See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/240564678

Parental Kidnapping and U.S. Social Policy

Article in Social Service Review · September 1990

DOI: 10.1086/603779

CITATIONS READS

14 219

1 author:

Rebecca L. Hegar
University of Texas at Arlington
63 PUBLICATIONS 1,364 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Rebecca L. Hegar on 25 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Parental Kidnapping and U.S. Social Policy
Author(s): Rebecca L. Hegar
Source: Social Service Review, Vol. 64, No. 3 (Sep., 1990), pp. 407-421
Published by: The University of Chicago Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30012106 .
Accessed: 08/07/2013 15:43

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

The University of Chicago Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social
Service Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 129.107.13.251 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:43:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Parental and
Kidnapping
U.S. Social Policy

Rebecca L. Hegar
Universityof Maryland at Baltimore

Social workers, because of their central roles in dealing with the problems of families,
require greater familiarity with the phenomenon of parental abduction of children.
This article provides an overview of the social problem and summarizes major policy
responses: the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, the Parental Kidnapping
Act of 1980, other criminal and civil remedies, The Hague Convention on International
Child Abduction, and the International Child Abduction Act of 1987. The regulatory
and enforcement systems are analyzed, and implications for social work practice are
considered.

Parental kidnapping is part of the constellation of intrafamilial problems

that in the past decade has received increased attention from the law
enforcement and criminaljustice systems. Unlike other crimes involving
family members-such as battering and incest-parental kidnapping,
or "child snatching," has been overlooked in the literature of social
work and other helping professions although it has been addressed
by criminologists and legal scholars,' and the medical literature reports
several clinical case studies and one parental survey.2 Self-help literature
is also expanding.3 Social workers require greater familiarity with pa-
rental kidnapping and the policy responses to it because of their central
roles in dealing with problems of families and children.
This article presents an overview of the problem of parental kid-
napping and summarizes the history and substance of major policy
responses: the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, the Parental
Kidnapping Act of 1980, other criminal and civil remedies, The Hague
Convention on International Child Abduction, and the International
Child Abduction Act of 1987. The article analyzes the regulatory and

Social Service Review (September 1990).

1990 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved.
0037-7961/90/6403-0003$01.00

This content downloaded from 129.107.13.251 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:43:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
408 Social Service Review
enforcement systems using criteria drawn from Bruce Jansson's frame-
work for policy analysis, and it considers the implications of policy in
this field for social work practice.4

Parental Kidnapping as a Social Problem

Almost one-quarter of American children lived with only one parent
in 1987, the most recent year for which census data are available.5
Since 1975, the number of children affected by divorce in the United
States has exceeded one million per year, and by 1987 more than five
million children lived with a divorced parent.6 Although children of
divorce are the primary population at risk of abduction by noncustodial
parents, the more than seven million who live with a separated or
never-married parent are also potential victims.7
It is less clear whether children should be considered abducted when
taken by a married parent who denies access to the other parent.
Another troubling situation arises when a custodial parent violates the
court-ordered visitation rights of the other parent, although that usually
does not fall under the definition of parental kidnapping, even when
the custodial parent disappears with the children. Michael Agopian,
author of one of the few studies of parental abduction, limits the
definition to children of disrupted marriages: "Parental child-stealing
is the act of a parent abducting or detaining a child from the custodial
parent in violation of a custody decree. It may occur during a separation
prior to a divorce action or following a divorce."8
Although the number of children potentially affected is great, kid-
napping occurs in only a small proportion of disrupted families. As
Agopian notes, "not every divorce contains the social chemistry which
spawns parental child stealing."9 Estimates of the actual number of
parental abductions vary widely. The most quoted range is from 25,000
to 100,000 per year, although the ultimate source of these figures,
noted in 1979 congressional hearings, is unclear.1i Richard Gelles
bases the only more recent estimate of 313,000-626,000 cases annually
on a telephone survey by Harris and Associates asking a representative
sample of adults about their personal knowledge of parental abduc-
tions.11Gelles acknowledges that his study, which used a broad definition
of kidnapping that included situations in which there was no custody
order, yields only preliminary data about the scope of the problem.
With only crude measures of prevalence available, it is not surprising
that more detailed information about parental abductions is also lacking.
Agopian's study, which provides the only available profile of kidnapping
parents and their children, included 91 abductions involving 130 children
in Los Angeles County, California, during a 1-year period in 1977
and 1978.12 He found that the population of abductors was primarily
male (71%), employed (70%), divorced (78%), Caucasian (68%), and

