Talk:International child abduction

New Article
Creating a new article to address the multiple problems with having this article redirect to the International Parental Abduction section in the child abduction article. For starters to handle this subject adequately the subsection on ICA would very quickly grow larger than the entire rest of the child abduction article. This is a complex subject in international law that does not lend itself to being a small blurb in the broader subject of child abduction. I have seeded the article with some content but it should really be considered a stub since it's overwhelming incomplete as is (and mostly unreferenced at that.)--Cybermud (talk) 08:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Justifications for abductions
I just added this section to the article. This article is on a topic that is rife with people wanting to engage in gender wars. Please keep such content limited to this section as much as possible rather than diffusing it throughout the whole article and shifting the focus from ICA. This is a tough section to write and, though I'm trying to be as balanced as possible of all viewpoints, needs additional editors more than any other. I hope we can keep the contentious aspects of the subject in this section as much as possible.--Cybermud (talk) 05:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

international child abduction laws
International child abduction is a civil dispute (civil tort) between both parents that ends at age 18, that legally has noting to do with children rights or welfare, only parental rights? In many cases there is a conflict of law between to different countries. Legally the left behind parent is the only victim.

If you’re overseas and pregnant, and not 1000% confidant that you’ll always want to live in the overseas country, you must consider moving back to your native country. If the child is born over overseas “habitual residence” for purposes of the Hague Convention will be United States, Japan or Britain. This can cause terrible problems if you want to bring your baby back home.

Anne Nickel Smith gave birth in the Bahamas in order to avoid a paternity suit file by the father of her daughter by the father Larry Birkhead. She does not have to abide by California, paternity and child custody laws; if her daughter is born in the Bahamas does not enter the United States before her 18 birthdays. This is Forum shopping is the informal name given to the practice adopted by some litigants to get their legal case heard in the court thought most likely to provide a favorable judgment. Some states have, for example, become notorious as plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions and so have become litigation magnets even though there is little or no connection between the legal issues and the jurisdiction in which they are to be litigated.

Before you move to a new country, with your children you could find your self trapped there. If live did not work out for the Japanese women, she would be guilty of parental kidnapping under US law if she takes her child back home to Japan with out the American fathers permission. The same American father would be guilty of parental kidnapping under Japanese law, if he tries to take his child out of Japan with out the Japanese mothers permission. Possession is 9/10 of the law. In the case of Britain, child could be send back to the United States under Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

You will need to consult a international divorce lawyer, who consults with local lawyers as appropriate, can give you much more objective advice. Local lawyers do not know the laws of other countries, and make things much worse. They also have a incentive to bring a lawsuit in a jurisdiction they practice law in.


 * International Divorce - Top Ten Tips for Expats
 * International Divorce - The Plight of the Expatriate Spouse
 * Custody for Smith's child moves to Bahamas
 * Caribbean Net News: Anna Nicole Smith stirs up Bahamas
 * Birkhead named baby's dad; Stern won't fight for custody - CNN.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.192.135.206 (talk) 21:37, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Is your idea of discussing your changes copying and pasting them here??--Cybermud (talk) 20:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Statistics and Demographics
This article needs a section discussing statistics related to ICA and the demographics of abductors, children and victim parents.--Cybermud (talk) 04:25, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Title is mismatched
Parental abduction is a type of Child abduction. International child abduction should cover more serious case of international child kidnapping for exploitation, where children's welfare is seriously damaged. I would change the article to International parental abduction. Parental abduction is a well established term. Vapour (talk) 11:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If you actually read the article you'd know that is incorrect. There is a whole section on the origination of the term, which is complemented by information in the internataionalization of family law section.  Not all international child abductors are parents.  They are frequently aunts, uncles, grandparents or even neighbors -- which is really besides the point.  The term formally accepted in the legal community is international child abduction.  Unlike "child abduction," the term "international child abduction" has a precise and well-defined legal definition having been specifically selected for this purpose.  It is not nebulously defined or used in ambiguos ways.  When the term "international child abduction" is used it is always in this context.  That said, it can be appreciated that people trying to naively connect "international" and "child abduction" (child abduction itself being nebulously defined) may be led astray by intuition.  The original leadin clarified that and it's been improved by a diambiguation link to "child trafficking" for cases of more malicious instances of international child exploitation.--Cybermud (talk) 16:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I found the better term.
 * "International parental child abduction"
 * Your criticism that parental abduction imply that parent are the one being abducted is unwarranted. "Parental abduction" is also very well established term for this incident and are used regularly to avoid confusion with kidnapping by strangers (not all of them are trafficked). Please also note that many site says International child abduction "by parents".Vapour (talk) 10:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm failing to see your point. Do you want to create some redirects to this article or something?  Parental abduction is not normally a Conflict of laws issue until it crosses international boundaries where it becomes ICA, and until then is not addressed by treaties on Private international law nor does it have any precise legal meaning that I'm aware of.  Most of what is termed parental abduction is sanctioned under criminal laws for custodial interference.


