two absolutely contradictory ideas together with no cognitive dissonance whatsoever.  That is not to say, however, that all irrational people are kidnappers but it's a red flag.

As I've responded in other posts from you and your cohort/alter-ego QuadsRSafe, it is not for the Central Authority of a country to do extensive evaluation on the merits of a Hague Case.  Your husband/ex had a right to file a petition under the Hague Convention.  Unless you had never been in Australia or the petitioner had no rights of custody the Australian Central Authority would be derelict in their duties as a Central Authority to outright deny the petition without transmitting it to the USCA.  The extended details of the case are for the country that recieves the petition to adjudicate in a civil court.  If criminal remedies were used against you (where the Australian State itself was the plaintiff) rather than civil ones (ie remedies between INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE PARTIES aka CIVIL remedies where your husband was the plaintiff) I could understand your complaining, but I don't understand how you are, on the one hand, in favor of international kidnapping being a purely civil affair but angry at Austalia for not reimbursing your court costs or going to great lengths to evaluate the merits of the case before transmitting the petition (more Orweillian doublethink?).  

Having seen kidnappers lie extensively about the circumstances under which they abducted their children I'm also inclined to say there is more to YOUR story.  Funny how that works both ways huh?  To be absolutely clear if you are in the right, in the manner you claim to be (and I believe you are), your husband/ex is NOT a LBP and you insult us be grouping him with us every bit as much as you would (or should) call it an insult if we grouped you with the kidnappers (although you seem to be showing consolidarity with them for some reason).  Every LBP IS in the right.  If not, they are, by very definition not a LBP.  To give you an example you may better understand every rape victim is a geniune victim.  It would be ignorant to say that not every rape victim is actually a victim since some of them are lying. Either they were raped, and are a victim, or not.  Period.  The fake victims who claim to have been raped do as much or more damage than the actual rapists since they make everyone question the veracity of the real victims.

There are two sides to every story, that's why people that have any sense limit their arguments to what the EVIDENCE supports and to date all the evidence shows Carrascosa to be mentally unfit (she refuses to submit to a psychological evaluation), to have lied repeatedly in both countries and had over a dozen attornies drop her case without presenting a shred of evidence of the abuse you are so quick to assume existed.  One can't help but wonder what your definition of abuse actually is -- am I being abusive by disagreeing with you?

[Angel For Justice]

Sorry Angel, but I'm at a loss to understand what the point you're dancing around is. Kidnappers are human beings with fellings too? You said:
 
 
 
Is it just not registering that the statement in red completely contradicts the rest of that exact same paragraph? You just said you "don't think anyone would stop to think of the legal ramifications" but yet you yourself did exactly that? No offense intended but kidnappers seem to be really good with the Orweillian doublethink in which they hold two absolutely contradictory ideas together with no cognitive dissonance whatsoever. That is not to say, however, that all irrational people are kidnappers but it's a red flag.
 
As I've responded in other posts from you and your cohort/alter-ego QuadsRSafe, it is not for the Central Authority of a country to do extensive evaluation on the merits of a Hague Case. Your husband/ex had a right to file a petition under the Hague Convention. Unless you had never been in Australia or the petitioner had no rights of custody the Australian Central Authority would be derelict in their duties as a Central Authority to outright deny the petition without transmitting it to the USCA. The extended details of the case are for the country that recieves the petition to adjudicate in a civil court. If criminal remedies were used against you (where the Australian State itself was the plaintiff) rather than civil ones (ie remedies between INDIVIDUAL PRIVATE PARTIES aka CIVIL remedies where your husband was the plaintiff) I could understand your complaining, but I don't understand how you are, on the one hand, in favor of international kidnapping being a purely civil affair but angry at Austalia for not reimbursing your court costs or going to great lengths to evaluate the merits of the case before transmitting the petition (more Orweillian doublethink?).
 