This content downloaded from 129.107.13.251 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:43:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Parental Kidnapping 409
27-36 years of age (60%). Most had no prior criminal record. The
predominantly female custodial parents from whom the children were
taken were similar to the abductors in race, age, employment, and
marital status. One child was the target in 64 percent of the cases, and
the victims, who were equally likely to be boys or girls, were most
often Caucasian (74%) and between 3 and 8 years of age (56%). Seven
was the mean age of the victims.
Agopian reports further that 47 percent of the children were found
and returned to the custodial parent and an additional 5 percent were
located but not returned, although it is unclear how long cases were
followed after the abduction. Cases in which the child was recovered
were characterized by telephone contact following the abduction and
by prompt reports of the abduction to police.'"
Only very tentative conclusions can be reached about the effects of
parental abductions on children. The literature includes case reports
of abducted children seen in therapeutic settings after their return,
but only one study is provided that gives a more representative picture
of abducted children.14 The case literature presents a picture of trau-
matized youngsters, most of whom recover substantially but not com-
pletely following therapy and a period of stability. In a report of 18
cases, Lenore Terr reports that "emotional effects were evident in 16
of 18 successfully or abortively snatched children. The children dem-
onstrated the following functional conditions: post-traumatic stress
response syndrome or the aftereffects of severe fright, 11 children;
the effects of mental indoctrination (brainwashing), seven; grief for
or rage about an absent parent, seven; extrusions (rejections) by the
child of an offending parent, nine; and exaggerated identification with
a parent or wish-fulfillment about a parent, two."15The cases reported
by Terr highlight the trauma induced by unwelcome snatches, irre-
spective of adults' legal rights. In some cases trauma was related to
recovery of the child by the custodial parent, which was perceived by
the child as an abduction.
Another case study details the depression, regression, and aggression
of a 2-year-old who had been abducted by his mother for 5 weeks
from the stable home where he lived with his father, stepmother, and
infant half brother.16 This child recovered after play therapy and
parental counseling but continued for some time to have anniversary
reactions related to his pre-Christmas abduction.
Based on the cases of five children ages 6-11 who were abducted
for 6 months to 31/2 years, Agopian reports that

two predictabletypes of responses to the abductionwere noted, depending

primarilyon the length of time victimswere sequestered.First,children who
were held for a short period and treated well by their captors viewed the
experience as an adventureand experienced only benign trauma,that is, one
thatwas mild and short-term,or one thatcausedlittleharm,from the crime...

This content downloaded from 129.107.13.251 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:43:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
410 Social Service Review
The second type of response concerns those crimes in which the victims
were detained for periods of over 6 months. They generallydisplayedsevere
psychologicaltrauma and profound social disorders. Most of these victims
were abductedwhen they were quite young, and developed an affection for
the abductor.... They frequently lied and were distrustingof others."
The only study of a nonclinical, randomized sample of children
recovered from abduction used parental reports about 17 youngsters
to assess their adjustment along five dimensions: conduct problems,
learning problems, psychosomatic behavior, impulsive or hyperactive
behavior, and anxious behavior.18 That recent study, unlike Agopian's,
found no relationship between length of abduction and effect on chil-
dren. The authors believe that "the conclusion most warranted is that
while abduction is associated with an increase in child problems, these
effects may be limited in terms of their overall severity and longevity.
These findings indicate that parental abduction has a less severe impact
than the earlier clinical description of psychiatricallyreferred children."19
The sparseness of professional knowledge about the prevalence,
characteristics, and outcomes of parental kidnapping is reminiscent
of the earliest research into other family phenomena that are also
criminal justice problems, such as child abuse, incest, and domestic
violence. However, more than in those situations, parental kidnapping
has spurred the rapid development of social policy to combat the
problem while understanding of it remains undeveloped.
The social response to parental kidnapping must be viewed in the
context of public concern about missing children, including runaways
and children abducted by strangers, as well as those abducted by parents.
Missing children were a cause c6lkbre in the late 1970s and 1980s and
are now the subject of numerous governmental reports, congressional
hearings, and treatments in the popular press.20
Joel Best, a sociologist who analyzes the relationship between "claims
making" by concerned parties and public recognition of social problems,
argues persuasively that organizations representing custodial parents,
which early in the decade were faced with ambivalent public opinion
about how the law should treat parental abductions, "found it advan-
tageous to link their causes to the widespread sympathy for parents
whose children were abducted by strangers."2' In Best's view, the
missing-children movement capitalized on sensational tales of abduction
by strangers and on the appeal of innocent child victims to build
political momentum for change in U.S. social policy toward abductions
by noncustodial parents. In the balance of this article, the social policy
initiatives of the 1970s and 1980s are summarized and analyzed.

Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act

The Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) was approved
in 1968 by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform

This content downloaded from 129.107.13.251 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:43:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Parental Kidnapping 411
State Laws, a body that drafts model statutes for consideration by state
legislatures.22 Prior to widespread adoption of the UCCJA, courts
frequently refused to recognize custody decrees of out-of-state courts,
which often led to conflicting custody awards being made in different
jurisdictions. Although there is a clause of the U.S. Constitution that
in most cases requires state courts to recognize each other's decrees,
Gaines Cleveland reports that the U.S. Supreme Court had declined
to apply this "full faith and credit" clause to child-custody decrees in
each of the four cases that had come before the Court by 1982.23 This
apparent anomaly arises because "full faith and credit" under the
Constitution applies only to final decrees, while child-custody decisions
remain under the continuing jurisdiction of the court.24
The UCCJA's main objective is to clarify jurisdictional issues in
interstate custody disputes, including situations involving parental ab-
ductions. While stopping short of requiring states to give full faith
and credit to the custody decrees of other states, the UCCJA does
strengthen reciprocal recognition of court orders by states that have
adopted the UCCJA. The UCCJA also provides guidelines for deter-
mining whether a state may assume custody jurisdiction over a child,
the most common criterion being that the child has lived in that state
for at least 6 months prior to the custody proceeding.
State legislatures were slow to adopt the UCCJA for several years,
but the act gained momentum in the late 1970s, and by 1979, 28 states
had adopted it in some form; the last state to adopt the UCCJA was
Massachusetts.25
The act has several shortcomings. It allows for more than one state
to assume custody jurisdiction in a given case, and it fails to provide
any mechanism for locating abductors and children.26

Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act of 1980

Sue Bentch reports that slow state movement toward adopting the
UCCJA was one factor in congressional willingness to enact the Parental
Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA).27 Like the UCCJA, its primary
goals are to settle jurisdictional questions and promote the honoring
of existing custody orders. However, as federal legislation binding on
all states, it represents a stronger and more unified approach to the
problem. In deference to the traditional primacy of state courts in
child custody and other family law matters, the PKPA sets forth no
criteria for deciding custody disputes.28
The PKPA includes more precise criteria than the UCCJA for es-
tablishing custody jurisdiction and requires states to give full faith and
credit to existing decrees that conform to the PKPA. In addition, the
PKPA has several other provisions to support the enforcement of
custody decrees, which include allowing states to expand their locator
services for parents delinquent in child-support payments and allowing

This content downloaded from 129.107.13.251 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:43:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
412 Social Service Review
them to access information from the federal parent locator service.
The act also makes it possible for the FBI to become involved in
searches by bringing some parental kidnappings under the Fugitive
Felon Act.
Despite its advantages over the UCCJA, the PKPAhas proved difficult
to enforce. Only courts and law enforcement personnel are authorized
to have access to information from the federal locator service about
the whereabouts of abducting parents, so parents with custody decrees
in their favor may be denied information. Further, the Department
of Justice issued regulations in 1981 that precluded its involvement
in cases under the Fugitive Felon Act unless there were indications
that the abducted child was endangered, abused, or neglected.2"
Based on Justice Department figures, Paul Lansing and Gerald
Sherman report that, "of the 576 parental complaints received from
December 28, 1980 to September 30, 1981, only 99 were deemed
eligible for consideration. FBI involvement was authorized in only 31
cases, in which the FBI arrested five individuals and local authorities
arrested eight others. A total of fifteen children were located. Judging
by the number of unrequited complaints, it is apparent that the PKPA
child locating provisions have not ameliorated a very significant aspect
of the child snatching problem."30 In 1981, a congressional hearing
investigated the failure of the Justice Department in implementing
the PKPA, resistance that Susan Spangler has described as "snatching
legislative power" by circumventing the intent of Congress.31 Although
the regulation limiting enforcement to situations of abuse or endan-
germent was eliminated at the end of 1983, some observers note that
enforcement by the Justice Department continued to be halfhearted.32
The fact that it is still possible for more than one state to assume
custody jurisdiction under the PKPA has raised the question of whether
the federal courts have a role in resolving cases in which state courts
have issued conflicting orders. After lower courts came to different
conclusions about the federal role, the Supreme Court decided in 1988
in Thompsonv. Thompsonthat the PKPA "did not create implied cause
of action in federal court to determine which of two conflicting state
custody decrees is valid."33As a result, parents usually are unable to
appeal to the federal courts to resolve conflicting awards of custody.

Criminal and Civil Remedies to Parental Abduction

Apart from limited enforcement of the Fugitive Felon Act and interstate
extradition of suspects facing state charges, there has been little federal
involvement in criminal prosecution of abducting parents.34 When
kidnapping was made a federal offense in 1932 and a capital crime
in 1934, the question of including parental abductors was raised in
congressional committee debate.35 As a result, parents were specifically

This content downloaded from 129.107.13.251 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:43:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Parental Kidnapping 413
excluded from prosecution under the Federal Kidnapping Act because
they are presumed to act out of concern for the child rather than with
criminal intent.36
Older state kidnapping laws frequently have been interpreted by
courts as not applying to parents, even when parents are not excluded
specifically.37 By 1987, over 40 state legislatures had responded with
specific provisions for prosecuting at least some parental kidnappings
as felonies, potentially allowing enforcement under the federal Fugitive
Felons Act.38 In addition to kidnapping statutes that include parents,
many states also have statutory provisions that make it possible to
prosecute for custodial interference.39
Civil suits arising out of loss of physical custody are rooted in the
entitlement that parents had at common law to the earnings of their
children, later extended to include the right to recover for loss of the
child's companionship.40 Parents have sued successfully for civil damages
in parental abduction situations, primarily on the basis of custodial
interference or infliction of emotional distress.41Along with its adoption
of the UCCJA in 1985, Texas enacted statutory provisions for civil
suits that have been viewed as a model for consideration in other
jurisdictions because of their specific application to parental kidnapping
and other custody disputes.42
Since neither criminal nor civil court action against the abductor
necessarily results in the return of the child to the custodial parent,
other means are necessary. A habeas corpus proceeding, the traditional
common-law mechanism for bringing such a situation into court, usually
results in a hearing where the issue to be resolved is the best interest
of the child. Therefore, that route also may fail to result in return of
the child to the parent bringing the action.43

