International Child Abductors have many things in common. They’re often mentally unstable and lose custody in family court, so they often break the law and abduct their children overseas. They usually come from economically depressed homes and their child (children) will suffer the same fate. So don’t be so shocked by what they say, they always say the same things. They’re manipulators of their own children and the court system.

Child Abductors Are Child Abusers

The abductor will almost always claim that they had no choice to abduct your child because you were about to abduct and they had to do it before you. This is just typical abuse that will only get worse. They will always alienate the left behind parent. Child abductors are child abusers. Children are robbed from creating lifelong bonds with the left behind family members which can never be replaced,

Current 5 Hague Cases

This paper will explore current Hague convention cases, all from 2014, and explain each case in detail. Five cases will be cited: Vilchis v. Hall, Bobadilla v. Cordero, Murphy v. Sloan, Ermani v. Vittori, and Buenaver v. Vasquez.

In Vilchis v. Hall, Vilchis (mother) and Hall (father) were the parents of two school age daughters. Vilchis was a native of Mexico, and a Mexican citizen. When she was a teenager, Vilchis emigrated to the U.S, with her family to reside in Illinois. She lived in Illinois as an illegal immigrant. Hall, a native of Illinois, was a native of the United States. Together, Vilchis and Hall had a daughter in 2007; a second was born the following year. Both girls were U.S. Citizens. In October 2010, Vilchis intended to move the entire family to Mexico, and the family did arrive in Mexico in October 2010. One month later, Hill took the children to the U.S. and lived in a shelter in San Diego.

It was clear to the court that prior to Vilchis, Hall, and the children leaving Illinois, the children’s primary residence was the U.S. The court’s main question was, whether the children’s primary residence changed to Mexico at any time between 2010 and 2012. The court decided that the answer to that question was “no”. The court found that Vilchis could not prove the children’s primary residence in 2012 was Mexico, so she was unable to prove Hall’s removal of the children from Mexico was illegal, under the meaning of Article 3 of the Hague Convention.

In Bobadilla v. Cordero, the district court found that a Federal court has the ability to return a child, if that return was in alignment with the goals of the Hague Convention. Mr. Cordero abducted their son, knowing the child’s mother, Ms. Bobadilla, was not financially or legally able to enforce her rights as a parent.

In Murphy v. Sloan, the parents were married and had a daughter in 2005. As the marriage disintegrated, Murphy (the child’s mother) suggested she return to her native Ireland with their daughter, so Murphy could pursue a Master’s degree, and to provide an international education for the daughter. While in Ireland with the daughter, without Sloan’s consent, Murphy removed the daughter from school prematurely, to visit the Maldive Islands. Murphy and the daughter were in the Maldives long enough for the daughter to miss nineteen days of school. Sloan visited Ireland to visit, and the couple agreed that Sloan would return to the U.S. for a time. One week after returning to the U.S., Sloan informed Murphy he did not intend to return their daughter to Ireland. In September 2013, Murphy filed a petition for the daughter to be returned to Ireland. In October 2013, the couple’s marriage was dissolved. Murphy invoked the Hague Convention, informing the court that Ireland was the daughter’s primary residence. Murphy’s request was denied. The court found that the last time Sloan and Murphy had a shared intent; it was that the daughter resides in California.

In Ermani v. Vittori, the parents were both natives of Italy. The court found that the trauma of separating a minor child from therapy for autism is serious enough to apply the Convention’s stated exceptions, and denied the parent’s application for return. The court also ruled that the minor child faced a potential risk of psychological and physical harm, which are implied by a disease like autism.

In Buenaver v. Vasquez, both parents were married in Colombia in 2005, and divorced 2009. The father knew and approved of the mother taking the minor child to the U.S. temporarily to visit family. When the minor child had not returned to Colombia by the agreed-upon date, the mother stated she would not return the child to Colombia. The court ruled that the mother had not proven the minor child was settled in the U.S, and the father’s petition was granted to return the child to Colombia.

Parental kidnapping is an abduction of a child by a parent, disregarding and offending its and other parent’s rights. To be considered kidnapping taking of a child has to be determined by abductor’s intention, his legal status and presence of custody-related court orders. If there is no such order, both of the parents have equal rights, and though one may not be content with other’s decision to take a child for a weekend vacation for example, it can’t be marked as kidnapping.

Parental kidnapping happens for various reasons, often because of child-custody decree and one parent’s dissatisfaction with it. It also occurs in troubled homes with a history of domestic violence, in bi-cultural marriages, etc.

Those cases have a huge impact on every party, including the abductor. This kind of kidnapping is not usually pre planned and happens due to abductor’s belief that he is out of other options. In most situations there is somewhat of a trigger, some event that led the abductor to think that that is the best solution or to have irrational fears of losing a child, like awaiting custody decision. He is also unaware of the consequences of his actions and the fact that they can only worsen things. Only when the situation calms does the abductor realise what effects the kidnapping might have on the child, the other parent, himself, and moreover legal consequences. He becomes aware that his relationship with the child is jeopardized, that the court will take these new events into consideration when deciding who will be child’s legal guardian and that he even might go to jail. Many of abductors atone at this point and try to mend what is broken by returning the child home and facing the other parent and sometimes law enforcements. In numerous cases they do not face any kind of legal punishment for the kidnapping, as the parents find a way to deal with it on their own. They usually do not keep the child away for too long, so they don’t face large-scale psychological and emotional traumas. In other cases abductors new realizations lead them to further deepening of the problem by hiding a child, taking them to a different town or even to a different country, maybe even a country with a different jurisdiction, where his problem might have better solution. In these extreme circumstances child is torn away not only from the other parent, but from the whole family, friends, school and what used to be his every-day life, and that can lead to more severe psychological problems.

Parental kidnapping happens more often than reported, some parents are too scared to do it and the other ones solve the problem themselves. Society is rather indifferent about this matter, one of the most quoted sentences being that the child is not in trouble if he is with his other parent. Through social media people hear about this more often and increasingly start seeing this as a problem.