|
Research Design
The four discrete research projects that
made up the study were designed to
identify the characteristics of abductors
and their families and examine the effectiveness
of interventions used to prevent
or respond to child abductions. Research
was conducted in the San Francisco Bay
Area of California. This location was chosen
for several reasons. First, California’s
criminal statute broadly defines parental
abduction (also known as criminal custodial
interference or child stealing) to include
the following offenses:
- Abduction by a parent with rights of
custody and visitation who has no custody
order from the court (precustodial
abduction).
- Abduction by a parent with rights of
custody who has a custody order from
the court (postcustodial abduction).
- Abductions by persons with no rights
of custody.
Unwed, married, separated, or divorced
parents and parents who have sole or
joint custody or visitation or no custody
rights can commit parental abduction by
violating the rights of the other parent.
A second reason for choosing California is
that, because they are mandated to use
both civil and criminal remedies to locate
and recover abducted children, district
attorneys in California have extensive
files on a range of parental abductions.3 Third, California is a large State with a
diverse population, and fourth, comparative
data on litigated custody already
exist in California. Finally, California provides
an affirmative defense for victims
who are fleeing domestic violence situations,
thus providing researchers with an
opportunity to assess to what extent and
when these kinds of cases are identified
and excluded from charges of parental
child stealing.
In the first of the four research studies,
the “Documentary Study,” Inger Sagatun-Edwards
(1998) studied 634 parental
child-stealing cases from files opened by
the district attorneys in two California
counties between 1987 and 1990. From
these documents, information was gleaned
about each family’s sociodemographic status,
legal situation, abduction circumstances,
and dispute characteristics and
the legal system’s response to parental
child stealing. Based on these records,
researchers developed a general description
of abductors and a summary of the
legal system’s response to abductions.
In the second study, the “Statewide Criminal
Sanctions Study” (Statewide Study),
Martha-Elin Blomquist (1998) examined
data from statewide criminal history
records for all 950 persons who were arrested
for violating one of three sections
of the California criminal code for parental
abduction between 1984 and 1989.
Blomquist used various statistical analyses
to describe the characteristics of offenders,
offenses, case dispositions, and
subsequent conduct, including that of
repeat offenders and serial abductions.
A subset of those arrested for multiple
abductions was also examined.
In the third research study, the “Interview
Study,” Janet Johnston (1998c) conducted
indepth interviews with a random sample
of 70 parents from 50 abducting families
drawn from the district attorneys’ records
used in the Documentary Study. The participants
in this study35 men and 35
women, half of whom were abductors and
half of whom were left-behind parentsalso completed psychological questionnaires.
The researchers systematically
compared the demographic, legal, psychological,
and family dynamic characteristics
of these abducting families with similar
data from 114 members of 57 high-conflict
nonabducting families who were litigating
custody.
Six descriptive profiles of parents at risk
for abducting their children emerged from
the findings of the Interview Study (see
the sidebar). In the fourth
study, referred to as the “Intervention
Study,” Johnston (1998a, 1998b) provided
instruction to Family Court Services personnel
(who are mandated to mediate all
custody disputes in California) on how to
identify individuals who fit one or more of
the descriptive profiles and encouraged
the personnel to refer these individuals
to the Intervention Study for special interventions
developed for the profiles. Fifty
families identified as fitting one or more
of the risk profiles for abduction were randomly
assigned to one of two counseling
interventions: a brief 10-hour intervention
that primarily involved diagnostic and
referral services or a longer, 40-hour intervention
that included more extensive
counseling and mediation of the family’s
impasse. Other services, such as legal
representation and abuse investigations,
were sought for both intervention groups
as needed. Researchers evaluated the
parents after 9 months to analyze and
compare the outcomes of the two types of
intervention models. The findings of the
four component studies are summarized
in the following two sections.
|
Profiles of Parents At Risk for Abducting Their Children
Profile 1: When There Has Been a Prior
Threat of or Actual Abduction
When a parent has made credible threats to abduct a child
or has a history of hiding the child, withholding visitation, or
snatching the child from the other parent, there is great distrust
between the parents and a heightened risk of further
custody violation. This risk profile is usually combined with
one or more of the other profiles. In these cases, the underlying
psychological and social dynamics that motivate the
abduction need to be understood and addressed. When other
risk factors are present, one or more of the following are general
indicators of an imminent threat of flight with the child:
- The parent is unemployed, homeless, and without emotional
or financial ties to the area.
- The parent has divulged plans to abduct the child and has
the resources or the support of extended family and/or
friends and underground dissident networks needed to
survive in hiding.
- The parent has liquidated assets, made maximum withdrawals
of funds against credit cards, or borrowed money
from other sources.
Profile 2: When a Parent Suspects or Believes
Abuse Has Occurred and Friends and Family
Members Support These Concerns
Many parents abduct their child because they believe that the
other parent is abusing, molesting, or neglecting the child.
These abducting parents feel that the authorities have not
taken them seriously or properly investigated the allegations.
Repeated allegations increase the hostility and distrust
between the parents. Parents who have the fixed belief
that abuse has occurredand will continue to occurthen
“rescue” the child, often with the help of supporters who concur
with their beliefs, justify their actions, and often help with
the abduction and concealment. Supporters might include
family members, friends, or underground networks (usually
women) that help “protective” parents (usually women) obtain
new identities and find safe locations.