The Hague Convention and the International Child

Abduction Remedies Act of 1988
Between 1973 and 1986, over 2,200 children were reported to the
U.S. State Department as having been abducted by a parent to a
foreign country, and estimates of the actual total run as high as 10,000.44
Although the known destinations of abductors included 58 different
locations in all parts of the world, the most frequent destinations were
Germany, Mexico, the United Kingdom, and Italy.45Over half of the
children were taken to Europe. Reasons for international flight probably
include the increasing ease of international travel, the delay and expense
encountered by a custodial parent seeking the abducted child, the
willingness of courts in many countries to relitigate foreign custody
cases, and the availability of family support for foreign-born abducting
parents fleeing to their home countries.

This content downloaded from 129.107.13.251 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:43:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
414 Social Service Review
Traditional remedies to the problem of international kidnapping
involved international extradition proceedings or custody contests in
foreign courts, both difficult avenues. In the United States, the UCCJA
and the PKPA provide for courts to honor custody orders from other
countries, and Barbara Schwerin's review of court decisions suggests
that these laws have changed the former tendency of U.S. courts to
relitigate foreign decrees.46
An international accord on kidnapping was first proposed at The
Hague in 1976, and by 1980 the Convention on the Civil Aspects of
International Child Abduction had been drafted with the collaboration
of 23 countries, including the United States.47 Although it was signed
by the United States in 1981 and ratified by the Senate in 1986, its
provisions did not go into effect until 1988 when the International
Child Abduction Remedies Act was passed by Congress and signed
into law.48 The act provides mechanisms for the United States to
comply with The Hague Convention.
The Hague Convention differs in approach from legislation designed
to settle U.S. interstate custody disputes. Unlike the UCCJA and the
PKPA, The Hague Convention provides for children to be returned
to their preabduction country of residence, regardless of whether a
custody order is in effect. In addition to abduction by a parent who
lacks legal custody, it includes abduction by a married parent, a separated
parent when there is no decree, or a parent with joint custody following
divorce. Also unlike internal U.S. policies, the convention includes
provisions for enforcing visitation rights across jurisdictions.
Although its goal is to avoid relitigation and to return children,
there are several grounds by which courts in the country to which the
abductor has fled may block return of a child. For example, if proceedings
for return are begun more than a year after the child's removal to
the new country, and if the child has settled into his or her new
environment, return may be denied. Other grounds attempt to protect
children from return to situations of abuse or persecution. The Hague
Convention applies only to minors under the age of 16, and even the
wishes of younger children "of sufficient age and maturity" may be
considered.49
Although the grounds for blocking return are intended to be narrow
and exceptional, they may still allow local courts to prevent repatriation
of abducted children. Enforcement of the convention is also hampered
by the low number of countries that have taken all the steps necessary
to put it into effect. To date, only 14 nations have done so: Australia,
Austria, Belize, Canada, France, Hungary, Luxembourg, Norway,
Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the
United States.5soSince the list excludes three of the four most popular
destinations of U.S. abductors-Mexico, Germany, and Italy-the

This content downloaded from 129.107.13.251 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:43:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Parental Kidnapping 415
convention will not fulfill its potential for protecting U.S. children
until more countries participate in it.

Analysis of Parental Kidnapping Policy

Much policy analysis is concerned with questions of what the policy
does, who is affected, and how well it accomplishes its objectives.
Jansson suggests that the results of policy be assessed on four dimensions:
efficiency, effectiveness, equity, and equality.51 Efficiency addresses
the balance between the resources used and the results obtained from
enforcement of policy. No research data about the efficiency of the
policies are available from other sources, and their evaluation is beyond
the scope of this article, so efficiency is not dealt with here in detail.
The balance of this section applies Jansson's criteria of effectiveness,
equity, and equality to the laws designed to combat parental kidnapping
in the United States.
Because so little is known about the parental abduction phenomenon,
and because no baseline data about the size or nature of the problem
were available before the policies of the late 1970s and 1980s, it is
very difficult to analyze the effectiveness of those policies. Seven of
the nine purposes enumerated in the UCCJA concern promoting uni-
form laws, encouraging recognition of out-of-state decrees, and avoiding
jurisdictional conflicts." With the universal adoption of the UCCJA
and the passage of the PKPA, these goals have been advanced, if not
completely attained.
The remaining two purposes set forth in the UCCJA are to "discourage
continuing controversies over child custody in the interest of greater
stability of home environment and of secure family relationships for
the child" and "deter abductions and other unilateral removals of
children undertaken to obtain custody awards."53Although the incentive
of a favorable custody award has been removed in most cases, it is
clear that abductions have not stopped and are probably on the increase.
Certainly, there has been a proliferation of organizations that attempt
to help custodial parents locate abducting parents and children, as
well as growth in the underground networks that hide and help ab-
ductors.54
From the proliferation of self-help groups on both sides of the issue,
it appears that enforcement of the UCCJA and the PKPA has driven
underground abductors who previously might have sought legal custody
openly in another jurisdiction. In going underground, there are telling
emotional costs to the family. All contact with the other parent is lost
to the child, along with relatives, friends, school, and identity itself.
Sanford Katz quotes a letter from an abducting parent to a close
relative that illustrates the types of losses that are involved: "I'm sorry

