Professor Marilyn Freeman, PhD PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: The Long-Term Effects 5th December 2014 International Centre for Family Law, Policy, and Practice www.famlawandpractice.com Acknowledgments The author gratefully acknowledges the initial financial support provided for this project by the Faculty of Law, Governance and International Relations at London Metropolitan University. Great appreciation is also expressed to Take Root, a US organisation devoted to previously abducted children and, in particular, its Executive Director Liss Haviv for her support and assistance with obtaining the majority of the US component of this research sample, and whose help with this project has been invaluable. Gratitude is also due to my colleague Associate Professor Nicola Taylor, University of Otago, New Zealand, for her willingness to read this report in draft, and to provide her comments and suggestions to assist in its final formation. Her support is much valued. The help of James Heath and Sonalini Gunasekera, the two part-time research assistants in the early part of this project, is also thankfully acknowledged. My sincere thanks are also extended to Baroness Hale for her great kindness in providing the foreword for this report. I am extremely grateful to her. It is difficult to find a sufficient form of words to describe the heart-felt gratitude I owe to the research participants for helping me to understand their abduction and subsequent life experiences. I was inevitably moved by what they told me, and greatly appreciated their willingness to share the often tumultuous, confusing and painful events they experienced – which they were sometimes revealing for the first time in the hope that this might make a difference in the future for others similarly affected. I humbly dedicate this report to them, and to all previously and currently abducted children. Marilyn Freeman 5th December 2014 Abstract This small-scale qualitative study was undertaken to investigate the lived experiences of those who were abducted many years earlier. The aim was to learn whether, and how, in the views of the participants, these abductions had affected their lives, and whether such effects had continued long-term. The study is based on personal interviews undertaken by the principal investigator with 34 participants including three sets of abducted children and one set of an abducted child and non-abducted sibling. The interviews took place principally in England and the USA in 2011–2012, with an opportunity for updating by email provided in 2014. The study found that a high proportion of the participants reported suffering very significant effects from their abductions in terms of their mental health, and that these effects were ongoing into their adult lives very many years after the abduction. These findings tend, therefore, to support those from earlier studies about the long-lasting effects of abduction which are emphasised in this project by the direct reporting of the abducted children, as adults, long after the event. The study concludes that, as the effects of abducted can be seriously negative and long-lasting, more must be done to protect children against abduction and its effects. Recommendations are made relating to the prevention of abduction, reunification when abduction occurs, and support for abducted children and their families including where the abducted child is not found, or is not returned to the State of habitual residence, as well as when the child is reunified with the left-behind family. Contents page Foreword by The Right Hon the Baroness Hale of Richmond, Deputy President, Supreme Court of England and Wales ............5 1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................6 2. Background ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 2.1 Other life-events causing effects on children ......................................................................................................................................................................9 2.1.1 Adoption ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................9 2.1.2 Abandonment and institutionalisation ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................10 2.1.3 Abuse .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................10 2.2 Author’s previous studies on the effects of child abduction .....................................................................................................11 2.2.1 Pilot Project Into Outcomes For Returned Children, March 2001 ......................................................................................................................11 2.2.2 Outcomes for Children Returned Following An Abduction, September 2003 ............................................................................12 2.2.3 International Child Abduction – The Effects, May 2006 .....................................................................................................................................................12 2.3 Abduction – The Legal Context ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................13 2.3.1 The 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention ..................................................................................................................................................................................13 2.3.2 Europe and Brussels 11 Revised ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................15 2.3.3 The 1996 Hague Convention............