In a large number of cases, the child has been previously
exposed to neglectful, endangering, or violent environments
(e.g., domestic violence or substance abuse). In
these cases, the courts and child protective services may
have failed to protect the child and the concerned parent or
family member. They may have trivialized the allegations,
dismissing them as invalid or the product of a contentious
divorce. Often, however, the allegation of sexual abuse by a
father or stepfather that motivates a mother to abduct her
child is unsubstantiated. In these cases, the abduction can
psychologically harm the child and the other parent, possibly
leaving their relationship in serious need of repair.
Profile 3: When a Parent Is Paranoid Delusional
Although only a small percentage of parents fit this profile,
these parents present the greatest risk of physical harm or
death to the child, regardless of whether an abduction occurs.
Parents who fit the paranoid profile hold markedly irrational
or psychotic delusions that the other parent will definitely
harm them and/or the child. Believing themselves to
be betrayed and exploited by their former partner, these
parents urgently take what they consider to be necessary
measures to protect themselves and the child.
Psychotic parents do not perceive the child as a separate
person. Rather, they perceive the child as part of
themselvesthat is, as a victim (in which case they take
unilateral measures to rescue the child)or they perceive
the child as part of the hated other parent (in which case
they may precipitously abandon or even kill the child). Marital
separation and/or the instigation of the custody dispute
generally triggers an acute phase of danger for these psychotic
individuals. The result can be not only parental abduction,
but also murder and suicide.
Profile 4: When a Parent Is Severely Sociopathic
Sociopathic parents are characterized by a long history of
flagrant violations of the law and contempt for any authorityincluding that of the legal system. Their relationships with
other people are self-serving, exploitive, and highly manipulative.
These people are also likely to hold exaggerated
beliefs about their own superiority and entitlement
and are highly gratified by their ability to exert power and
control over others. As with paranoid and delusional parents,
sociopathic parents are unable to perceive their children
as having separate needs or rights. Consequently,
they often use their children as instruments of revenge or
punishment or as trophies in their fight with the former
partner. Sociopathic parents have no qualms about continuing
coercive, controlling, and abusive behavior or abducting
their child, nor do they believe that they should be
punished for their actions. Like paranoia, a diagnosis of
severe sociopathy is rare.
Profile 5: When a Parent Who Is a Citizen of
Another Country Ends a Mixed-Culture Marriage
Parents who are citizens of another country (or who have
dual citizenship with the United States) and have strong
ties to their extended family in their country of origin have
long been recognized as potential abductors. The risk of
abduction is especially acute at the time of parental separation
and divorce, when these parents may feel cast adrift
from their mixed-culture marriage and may need to return
to their ethnic or religious roots to find emotional support
and reconstitute a shaken self-identity. Often in reaction to
being rendered helpless or feeling rejected and discarded
by the former spouse, such parents may try to take unilateral
action by returning with the child to their family of origin.
This is a way of insisting that the abducting parent’s
cultural identity be given preeminent status in the child’s
upbringing.
Profile 6: When Parents Feel Alienated From the
Legal System and Have Family/Social Support
in Another Community
Many subgroups of potential abductors feel alienated from
the judicial system. Listed below are five such subgroups.
Subgroup 1. Parents who are indigent and poorly educated
lack knowledge about custody and abduction laws and cannot
afford the legal representation or psychological counseling that
would help them resolve their disputes. Those parents who
have extended family or other social, emotional, and economic
support in another geographical community may be at risk for
abducting their children.
Subgroup 2. Many parents cannot afford and are unaware of
the need to access the court system. In addition, those who
have had prior negative experiences with civil or criminal
courts do not expect family courts to be responsive to their
values or their plight.
Subgroup 3. Parents who belong to certain ethnic, religious,
or cultural groups may hold views about childrearing that
are contrary to the prevailing custody laws that emphasize
gender neutrality and the rights of both parents. These
parents instead turn to their own social networks for support
and use informal self-help measures rather than the courts
in disputes over the children.
Subgroup 4. A mother who has a transient, unmarried relationship
with her child’s father often views the child as her
property, and her extended family supports this belief. Many
of the women in this subgroup assume they have sole custody
of their child and are genuinely surprised when they are
informed that the fatherby law in California and most other
Stateshas joint rights to the child.
Subgroup 5. Parents who are victims of domestic violence
are at risk of abducting their child, especially when the courts
and community have failed to take the necessary steps to protect
them from abuse or to hold the abuser accountable. Joint
custody, mediated agreements, and visitation orders often
leave victims vulnerable to ongoing violence, despite separation
from the abuser. When such victims abduct their child, the
violent partners may successfully obscure the facts about the
abuse and activate the abduction laws to regain control of their
victims.
|
3 When this study was conducted, California was the
only State in which the district attorneys acted as the
enforcement arm of the family court. The Uniform
Child-Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Actpromulgated in 1997 by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and approved
by the American Bar Association in 1998includes
enforcement provisions similar to California’s. To obtain
more information on this Act, visit www.nccusl.org
on the World Wide Web.
|
|
| Early Identification of Risk Factors for Parental Abduction |
Juvenile
Justice Bulletin March 2001 |
|