This content downloaded from 129.107.13.251 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:43:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
416 Social Service Review
I wasn't able to contact you sooner, but I have been establishing a new
identity. The kids and I have new birth certificates, and I tried a new
line of work since I can't use any references or education background.
Debbie just started kindergarten, and as far as anyone is concerned,
she is five, and for me, she is willing to pretend.... I have to be very
cautious. If you wish to ever contact me, put an ad in the personal
column of the N.Y. Times."55
Intended and unintended effects are important in the analysis of
any public policy, but Jansson's emphasis on equity and equality is
particularly relevant when the policy under consideration concerns
legal rights.56 Other analysts also stress the importance of value-based
criteria. Robert Moroney writes that "policy analysis in general, and
policy analysis concerned with families and children in particular, must
deal directly and openly with values."57 He suggests further that it is
useful to examine the value base of policy with respect to certain "first
principles," including the values of equality and equity.58
In this context equity refers to fairness that may sometimes compensate
for unequal resources or opportunities. It is apparent that the major
vehicles of policy about parental kidnapping do not assure an equal
or fair forum for deciding custody cases. Because the primary goals
of the UCCJA and the PKPA are to promote interstate recognition of
existing custody decrees, the ultimate outcomes are only as fair as the
original decrees. Nor is fairness advanced by the ruling in Thompson
v. Thompsonthat there is no avenue of appeal to the federal courts to
settle conflicts between custody awards by states.59 In the case of The
Hague Convention, where the effect of the policy is to return the child
and the custody decision to the home country, the outcome depends
on the quality of justice administered there.
The literature suggests that one of the primary factors that motivates
parents to kidnap is the perception that the original court awards of
custody, visitation, and support are not fair. Geoffrey Greif and Agopian
both report that many fathers perceive bias in a system that decides
a large proportion of custody cases in favor of mothers.60 Agopian
believes that the feeling of having been treated unfairly may be greatest
for fathers who have been most involved in parenting.61He also suggests
why mothers kidnap in disproportionate numbers. Though they are
awarded custody in all but 10 percent of the custody cases, they account
for 29 percent of abductions because they feel deprived of their pre-
sumed right to custody.62A recent study of gender bias in the Maryland
courts confirms that both fathers and mothers frequently feel wronged
by the courts' decisions about custody.63More generally, William Simon
notes unequal access to justice as a key feature of an adversary system
dependent on expensive legal representation.64
Where equality and fairness toward children are concerned, children
are still unrepresented by counsel in most custody disputes. They are

This content downloaded from 129.107.13.251 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:43:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Parental Kidnapping 417
not parties to their parents' divorce or to most subsequent custody
hearings. Though the UCCJA allows state courts to consider the best
interests of the child in deciding whether to modify an out-of-state
decree, the PKPAdiscourages this in the interest of limitingjurisdictional
conflicts. The Hague Convention does give courts some latitude to
consider stability, endangerment, and preferences of children in deciding
whether to block return to the home country.
Detailed discussion of how the interests of children could be safe-
guarded better is beyond the scope of this article, although proposals
for policy change are one focus of a book in preparation by Greif and
me.65Among the policy options that might promote more child-centered
resolutions of abductions is adoption within the United States of key
principles of The Hague Convention. Two of these are emphasis on
returning children to their primary residence, regardless of whether
custody has been awarded to one parent, and providing a mechanism
for enforcing court-ordered visitation rights. Present U.S. policy lacks
enforcement mechanisms when custody is shared by married parents
or those with joint custody following divorce. In situations in which
-the custodial parent disappears with the child, it also lacks adequate
means of securing access for the noncustodial parent with court-ordered
rights to visitation.
Although the policy approaches of the 1970s and 1980s were
needed to curb abuse of the court system and to increase legal
remedies, they are not complete answers to the problem of parental
kidnapping. Among the proposals for reform found in the legal
literature, one is of particular interest to social workers.66 Bentch
discusses in some detail the possible role of divorce mediation in
removing from custody determinations the animosity and perception
of unfairness that sometimes lead parents to abduct their children.67
The practice implications of her proposal are discussed briefly in
the final section of this article.