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................15 2.3.4 Non-Convention countries ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................16 2.3.5 The links between relocation and abduction in legal decision-making ..............................................................................................16 3. Methodology .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................17 3.1 Sample ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................17 3.2 Interviews .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................18 3.3 Clinical follow-up .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................19 3.4 Data analysis and publication ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................19 4. Findings ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................19 (a) Parents from different countries ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................19 (b) International or domestic abductions ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................19 (c) Pre-Abduction domestic violence .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 (d) Identity and status of the abductor ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 (e) Reasons for the abduction ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................20 (f) Protective abduction .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................21 (g) Age of the abducted child ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................21 (h) Length of time away .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................21 (i) The operation of the 1980 Hague Convention ..................................................................................................................................................................................21 (j) Multiple abductions ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................21 (k) Siblings abducted together ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................22 (l) Non-abducted siblings ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................22 (m) The time away ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................23 (n) Voice of the child and the legal process ......................................................................................................................................................................................................24 (o) Reunification ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................25 (p) Effects of abduction .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................29 (i) Primary carer abductions ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................32 (ii) Protective abductions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................32 (iii) Age of the abducted child ...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................33 (iv) Reunification .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................33 (v) Multiple abductions ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................33 (vi) Domestic or international abductions ............................................................................................................................................................................................................34 (q) Support and after-care ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................34 5. Conclusions ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................35 6. Recommendations....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................37 (i) Prevention ..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................37 (ii) Protection................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................37 7. Concluding Remarks ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................39 5th December 2014 Foreword The preamble to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction proudly declares that the States parties are ‘firmly convinced that the interests of children are of paramount importance in matters relating to their custody’ but then goes on to declare those States’ desire ‘to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention and to establish procedures to ensure their prompt return to the State of their habitual residence …’ The premise is that abduction is so harmful that return to the home country is automatically the right solution for them, save in some very tightly defined exceptional cases. Yet the evidence of those harmful effects is remarkably sparse, based on studies involving very small samples, often some time ago, and rarely from the perspective of the abducted children themselves. This study may suffer from the first defect – the sample is small, not randomly selected and to some extent biased towards those likely to have suffered harmful long term effects; the abductions were also long ago, almost all before the Hague Convention came into force, but that is to be expected in a study of the long term effects; and it certainly does not suffer from the third defect – it is a study of the experience of people who were abducted in childhood, some of whom were reunited with their left-behind families, often after a considerable lapse of time, some of whom were not. They have some important stories to tell, from which some important lessons can be learnt. So we find, for example, that those who were not traced and returned may suffer from feelings of unworthiness that their left behind parent did not try to follow them, as well as feelings of resentment towards that parent; that those who were returned may struggle to find their place within a family structure which has changed and adjusted to their absence