 * The legally recognized term is international child abduction Again, this is well-established in the article itself.  Please read it.  It is extensively supported by the referenced article by Adair Dyer of the Hague Conference -- a frankly unimpeachable source for this subject and the man widely recognized as the father of the Hague Abduction Convention, which is the landmark piece of legislation to deal with INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION.  You may also want to note that International parental child abduction already redirects to this correctly named article.--Cybermud (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Now it seems someone has taken your accounting of "abduction" from the Japan article and pasted it verbatim into this article. To whit:


 * "The word "abduction" emphasises the fact that the act is wrongful breach of custody ruling of the court. While the term "abduction" implies (stranger) kidnapping, violence and coercion against children are usually not part of parental abduction. In most countries, parental abduction is a civil offence and is differentiated from the criminal offence of felony kidnapping. In some countries which have criminalised the act as a felony, the terms abduction and kidnapping can be used interchangeably. Nonetheless, the effect of abduction is generally detrimental to the welfare of children who lose contact with the left-behind-parent. The exception to this is the cases in which abduction occurred to protect children from domestic abuse. However, parental abduction often has particularly devastating effects on parents who may never see their child again."


 * The first problem with this is the statement "the term 'abduction' implies (stranger) kidnapping, violence and coercion against children." Blacks Law Dictionary, which is the definitive source for legal definitions in English, defines abduction as:
 * '"Abduction: The offense of taking away a wife, child or ward, by fraud and persuasion, or open violence."'
 * It goes on to cite penal code $212.4 as an example of its usage and says see also "alienation of affections," and "kidnapping." Leaving aside the fact that it conflates women w/ children, something not uncommon in typically paternalistic law (and not the subject of this article) it should be clear that abduction doesn't directly imply violence or strangers exclusively (even though it does not preclude their use.)


 * Furthermore it says that "In most countries, parental abduction is a civil offence and is differentiated from the criminal offence of felony kidnapping. In some countries which have criminalised the act as a felony, the terms abduction and kidnapping can be used interchangeably." there is no source for this controversial statement and, for good reason, it is simply untrue. International child abduction almost always qualifies as a criminal offense in the "home" country on some level, even if it is only contempt of court and even if the "abducted to" country does not consider it a crime.  This statement further conflates domestic abduction, where I suspect it originally was drawn from, in the case of inter-state abductions in the US, and international abductions.  As an example of the numerous ways this statement is wrong, consider that the landmark US legislation for international child abduction in the US is the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act.  It may be true that the public generally infers implications of violence or strangers in the legal use of the word "kidnapping," but this is not a pop-culture article.  It is a legal article.  I could also include the BLD definition of kidnapping here, but I think my point is already made and, as far as popular phrases go, consider "judicial kidnapping" and "state sponsored kidnapping" and whether or not their popular usage conforms to the above requirements.--Cybermud (talk) 19:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Lead re-work
I know I'm being extremely lazy here, but I'm just a drop-by reader. The lead needs some serious work, especially in the last few paragraphs. It lacks punctuation in areas, is full of OR (or at least uncited work) and is far too long. Questions on specifics or want help fixing it? Contact me on my talk page. Griffinofwales (talk) Simple English Wikipedia - Come and join! 11:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I tried to fix it a little.86.121.72.104 (talk) 05:49, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on International child abduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100613022919/http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol30/Issue3/DavisVol30No3_Dyer.pdf to http://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/Vol30/Issue3/DavisVol30No3_Dyer.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on International child abduction. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120926135211/http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/unreport.htm to http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/unreport.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150608012528/http://polis.osce.org/library/f/4060/3771/GOV-USA-RPT-4060-EN-3771 to http://polis.osce.org/library/f/4060/3771/GOV-USA-RPT-4060-EN-3771

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:45, 15 November 2017 (UTC)