Putting Policy into Practice

Divorce mediation has been defined as "an alternative to traditional
judicial intervention and third-party decision making. A divorce mediator
serves as a neutral who assists divorcing couples to develop their own
parental, financial, and property agreements and promotes decision
making within the family."68 The many models of divorce mediation
differ in the issues mediated, the setting, the professional background
and qualifications of the mediator, and the voluntary or mandatory
nature of the process.
California leads the country in adoption of mandatory court-ordered
mediation of divorces involving contested custody. Other states, like
Maryland, have only recently adopted court-ordered mediation at the

This content downloaded from 129.107.13.251 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:43:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
418 Social Service Review
discretion of the judge,69 and mediation is being proposed and advocated
in jurisdictions that lack it.70Clearly part of the pattern of fundamental
change in domestic-relations law that has emerged over the past 2
decades, mediation has even been described as "a paradigm that can
lead to a peaceful and evolutionary revolution in the way people think
and act in general."71
Bentch suggests that mediation at least may be able to change how
parents think and act regarding abduction.72 She notes that existing
policy deals with parental kidnappings after they happen, and she
maintains that what is needed now is an approach that removes the
animosity that can lead to abductions. Although she does not call it
primary prevention, she advocates mandatory court-ordered mediation
as a way of decreasing conflict between most ex-spouses over custody.
That, in turn, could decrease the extreme response to conflict that
results in parental abductions.
An article by Michelle Samis and Donald Saposnek lends support
to the idea that mediation can help produce custody plans that
satisfy parents and promote the interests of children."7 They seek
to synthesize the view of Joseph Goldstein, Anna Freud, and Albert
Solnit that after divorce a single "psychological" parent should exercise
full and permanent parental rights, with Judith Wallerstein and J.
B. Kelly's original view that joint custody should be the norm.74
Their recommendations for different patterns of postdivorce custody
for families with different patterns of predivorce parenting appear
to avoid many of the problems that arise when custody decrees
ignore the quality of the emotional ties between parent and child.
Mediation may reduce the frequency of orders that violate those
ties either by limiting contact with a loved parent or by forcing
contact with a little-known or distrusted one.
In helping divorcing parents focus on their children's needs and
reach mutual decisions, mediation may contribute to the prevention
of abductions motivated by several of the factors delineated by Agopian:
a desire to punish the ex-spouse, the need to correct a custody award
perceived as unjust, the wish to be involved in parenting, and the need
to protect the child from the other parent.75 Mediation is also an
experimental tool in efforts to resolve abductions after they occur, as
reported recently by Rex Forehand and others.76
As social workers move into the role of divorce mediator, along with
those from other disciplines, they may have the opportunity for roles
in preventing and resolving parental kidnappings.77 For both policy
advocacy and direct practice, social workers require much more in-
formation about the problem than is now available. As a profession,
social work should be in the forefront of adding to the understanding
of this family and legal problem of interdisciplinary concern.

This content downloaded from 129.107.13.251 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:43:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Parental Kidnapping 419

Notes
1. See, e.g., Sanford N. Katz, Child Snatching: The Legal Responseto the Abductionof
Children(Chicago: American Bar Association, 1981); Paul Lansing and Gerald M. Sherman,
"The Legal Response to Child Snatching," Journal of Juvenile Law 7 (1983): 16-29;
Scott Jay Grossberg, "Children in the Crossfire: Parental Kidnapping and Custodial
Interference,"Journal offuvenile Law 9 (Winter 1985): 138-42. Two works most accessible
to social workers are Michael W. Agopian, "The Impact on Children of Abduction by
Parents," Child Welfare63, no. 6 (November-December 1984): 511-19, and Parental
Child-Stealing (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington, 1981).
2. Rex Forehand, Nicholas Long, Carolyn Zogg, and Elizabeth Parrish, "Child Ab-
duction: Parent and Child Functioning following Return," Clinical Pediatrics28 (1989):
311-16; Neil Senior, Toba Gladstone, and Barry Nurcombe, "Child Snatching: A Case
Report," Journal of the American Academyof Child Psychiatry21, no. 6 (1982): 579-83;
Lenore C. Terr, "Child Snatching: A New Epidemic of an Ancient Malady,"Journal of
Pediatrics 103, no. 1 (July 1983): 151-56.
3. See Patricia M. Hoff, Parental Kidnapping: How to Prevent an Abductionand What
to Do If YourChild Is Abducted,2d ed. (Washington, D.C.: National Center for Missing
and Exploited Children, 1985); Bobbi Lawrence and Olivia Taylor-Young, The Child
Snatchers(Boston: Charles River, 1983).
4. Bruce S. Jansson, Theoryand Practice of Social WelfarePolicy: Analysis,Processes,and
CurrentIssues (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth, 1984).
5. U.S. Bureau of the Census, StatisticalAbstractof the UnitedStates, 1989 (Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1989).
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Agopian, Parental Child-Stealing (n. 1 above), p. 1.
9. Michael W. Agopian, "Parental Child Stealing: Participants in the Victimization
Process," Victimology:An InternationalJournal 5, nos. 2-4 (1980): 263-73, quote on 264.
10. U.S. Senate, Committee on Labor and Human Resources, Subcommittee on Child
and Human Development, ProposedFederalParental KidnappingAct: Hearings on S. 105,
April 17, 1979.
11. Richard Gelles, "Parental Child-Snatching: A Preliminary Estimate of the National
Incidence," Journal of Marriage and the Family 46 (August 1984): 735-39.
12. Agopian, Parental Child-Stealing (n. 1 above), and "Parental Child Stealing: Par-
ticipants in the Victimization Process" (n. 9 above).
13. Agopian, "Parental Child Stealing" (n. 9 above).
14. Agopian, "Impact on Children" (n. 1 above); Forehand et al. (n. 2 above); Senior,
Gladstone, and Nurcombe (n. 2 above); Terr (n. 2 above).
15. Terr (n. 2 above), p. 153-54.
16. Senior, Gladstone, and Nurcombe (n. 2 above).
17. Agopian, "Impact on Children" (n. 1 above), p. 514-15.
18. Forehand et al. (n. 2 above).
19. Ibid.
20. See U.S. Attorney General's Advisory Board on Missing Children, America'sMissing
and Exploited Children (Washington, D.C.: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention, 1986); U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on Juvenile
Justice, Missing and Exploited Children, hearings of August 21, 1985; Francis Cerra,
"Missing Children," Ms. 14, no. 7 (January 1986): 14-16; Neal Karlen, "How Many
Missing Kids?" Newsweek 106 (October 7, 1985): 30, 35.
21. Joel Best, "Rhetoric in Claims-Making: Constructing the Missing Children Problem,"
Social Problems34, no. 2 (April 1987): 101-21, quote on 103.
22. "Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act" (UCCJA),
UniformLaws Annotated (St.
Paul, Minn.: West, 1988), vol. 9, pt. 1.
23. U.S. Constitution, Article IV, Section 1; Gaines H. Cleveland, "The Uniform
Child Custody Jurisdiction Act and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act: Dual
Response to Interstate Child Custody Problems," Washingtonand Lee Law Review 39
(Winter 1982): 149-63, n.4. The four Supreme Court cases are Ford v. Ford, 371 U.S.