while they were away; that even those abducted by a primary carer, whom they may not see as an abductor at all, nevertheless can suffer significant harmful effects. The requested State is not bound to return the child where there is a ‘grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation’ (article 13(1)(b)). This is how the Convention seeks to balance the presumed harmful effects of the abduction in all cases against the possible harmful effects of return in the individual case. It is an exception frequently pleaded by abductors and there are many who believe that the courts have applied it too restrictively, particularly in abductions by primary carers who claim that they were fleeing domestic violence and abuse. It would be interesting to know whether the effects of an abduction which the child perceived to be for their own or their carer’s protection are different from those in other cases. There were only four such cases in this sample of 30 so no conclusions can be drawn. I feel another research project coming on … But the main message from this project, small though it is, is that abducted children need support – effective follow-up and support if they are returned and a safe source of support which they themselves can access (for example through the internet) if they are not. As Professor Freeman says, parental abduction needs to be seen for what it is – a serious matter which can have serious long term consequences for the child and not just one of those unfortunate things which happens in families. Brenda Hale 5th December 2014 www.famlawandpractice.com 5 PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS 1. Introduction This research was undertaken to broaden our current understanding of the long-term effects of parental child abduction. We need to know more about this issue so that we can understand what else, if anything, we need to do to prevent abduction and for children who have been abducted. Very little is known generally about the effects of parental child abduction1 and the data which do exist are often based on small samples2 and sometimes in studies undertaken a considerable time ago,3 when awareness and expectation of the topics being considered may have been very different to those which exist today, or where the research design may have been unlikely to produce detailed information on effects.4 There is even less data available from the perspective of the abducted, or previously abducted, child.5 The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereafter ‘the Convention’)6 has proved to be both a popular,7 as well as an extremely useful, instrument in securing the return of increasing numbers of abducted children8 to their countries of habitual residence.9 However, there is no mechanism within the Convention for following up on the outcomes for abducted 1 See M. Freeman, ‘The Effects and Consequences of International Child Abduction’, Family Law Quarterly Vol 32, No 3 (Fall 1998) pp 603–621 (hereafter Effects and Consequences); M. Freeman, ‘Pilot Project into Outcomes for Returned Children’, March 2001, September [2001] IFL 1; M. Freeman (2003). Outcomes for Children Returned Following an Abduction, September 2003 (hereafter Outcomes) which contains the conclusions of the pilot project on pp5/6; M. Freeman (2006) International Child Abduction: The Effects, May 2006 (hereafter The Effects). For the Outcomes and Effects reports see www.reunite.org For descriptions see 2:2 below. 2 For example Greif, G.L. (2009). ‘The long-term aftermath of child abduction: Two case studies and implications for family therapy’. American journal of Family Therapy. 37, 273–286. 3 For a review of the then available literature see Janet Chiancone, (2000) Parental Abduction: A Review of the Literature, US Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 2000, available at http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/190074.pdf A literature review was also included by the author in Effects and Consequences fn 1 supra. Also Greif, G.L. (2000). A parental report on long-term consequences for children of abduction by the other parent (hereafter parental report), Child Psychiatry & Human Development, 31, 59–78 which was based on 32 parental reports taken in a telephone interview and a brief mailed questionnaire where Greif found that “a significant minority of the children continue to suffer emotionally and may be having more physical ailments than their peers”, and Greif, G.L. & Bowers, D.T. (2007). ‘Unresolved loss: Issues in working with adults whose sibling was kidnapped years ago’ (hereafter Unresolved Loss), American Journal of Family Therapy, 35, 203–219. 4 For example Finkelhor’s study involved a national telephone survey of 10,544 randomly selected households where harm was calculated by asking the respondent to assess it. Finkelhor, Hotaling and Sedlak, ‘Children Abducted by Family Members; A National Household Survey of Incidence and Episode Characteristics’, 53 J. Marriage & Fam. 805 (1990–91) See fn 15 and p. 611, Effects and Consequences fn 1 supra where the current author noted the limitations of the findings of this study. 