Wife left with kid..is it legal or ilegal?
- Thread starter cali
- Start date
Advice...
...don't get into a fight over your child.
Two things to think about
1) Is the kid REALLY going to be better off with you than its mother? I love my kid to pieces, but he is better off with his mother.
2) Even if the answer to question 1) is "yes", is there any reason to think your "superior care" justifies the trauma the kid will endure being used as a pawn of power between the two of you? Again, the kid is with their mother. Unless she is a druggie / alcky / whatever, how is the kid in any harms way? How is this about anything other than you "winning"?
Condensed version - if you wouldn't have had a problem with the kid going on a vacation with their mother without you last week, you need to get over yourself. Deal with the real problem, and leave the kid out of it.
...don't get into a fight over your child.
Two things to think about
1) Is the kid REALLY going to be better off with you than its mother? I love my kid to pieces, but he is better off with his mother.
2) Even if the answer to question 1) is "yes", is there any reason to think your "superior care" justifies the trauma the kid will endure being used as a pawn of power between the two of you? Again, the kid is with their mother. Unless she is a druggie / alcky / whatever, how is the kid in any harms way? How is this about anything other than you "winning"?
Condensed version - if you wouldn't have had a problem with the kid going on a vacation with their mother without you last week, you need to get over yourself. Deal with the real problem, and leave the kid out of it.
If it is just a fight, leave it be. If it turns into separation, you will need to get lawyers to work out custody, access, and visitation. In short, you and her both have a right to see your kids, but the amount is determined by the courts.
Why do you think the child would not be traumatized by the act of being removed illegally by the mother simply because she is the "mother"?
No parent has the legal right to remove the child from the home. The parent doing so must prove in court that their actions are warranted.
Biology does not determine fitness to parent!!!
No parent has the legal right to remove the child from the home. The parent doing so must prove in court that their actions are warranted.
Biology does not determine fitness to parent!!!
No custody being predetermined in family court, you have joint custody and pick up your children at any time. I would file a temporary motion for in-term custody until full proceedings can take place and serve her with the papers at the same time you pick up your children.
If you make the choice to take your kids.
And if divorce is the road you are headed down, keep her out of the house. She left by her own choice, so it is not like you have kicked her out. You lose more of your rights if you leave the home, so don't, even if you let her back in. Start sleeping in different rooms though if you do let her back. I would suggest for all parties involved to have her come back into the home.
I understand what you are saying, but how is it for the child to not be living in his/her home right now because Mom decided to leave.
How much trauma is the child enduring right now because Mom took the child away, and why does daddy have to leave the child out when mom didn't? And how is mom's "superiour care" better then hers? We don't know the story, but kids are not always better off the mother and fathers have just as much as right as mothers.
It is this kind of attitude that allows fathers to get screwed up the ass in divorce and custody battles. I understand that you - MLAM - feels tha tyour child is best with his mother and that is great, but this guy wants his kids - let him fight FOR his kids, not OVER his kids as you suggest. Giving the actual advice that he is looking for is much better then judging him
If you make the choice to take your kids.
And if divorce is the road you are headed down, keep her out of the house. She left by her own choice, so it is not like you have kicked her out. You lose more of your rights if you leave the home, so don't, even if you let her back in. Start sleeping in different rooms though if you do let her back. I would suggest for all parties involved to have her come back into the home.
MLAM said:
I understand what you are saying, but how is it for the child to not be living in his/her home right now because Mom decided to leave.
How much trauma is the child enduring right now because Mom took the child away, and why does daddy have to leave the child out when mom didn't? And how is mom's "superiour care" better then hers? We don't know the story, but kids are not always better off the mother and fathers have just as much as right as mothers.
It is this kind of attitude that allows fathers to get screwed up the ass in divorce and custody battles. I understand that you - MLAM - feels tha tyour child is best with his mother and that is great, but this guy wants his kids - let him fight FOR his kids, not OVER his kids as you suggest. Giving the actual advice that he is looking for is much better then judging him
Thank goodness for people who think like Rylan and Sexy_Dave - so long as they exist family law lawyers will always be able to make a good living and there will be no threat of common sense and good judgment interefering in family law matters. Common sense and good judgment always raise the threat that these matters might end up being settled before every last dime of savings and equity in the family home has been ploughed into legal fees.
If the parents are separated the child cannot clearly be with both of them at the same time. While there have been interesting developments in the field of quantum physics the laws of Newtonian physics still generally apply and they hold that a human being cannot be in two separate physical locations at the same instant in time. Therefore when the parents separate, regardless of rights, etc., etc. the child does have to physically reside with one of them.
MLAM did not advocate abandoning custody and access rights. Nor did he ever say that the mother was the more fit parent just because she is the mother. He said, quite reasonably, that in his case his child is generally better off residing with his mother (presumably because of a more accomodating schedule than his and similar factors and not because she is a fundamentally better person than he is). It is a perfectly reasonable thing to say and, I would guess, holds true in 9/10 cases.
Nowhere did cali suggest that his wife tore their child from the home in a dramatic fit of vengance and vile (ie, no suggestion of the "trauma" Sexy_Dave suggests occurred). Also nowhere did cali suggest that his wife was arbitrarily refusing any further contact with the child (phone calls, visits, etc.) If either were the case I suspect MLAM's opinion might be different - certainly mine would.