This content downloaded from 129.107.13.251 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:43:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
420 Social Service Review
187 (1962); Kovacs v. Brewer, 356 U.S. 604 (1958); May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528
(1953); New York ex rel. Halvey v. Halvey, 330 U.S. 610 (1947).
24. Scott T. Dickens, "The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act: Application and
Interpretation," Journal of Family Law 23 (April 1984-85): 419-36; Harry D. Krause,
FamilyLaw in a Nutshell (St. Paul, Minn.: West, 1986).
25. "Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act: Table of Jurisdictions Wherein Act
Has Been Adopted," UniformLaws Annotated (n. 22 above), 9, pt. 1:115; Krause (n. 24
above).
26. Cleveland (n. 23 above); Dickens (n. 24 above).
27. Sue T. Bentch, "Court-sponsored Custody Mediation to Prevent Parental Kid-
napping: A Disarmament Proposal," St. Mary's Law Journal 18 (1986): 361-93, quote
on 368; Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, Public Law No. 96-611, secs. 6-10, 94
Stat. 3568, 3569 (1980).
28. Cleveland (n. 23 above).
29. Dickens (n. 24 above); Lansing and Sherman (n. 1 above).
30. Lansing and Sherman (n. 1 above), p. 25, citing Department of Justice, Reporton
Implementationof Parental KidnappingPreventionAct of 1980 (November 1981), pp. 1, 2.
31. "Congressional Hearing regarding Failure of the Justice Department to Implement
the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act," CongressionalRecord (October 21, 1981);
Susan E. Spangler, "Snatching Legislative Power: The Justice Department's Refusal to
Enforce the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act,"Journal of CriminalLaw and Criminology
73, no. 3 (1982): 1176-1203.
32. Barbara Ullman Schwerin, "The Hague Convention on International Child Ab-
duction: A Practical Application," Loyolaof Los AngelesInternationaland ComparativeLaw
Journal 6 (Winter 1988): 163-95; Michael W. Agopian, "International Abduction of
Children: The United States Experience," InternationalJournal of Comparativeand Applied
CriminalJustice 11, no. 2 (1987): 231-39.
33. Thompson v. Thompson, 108 S.Ct. 513 (1988), quote on p. 513; Ann T. Wilson,
"The Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act: Is There an Enforcement Role for the
Federal Courts?" WashingtonLaw Review 62 (October 1987): 841-62.
34. For a detailed discussion of extradition in parental abduction cases, see Suzanne
Y. LePori, "The Conflict between the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act and the
Extradition Act: Naming the Custodial Parent Both Legal Guardian and Fugitive," St.
Mary's Law Journal 19 (Spring 1988): 1047-82.
35. See Agopian, Parental Child-Stealing (n. 1 above), citing U.S. House, Committee
on the Judiciary, Hearings on H.R. 5657, 72d Cong., 1st sess. p. 5.
36. Federal Kidnapping Act, 18 United States Code, sec. 1201 (1976); Lansing and
Sherman (n. 1 above), citing 75 CongressionalRecord 13.286 (1932).
37. Lansing and Sherman (n. 1 above).
38. Agopian, "International Abduction of Children" (n. 32 above).
39. Katz (n. 1 above); for discussion of an Arizona case, see Grossberg (n. 1 above).
40. For a discussion of this issue in Wisconsin courts, see Robert B. Hemming,
"Parental Kidnapping, Child Stealing, and the Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act
(PKPA),"Journal of Juvenile Law 7 (Spring 1983): 246-57.
41. Sheila Reynolds, "Parental Kidnapping: A Proposed Act for Expanding Tort
Remedies," WashburnLaw Journal 25 (1986): 242-63.
42. Ibid.
43. Katz (n. 1 above).
44. Agopian, "International Abduction of Children" (n. 32 above); Schwerin (n. 32
above); "President Signs Law Implementing International Child Abduction Treaty,"
ABAJuvenile and Child WelfareLaw Reporter7, no. 4 (June 1988): 62.
45. Agopian, "International Abduction of Children" (n. 32 above).
46. Schwerin (n. 32 above).
47. Ibid.
48. "President Signs Law" (n. 44 above); Public Law 100-300, 102 Stat. 437 (April
29, 1988).
49. Schwerin (n. 32 above), p. 186.
50. Personal communication, Consular Affairs Office, U.S. State Department, November
13, 1989; "President Signs Law" (n. 44 above).