5 The author noted this gap in the available research in Effects and Consequences fn 1 supra at p606 where she also discussed the reliance for study purposes in some of the earlier research projects on the criminal justice and clinical populations which risked an over-representation in the samples of those for whom the experience was especially traumatic. Agopian conducted a small study of the effects of the abduction on 5 children based on interviews with those children – see M.W. Agopian, ‘The Impact on Children of Abduction by Parents’, 63 Child Welfare 511 (1984). Children were included as participants in the author’s 2006 research The Effects, fn 1 supra, and Greif undertook interviews with eight previously abducted children as well as three left-behind parents and one stepparent of abducted children who were interviewed, and one with a left-behind parent of children who were not interviewed, as well as a further interview with an abductor of a child who was interviewed. The interviews concerned nine separate abductions – Greif, G.L. (2010). Family reunification after a lengthy abduction. Alexandria, VA: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. See also Greif and Winkelstein Waters, ‘Ambiguous Reunification: A Case Illustration and a Framework for Understanding the Aftermath of Abduction’ (2014) 2 IFLP 1, 24–32 at fn 113 below which provides an account of one previously abducted child. 6 Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction concluded 25 October 1980 which, with related materials, is accessible on the website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law www.hcch.net For full history of the Convention see Hague Conference on Private International Law, Actes et documents de la Quatorzieme session (1980), Tome 111, Child Abduction (ISBN 80 12 03616 X, 481 pp). See further 2.3.1 below. 7 There are currently 93 Contracting States to the Convention http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=24 last visited 3rd October 2014. 8 A statistical analysis of applications made under the Convention in 2008 (see fn 9 below) indicated a sharp increase in such applications. These relate only to the use of the Convention and exclude abductions to non-Convention countries, and applications which are made other than through the central authorities which administer the Convention in the respective signatory States, as well as inter-State abductions. The actual numbers of abductions may, therefore, be higher than those contained within the statistical analysis. However, those statistics may be seen as a good indication of the trends in abduction cases. 9 “Compared with the 2003 survey, there has been a 45% increase in return applications and a 40% increase in access applications”, A Statistical Analysis of Applications Made in 2008 under The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, Part 1 Global Report (hereafter Global report) p5 (The Global Report formed Part 1 of the statistical analysis, Part 11 contained the Regional Reports, Part 111 contained the National Reports) drawn up by Professor Nigel Lowe, Cardiff Law School, Preliminary Documents No 8 A, 8B and 8C (update) of November 2011 for the attention of the Special Commission of June 2011 on the practical operation of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/abduct2011pd08ae.pdf http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/abduct2011pd08be.pdf; http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/abduct2011pd08c.pdf During this period, England and Wales made 158 applications and received 200 applications which is an overall increase of 33% from the number of cases handled in 1999; the USA made 309 applications and received 283 applications. It was in the minority of countries that did not receive a higher number of applications than in 2003. Lowe notes however that the 5% decrease in applications received by the USA since 2003 was still a 14% increase on the number of cases in 1999. It is worth noting that there was a dramatic 202% increase in outgoing applications since 2003 and 87% since 1999 and this overall constituted a 33% increase on applications since 2003. Australia made 86 applications and received 75 applications and, in total, there was a 21% increase on the 2003 figures; New Zealand made 54 applications and received 37 applications. For details of all statistics see Global report supra. 6 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR FAMILY LAW POLICY AND PRACTICE 5th December 2014 children once returned as the purpose of the Convention has been achieved and exhausted by that stage.10 Sometimes abducted children are not returned. This may be because they are never found, or because the judicial or administrative authorities in the requested State either decide not to return them or fail to enforce the return order that has been made. They are, however, still abducted children, subject to most of the same challenges as those who are returned as well as some others specific to their circumstances of non-return. These may include feelings of unworthiness emanating from their perception of not being important enough to the left-behind parent to fight for. Many countries are not parties to the Convention and, where abductions occur involving these jurisdictions, the focus is usually on securing good contact between the child and the left-behind parent as it is unfortunately often not possible to do more.11 Since the return of these children is less likely to happen it is more difficult to find out about the effects of their abduction than in the case of children abducted between signatory States to the Convention. It has therefore been particularly helpful in this research to learn of the effects on some children abducted to non-Convention countries.12 Of course, not all abductions are international and many occur within the same country. This is especially relevant in large geographical areas like Australia and the United States where the population tends to move within the different states of the country rather than abroad. In these cases, as with the Convention, the relevant domestic legislation for dealing with such abductions focuses on securing the return of the child and does not usually include any requirement for follow-up.13 Once again, therefore, information about the child’s welfare and the