Having seen kidnappers lie extensively about the circumstances under which they abducted their children I'm also inclined to say there is more to YOUR story. Funny how that works both ways huh? To be absolutely clear if you are in the right, in the manner you claim to be (and I believe you are), your husband/ex is NOT a LBP and you insult us be grouping him with us every bit as much as you would (or should) call it an insult if we grouped you with the kidnappers (although you seem to be showing consolidarity with them for some reason). Every LBP IS in the right. If not, they are, by very definition not a LBP. To give you an example you may better understand every rape victim is a geniune victim. It would be ignorant to say that not every rape victim is actually a victim since some of them are lying. Either they were raped, and are a victim, or not. Period. The fake victims who claim to have been raped do as much or more damage than the actual rapists since they make everyone question the veracity of the real victims.
 
There are two sides to every story, that's why people that have any sense limit their arguments to what the EVIDENCE supports and to date all the evidence shows Carrascosa to be mentally unfit (she refuses to submit to a psychological evaluation), to have lied repeatedly in both countries and had over a dozen attornies drop her case without presenting a shred of evidence of the abuse you are so quick to assume existed. One can't help but wonder what your definition of abuse actually is -- am I being abusive by disagreeing with you?

 
Perhaps you should read the case again...the evidence supports the fact that a Spanish court ruled Maria did not abduct her child. They ruled as did an appeals court, that the father had no rights of custody when Victoria was removed and therefore there was no need to return the child under the Convention. Maria DID have a psych eval on June 24, 2005 but refused a second eval. She fired her attorney which briefly left her pro se, then hired another attorney to represent her, not the dozens you suggested. The NJ court decided they had jurisdiction over the divorce and custody and then ordered contact for the father which Maria did not comply with (after she obtained a restraining order against him) but subsequently was held in contempt for it, an arrest warrant was issued for her, which was suspended unless she returned the child. The NJ court decided Maria was unfit where she had removed Victoria and did not allow contact with the father and subsequently, they ordered him full custody. However, this was AFTER the order had been obtained for Victoria not to leave Spain until she's 18 which was petitioned for by the FATHER. If you're going to argue a case Carlos, at least have the facts straight. See? I can be insulting too...funny how that works, huh?
 
My purpose here is to share the experiences I have had and to help educate people who know little about the Civil Aspects of the Hague Convention, not to trade barbs with you. My case was unique and although I understand as a LBP, (if that's what you are, I don't know you at all) why you would side with all LBP's. What blows me away is your blase statement that "Every LBP IS in the right. If not, they are, by very definition not a LBP" Frankly, if it were that simple to define, Hague cases would be cut by a third. I am angry because my ex had NO rights of custody but because some idiot attorney in the ACA was paid to write a report that said because the language in our custody order did not exactly mirror the language used in Australian custody orders, he therefore sucked up residual 'parental responsibility' giving him rights of custody and they granted the application. (They also gave him a $50k grant to help fight it.) So what does that mean? Why would Australia allow the registration of a foreign court order if they can just decide later on that if the wording is different, which of course it would be, that despite whatever the custody order says, they get to insert their own rules of custodial rights? This is tantamount to completely undermining the legality of the proper registration in the first place. It's a load of crap.
 
I am not defending kidnappers. What you need to realize is that not everyone who is accused of having kidnapped their child(ren) is guilty of kidnapping. There are lots of different sides to this issue, not just yours.

[Bob D'Amico]

The case you are advocating for so earnestly has caused great concern in NJ, to the point where judges from NJ went to Europe to explain the Hague Convention to Spanish judges.

Sorry but this case should not be used as an example of how the legal process works between cooperating sovereign nations. Here again this is a case of "We don't have to follow the treaty or pay one bit of attention to any damn gringo."

On top of that we have a rich, professional with delusional and psychological problems that puts her needs, her importance above any other person in the world. Even her child. She can continue her delusions of grandeur for the next 14 years in state prison.

This case is a good example of the old adage, "Some of the most brilliant people in the world are also the dumbest."  or my favorite, "The idiotic mind always beats the intelligent mind, especially if they share the same brain."