This content downloaded from 129.107.13.251 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:43:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
 Parental Kidnapping 421
51. Jansson (n. 4 above), pp. 324-31.
52. UCCJA (n. 22 above), p. 124.
53. Ibid.
54. Hoff (n. 3 above), pp. 29-34.
55. People v. Hyatt, 18 Ca. App. 3d 622, quoted by Katz (n. 1 above).
56. Jansson (n. 4 above).
57. Robert M. Moroney, "Policy Analysis within a Value Theoretical Framework,"
in Modelsfor Analysisof Social Policy, ed. Ron Haskins and James J. Gallagher (Norwood,
N.J.: Ablex, 1981), pp. 78-101, quote on p. 86.
58. Ibid.
59. Thompson v. Thompson (n. 33 above).
60. Geoffrey L. Greif, Single Fathers (Lexington, Mass.: Lexington, 1985); Agopian,
Parental Child-Stealing (n. I above).
61. Agopian, Parental Child-Stealing (n. 1 above).
62. Ibid.
63. Karen Czapanskiy, Report of the SpecialJoint Committeeon GenderBias in the Courts
(Annapolis: Maryland General Assembly, Department of Fiscal Services, 1989).
64. William H. Simon, "The Ideology of Advocacy: ProceduralJustice and Professional
Ethics," WisconsinLaw Review 1978, no. 1, pp. 29-144.
65. Geoffrey Greif and Rebecca L. Hegar, "When Parents Kidnap: The Stories behind
the Faces" (University of Maryland, Baltimore, 1990), work in progress.
66. Reynolds (n. 41 above); Wilson (n. 33 above); Bentch (n. 27 above).
67. Bentch (n. 27 above).
68. Ann Milne and Joy Folberg, eds., Divorce Mediation: Theoryand Practice (New
York: Guilford, 1988), quote on p. 3.
69. Julia B. Weatherly and Michael G. Hendler, "Divorce Mediation," MarylandBar
Journal 22, no. 2 (March-April 1989): 24-27.
70. Bentch (n. 27 above).
71. John Lande, "Mediation Paradigms and Professional Identities,"MediationQuarterly,
no. 4 (1984), pp. 19-47, quote on p. 19.
72. Bentch (n. 27 above).
73. Michelle D. C. Samis and Donald Saposnek, "Parent-Child Relationships in Family
Mediation: A Synthesis of Views," MediationQuarterly14/15 (Winter 1986-Spring 1987):
23-37.
74. Joseph Goldstein, Anna Freud, and Albert J. Solnit, Beyondthe Best Interestsof the
Child, rev. ed. (New York: Free Press, 1979); Judith S. Wallerstein and J. B. Kelly,
Surviving the Breakup: How Children and Parents Cope with Divorce (New York: Basic,
1980). Note that Wallerstein's findings from further study of children's adjustment to
divorce have led her to a position closer to that of Samis and Saposnek. See Marsha
Klein, Janet Johnston, Jeanne Tschan, and Judith Wallerstein, "Children's Adjustment
in Joint and Sole Custody Families" (paper read at the sixty-fifth annual meeting of the
American Orthopsychiatric Association, San Francisco, Calif., March 1988); and Judith
Wallerstein, "Long Term Effects of Divorce on Children" (paper read at the National
Association of Social Workers Conference, San Francisco, Calif., October 1989).
75. Agopian, Parental Child-Stealing (n. 1 above).
76. Rex Forehand, Nicholas Long, and Carolyn Zogg, "Parental Child Abduction:
The Problem and Possible Solution," in Advances in Clinical Child Psychology,ed. B. B.
Lahey and A. E. Kazdin (New York: Plenum, 1989), 12:113-37.
77. For a discussion of the importance of family service agencies in making divorce
mediation available to clients regardless of income, see Felice Davidson Perlmutter,
"Divorce Mediation in Family Service Agencies," Mediation Quarterly,no. 17 (1987), pp.
11-22.

This content downloaded from 129.107.13.251 on Mon, 8 Jul 2013 15:43:22 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
View publication stats