effects of abduction is seldom available. Although return is the aim of the Convention, and other instruments relating to abducted children, the problems for these children (and their families) are often heightened on their return as they struggle to find their place within their own family structure in their changed circumstances. The reunification itself can be the cause of many problems for abducted children and it appears that the disturbance generated by the reunification has often been a catalyst for the emergence of difficult psychological issues for them relating to their identity and sense of belonging. These are extraordinarily testing times for those involved. Children often have conflicted loyalties having spent a period of time with the abducting parent as their sole support system, only to be returned to a sometimes barely-remembered parent who may be experiencing all types of challenging feelings about what has occurred and who often emotionally expects to get back the child who was taken rather than the older, and ‘different’, child who has returned. There may also be non-abducted siblings, half-siblings, or step-siblings who feel resentment at the time which has been spent searching for the abducted child, at having been left behind, and at having to fight for attention now that their abducted sibling has been returned. The family composition may have changed since the child was abducted to now include a new step-parent or other siblings for the abducted child to form relationships with. The abducted child may blame the left-behind parent for not finding them, and for deserting them. They may have thought the left-behind parent was dead, and even have grieved for them, so that the person with whom they are now expected to settle down happily is simply a ghost of what they once knew. The left-behind parent may blame the abducted child for not doing enough to find their way home, and may resent the returned child for what seems like an abandonment. These are just some of the examples of what may happen when a child is returned. It is equally possible that the return may be a happy and fulfilling experience for the family, but it appears very unlikely that this will occur without at least some of these issues arising. These families often cope with these alone, without support, and encounter great challenges in so doing. 10 Article 1. The objects of the present Convention are: a) To secure the prompt return of children wrongfully removed to or retained in any Contracting State; and b) To ensure that rights of custody and of access under the law of one Contracting State are effectively respected in the other Contracting States. 11 “In 2012 alone, more than 634 children were abducted to countries that have not signed the Hague Convention”. Rep. Chris Smith, House of Representatives. Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and Int’l Orgs. Washington D.C. May 9, 2013. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CHRG-113hhrg80801/html/CHRG-113hhrg80801.htm See information on The Malta Process on the Hague Conference website which addresses the problems posed by international abduction as well as the better protection of cross-frontier rights of contact between the States involved in that initiative (Algeria, Belgium, Egypt, France, Germany, Italy, Lebanon, Malta, Morocco, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, Tunisia and the United Kingdom). See Malhotra, ‘To Return or Not to Return: Hague Convention versus Non-Convention Countries’, Journal of Family Law and Practice (2010) Vol 1.3, 50. 12 See further 2.3.4 below. 13 For example, in Australia, a recovery order can authorise a person to find, recover and deliver a child to a parent, a person who has a parenting order that states the child lives with, spends time with or communicates with that person, or a person who has parental responsibility for the child, or can prohibit the person from again removing or taking possession of the children, S67Q Family Law Act 1975. In the USA, The Uniform Child- Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (1997), 9(1A) U.L.A. 657 (1999). www.nccusl.org (UCCJEA) was enacted to address interstate parental kidnapping. Massachusetts still uses the UCCJA (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act) but all other US States have adopted the UCCJEA. There is no requirement in either case for follow-up following the child’s return. www.famlawandpractice.com 7 PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS In our increasingly mobile world we cannot any longer immunise ourselves against what happens elsewhere in the hope or belief that these things do not affect us personally. They do and they will. These children and these families are part of our global society and our lives even if we do not know them. The impact of their experiences will affect us and we cannot successfully ignore, or turn a blind eye, to them; nor should we. The ripples of abduction bounce without respect for jurisdictional boundaries – the abducted child will grow to become a previously abducted adult who will form relationships and families that could potentially include many of us. Their experiences and their lives will touch and impact on our own. They do not constitute a separate group or society. We are part of each other. The reasons for currently knowing so little about the effects of child abduction include the acknowledged difficulties in obtaining relevant research samples. Support services are scarce for abduction victims and their families which makes contact with them extremely challenging. The help of Take Root14 with this research project has thus been extremely valuable as it is one of the very few such support services available for the victims of abduction.15 I was extremely grateful that some of its members were prepared to participate in research interviews with me in the US. Other participants were recruited through professional contacts, media exposure, and word-of-mouth primarily in the USA and the UK. The information provided in this report therefore comes from 34 in-depth interviews I undertook personally as Principal Investigator (PI). The abductions occurred between 10 – 53 years prior to the interview16, and involved 18 different countries including some that are not signatory States to the Convention. In essence, the experiences of the majority of those interviewed support earlier findings17 that the effects of abduction can sometimes be seriously negative and long-lasting. The lack of after-care support for abduction victims is keenly felt by them as they seek understanding and validation of their troubled emotions. Many feel undermined by society’s mistaken attitudes towards parental abduction. The difference in society’s approach to parental abduction and stranger abduction is very marked18 and tends to be relatively dismissive in cases where the child is taken by a parent rather than a stranger as the experience is somehow considered to not be as bad. However, parental child abduction experiences have sometimes included sexual and physical abuse by the abducting parent and associates,19 and the child being in constant fear and danger, not knowing how or when it might all end. Being abducted by a stranger is rightfully regarded as a terrible thing to occur and, although abduction by a parent may well be a completely different experience for the child concerned from that suffered by the stranger- abducted child, especially if it occurred for protective reasons, this need not necessarily be so. In some cases, parental abduction may be an experience that is not at all dissimilar to stranger abduction as it too involves being taken away from everything the child is familiar with and being catapulted into an unknown, frightening and dangerous world with a parent who may be unfamiliar to the child, or who becomes different to the person the child had previously known, and where the child’s focus is purely on survival. Even where the circumstances are not so extreme, the parentally-abducted child will still have been removed from a home, school, friends, pets, and extended family, and may have been told lies to justify what has happened. Feelings of confusion and concerns about disloyalty often arise in these circumstances which the child has to manage alone together with those feelings of loss and grief which can be expected to be experienced for what has been so abruptly removed from their lives. These issues 14 Take Root was established in response to a lack of direct services for victims of child abduction when they are no longer missing and its “Support Branch Program provides the first and only ongoing aftercare support program available to victims of child abduction when they are no longer missing” – see “About” on website, www.takeroot.org 15 reunite began in 1987 as a parent support network, evolving into an information and resource centre. It is the leading UK charity specialising in international parental child abduction and the movement of children across international borders. It operates the only telephone advice line in the UK offering support to those who have had their child abducted and to those who have abducted their child. See further www.reunite.org 16 The breakdown of the number of interviews for the different categories of time between abduction and interviews is as follows: 10–15 years – 3; 16–20 years – 2; 21–25 years – 5; 26–30 years – 4; 31–35 years – 7; 36–40 years – 4; 41–45 years – 6; 46–50 years – 2; 50+ years –1. 17 M. Freeman, The Effects. May 2006 www.reunite.org Also Grief, parental report, see fn 3 supra who identified at 70 that these children remain an “at risk” population for emotional and possible physical problems as they enter late adolescence and young adulthood. 18 “Family abduction lacks society’s recognition of its devastating and long-term impact. The public’s reaction to family abduction declares that the child is “fine.” This is because he or she is with the other parent. They may believe the left behind parent must have deserved to have the child removed or that the matter is “just” a custody dispute between two battling parents. The public’s view of abducted children is defined by “stranger” abductions….but evidence clearly shows that the majority of abducted children are taken by family members”. California Child Abduction Task Force http://www.childabductions.org/impact2.html Over four-fifths of completed abductions recorded by the police involve a perpetrator known to the victim. Less than one-fifth are committed by a stranger http://www.childabduction.org.uk/index.php/the-facts citing Newiss, G. and Traynor, M. (2013) ‘Taken: a study of child abduction in the UK’. London: PACT and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre. 19 This was recognised in Janvier, McCormick and Donaldson, ‘Parental Kidnapping: A survey of left-behind parents’, 41 Juvenile and Family Court J. 1–8 (1990) who reported that two-thirds of 101 children whose parents they surveyed were believed to have been physically or sexually abused while on the run, although this is a much higher figure than that suggested by Finkelhor et al’s telephone survey at fn 4 supra which placed the estimate at 5%. 8 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR FAMILY LAW POLICY AND PRACTICE 5th December 2014 and experiences may be exacerbated when a child is returned to the left-behind parent and, when the child survives into adulthood without being returned, sometimes remain active but unresolved. In some cases they drive and inform everything which the previously abducted child is and does, including their future relationships and lives. These are matters that must be addressed by the international community. These adults are the abducted children we are enjoined to protect by the 1980 Hague Convention.20 Whether we have done enough to protect them by returning them to where they were previously living is another question but, at least, in these circumstances we know who they are which is a good start to being able to provide them with help and post-abduction support. When they are found and not returned by the requested State we similarly have a chance of being able to offer post-abduction support. When they are not found, and we have no knowledge of who or where they are, we need to consider whether there is any way we could do more for them than leave them to find their own way through their post-abduction maze. Additionally, we must question whether we have done enough to prevent abductions occurring at all.21 These are matters to which I will return in the conclusions to this report. 2. Background 2.1 Other life-events causing effects on children 2.1.1 Adoption Adopted children may feel a whole range of emotions at different times after being adopted including abandonment, loss, grief, identity questioning, lack of self-esteem, anger, depression and lack of trust,22 as their lives are transplanted from one family setting to another. There are some similarities between the circumstances of adopted and abducted children in that they both leave behind at least part of their families and, although babies may be unaware of the changes, the majority will have to adjust to living within a new familial environment. There are, of course, also fundamental and critical differences between these two groups of children. Abducted children are usually unprepared for what happens to them in an abduction, while adopted children are usually subject to a high level of age-appropriate support, in particular from their adoptive parents who are usually able to put the child’s interests before any personal feelings about the child’s birth parents and can avoid seizing the opportunity to influence the child negatively against them. This is often not the case with the abducted child whose abductor may feel the need to justify his or her own position by repeated references to the bad behaviour of the left-behind parent, and to form an alliance with the child against that parent. The abducted child may be told that the left-behind parent has lost interest in them, or has died. They may have to deal with those issues by relying on the abductor as their sole support system in this new world into which they have been catapulted. Although a low percentage of adoptions break down23 the adopted child will have 20 The preamble to the Convention states the desire of the drafters to protect children internationally from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention. The Convention’s Explanatory Report by Professor Perez Vera (hereafter the Perez Vera report) explains at paragraph 24 that the struggle against the great increase in international child abductions must always be inspired by the desire to protect children and should be based upon an interpretation of their true interests. http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=publications.details&pid=2779 21 Not all abductions can be prevented especially where the abduction occurs against a background of violence or abuse. See M. Freeman, ‘Primary Carers and the Hague Child Abduction Convention’ [2001] IFL 150 (hereafter Primary Carers); Proces-Verbal No 18 (Acts and Documents of the Fourteenth Session of The Hague Conference on Private International Law, Tome 11, Child Abduction, p386, contains discussion about the situation where an abduction was found to be in the child’s best interests and not harmful. Also, Bruch, ‘Unmet Needs of Domestic Violence Victims and Their Children in Hague Child Abduction Convention Cases’ (2004) 38(3) Fam Law Quarterly. It is worth remembering that children abducted by primary carers who were interviewed in The Effects sample did not view the event as abduction see The Effects fn 1 supra at p. 62. See further discussion on this point at 4 (p) (i) below. 22 See Impact of Adoption on Adopted Persons. Child Welfare Information Gateway. August 2013. https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/f_adimpact. pdf#page=2&view=Postadoption Issues. 23 It seems that the overall disruption rates are relatively low. See Selwyn, Wijedasa and Meakings (2014). Beyond the Adoption Order: challenges, interventions and adoption disruption. University of Bristol School for Policy Studies Hadley Centre for Adoption and Foster Care Studies, which states at pp 5,6 that “[o]ver a 12-year period (2000–2012), using national data on 37,335 adoptions and information supplied by adoption managers on 565 disruptions, the rate of disruption was calculated at 3.2%. The rate was lower than we had expected, but was similar to that reported (3.7%) in one of the few studies that disentangled the proportions of pre and post order disruptions (Randall 2013). The research team has also completed a study of adoption disruption in Wales (Wijedasa and Selwyn 2014) using the same methodology. The disruption rate was similar in both countries. Wales had an adoption disruption rate of 2.6% over an 11 year period.” www.famlawandpractice.com 9 PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION: THE LONG-TERM EFFECTS professional support in coping with the adoption24 whereas neither the non-returned abducted child nor the abducted child who is returned to the left-behind parent and family will usually have such support. It is here that the sharp differences in societal attitudes towards these events is clearly apparent. 2.1.2 Abandonment and institutionalisation Many children are abandoned, and inevitably suffer effects from this event. A total of 395 minors under the age of 17 were abandoned by parents or guardians in Japan in the three years from March 2011 – March 2014.25 Babies are being abandoned at such an alarming rate at the Jinan “baby hatch” in China26 that restrictions have had to be placed on those who will be accepted by the hatch. A recent collaborative book on Romania’s abandoned children,27 based on the Bucharest Early Intervention Project undertaken by the authors, found that the children were severely impaired in IQ and manifested a variety of social and emotional disorders, as well as changes in brain development.28 These children were said to have had severe reactive attachment disorder: “…[A] pathologic and psychiatric diagnosis where an individual person, a child in this case, would be unable to have affectional connection to an adult, to a parent, incapable of exchange of love.29 One of the authors of the study and book, Charles Nelson, a professor of paediatrics at Harvard Medical School and Boston Children’s Hospital, explained how the brain is dependent on experience to develop normally and, when those experiences do not exist, those circuits fail to develop or develop in an a-typical fashion, with the result being a mis-wiring of circuits.30 Several abducted interviewees in the current research project spoke of their feelings of abandonment, and their inability to connect with family members, as well as difficulties with being in loving relationships. Many of those interviewed spoke of not knowing or understanding what was wrong with them. It may be that abducted children suffer some of the same effects as those identified as relevant to abandoned and institutionalised children. Attention is now focusing on the impact of abandonment and it may be helpful to consider in this context links between this issue and abduction. 2.1.3 Abuse Non-abducted children are often abused by adults, and this may include neglect, physical, sexual or psychological abuse. Although it has been recognised that abduction can in itself be a form of child abuse,31 it is also possible that abducted children may additionally also suffer one or more of the 24 For example, the 2013 Select Committee on Adoption Legislation called for greater post adoption support in order to ensure placement stability (para 336). Following this the Adoption Support Fund was launched with funding of £19.3m to pay for therapeutic services such as cognitive therapy, play and music therapy, and intensive family support – helping children recover from their previous experiences, bond with their adoptive families and settle into their new lives. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-193-million-support-fund-for-adoptive-parents 25 The Japan Times News http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2014/07/20/national/social-issues/nearly-400-children-abandoned-in-japan-since- 2011-survey/#.U9pi3PldUUM 26 Opened on 1st June 2014, in just 11 days 106 children, all with disabilities or medical conditions, were left at the Jinan facility, see: http://edition. cnn.com/2014/06/30/world/asia/china-baby-hatches- the hatch is a small detached room at the side of an orphanage where local parents or guardians can anonymously leave a child. Parents are instructed to leave a date of birth and details of medical conditions. There are 32 hatches across the country, the first having been introduced in 2011 as a response to the less humane ways that were being used to dispose of babies. Baby hatches were first introduced in Europe in Germany in 1999. There are currently around 100 such hatches in Germany, Austria, Belgium, The Czech Republic, Hungary and Italy even though child abandonment is against the law in Europe as legal amendments have been made to protect mothers who use baby hatches. 27 Nelson, Fox and Zeanah (2014) Romania’s Abandoned Children: Deprivation, Brain Development, and the Struggle for Recovery. Harvard University Press 28 http://books.google.co.uk/books/p/harvard?q=Google+Search+Inside&vid=ISBN9780674724709&hl=en_US&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&redir_ esc=y 29 Per Jane Aronson, physician and founder of the Worldwide Orphans Foundation, The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/ romanian-orphans-subjected-to-deprivation-must-now-deal-with-disfunction/2014/01/30/a9dbea6c-5d13-11e3-be07-006c776266ed_story. html 30 See article in Washington Post supra. 31 See Kreston, Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy, Vol 15, Issue 2, 1-1.2012 at p533 citing Greif and Hegar, When Parents Kidnap, The Families Behind the Headlines (1993); Dorothy Huntington, Parental Kidnapping: A New Form of Child Abuse, Address (March 1984), in American Prosecutors Research Institute, Investigation and Prosecution of Parental Abduction app. (1995). Also Faulkner, Parental Child Abduction is Child Abuse. (1999) www.prevent-abuse-now.com/unreport.htm) cited in Brief for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner, Lozano v Alvarez, Supreme Court of the United States, No. 12-820. For a recent statement relating to abduction being abuse, see Chris Smith, House Republican, in relation to the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act which was approved by Congress on 25th July 2014 http://www.nj.com/monmouth/index.ssf/2014/07/child_abduction_bill_inspired_by_nj_father_ earns_final_legislative_approval.html 10 INTERNATIONAL CENTRE FOR FAMILY LAW POLICY AND PRACTICE