What I think MLAM was suggesting, and I agree with, is that cali needs to think of what kind of scene he is going to create (read, argument, fighting, possible threats to call police, etc.) if he decides to take custody of the child right now against the mother's wishes. Unless the child is in grave danger (as MLAM pointed out drugs, alcohol etc.), is the above-noted scene really in the child's best interest?
Or might it be better to simply talk with mom and determine: 1) is the separation permanent, 2) can custody/access arrangements be agreed to pending final resolution, and if not, would it not be better to call a lawyer and arrange to bring a motion for interim custody and access as opposed to undertaking the "self-help" remedies favoured by fathers the world over (e.g., show up at school, remove the child without telling mom, show up at mom's new home and demand access that very second without any notice, etc.).
Now, I am all in favour of the above-noted self-help remedies because I strongly support lawyers making as much money as is humanly possible. For the mother's lawyer these actions invariably result in mom being thoroughly pissed off and willing to spend whatever is necessary to fight the sob in court. They also give mom's lawyer a wealth of evidence to use against the father in the later proceedings (often substantiated by police officers and social workers).
For the father's lawyer they complicate the proceedings which leads to more billings, and for the truly fortunate lawyer, lead to criminal and children's aid proceedings that have to be dealt with.
So, cali, while Rylan's and Sexy_Dave's responses might be viscerally satisfying use your head and think about whether this unfortunate situation needs to be escalated. Are you truly concerned about the well being of your child - because if you are no one would fault you for any action you took. However if you are just pissed off that your wife presumed 1) that she was the better parent and 2) she had the right to take your child, count to 10, cool off and figure out how to resolve the situation rationally.
If the parents are separated the child cannot clearly be with both of them at the same time. While there have been interesting developments in the field of quantum physics the laws of Newtonian physics still generally apply and they hold that a human being cannot be in two separate physical locations at the same instant in time. Therefore when the parents separate, regardless of rights, etc., etc. the child does have to physically reside with one of them.
MLAM did not advocate abandoning custody and access rights. Nor did he ever say that the mother was the more fit parent just because she is the mother. He said, quite reasonably, that in his case his child is generally better off residing with his mother (presumably because of a more accomodating schedule than his and similar factors and not because she is a fundamentally better person than he is). It is a perfectly reasonable thing to say and, I would guess, holds true in 9/10 cases.
Nowhere did cali suggest that his wife tore their child from the home in a dramatic fit of vengance and vile (ie, no suggestion of the "trauma" Sexy_Dave suggests occurred). Also nowhere did cali suggest that his wife was arbitrarily refusing any further contact with the child (phone calls, visits, etc.) If either were the case I suspect MLAM's opinion might be different - certainly mine would.
What I think MLAM was suggesting, and I agree with, is that cali needs to think of what kind of scene he is going to create (read, argument, fighting, possible threats to call police, etc.) if he decides to take custody of the child right now against the mother's wishes. Unless the child is in grave danger (as MLAM pointed out drugs, alcohol etc.), is the above-noted scene really in the child's best interest?
Or might it be better to simply talk with mom and determine: 1) is the separation permanent, 2) can custody/access arrangements be agreed to pending final resolution, and if not, would it not be better to call a lawyer and arrange to bring a motion for interim custody and access as opposed to undertaking the "self-help" remedies favoured by fathers the world over (e.g., show up at school, remove the child without telling mom, show up at mom's new home and demand access that very second without any notice, etc.).
Now, I am all in favour of the above-noted self-help remedies because I strongly support lawyers making as much money as is humanly possible. For the mother's lawyer these actions invariably result in mom being thoroughly pissed off and willing to spend whatever is necessary to fight the sob in court. They also give mom's lawyer a wealth of evidence to use against the father in the later proceedings (often substantiated by police officers and social workers).
For the father's lawyer they complicate the proceedings which leads to more billings, and for the truly fortunate lawyer, lead to criminal and children's aid proceedings that have to be dealt with.
So, cali, while Rylan's and Sexy_Dave's responses might be viscerally satisfying use your head and think about whether this unfortunate situation needs to be escalated. Are you truly concerned about the well being of your child - because if you are no one would fault you for any action you took. However if you are just pissed off that your wife presumed 1) that she was the better parent and 2) she had the right to take your child, count to 10, cool off and figure out how to resolve the situation rationally.
A well presented response colt.
The problem here is a real lack of details from the OP.
The implications of MLAM's post are clear.
A parent who removes a child from the family home is not putting the best interests of the child first. (Unless there is danger of physical/emotional abuse from the other parent)
If the OP and his wife argue it is fine for her to leave and cool off, but to take the child, in any manner ie kicking and screaming or surrepticiously while the OP is at work, is traumatizing and destabilizing to the child. (Once again few details here as to the age of the child)
For the OP to attempt to retrieve the child on his own is wrong, and will get him arrested. Should he go to court and get an order to have the child retrieved and placed into his custody, if it is his desire then by all means he should do so.
I must agree with Rylan, we are not fighting "over" our children but "for" them. And he is correct about the culture of discrimination towards fathers in this society. Not only in the Family Courts and Law Enforcement agencies but it is an insidious prejudice within all of us.
The problem here is a real lack of details from the OP.
The implications of MLAM's post are clear.
A parent who removes a child from the family home is not putting the best interests of the child first. (Unless there is danger of physical/emotional abuse from the other parent)
If the OP and his wife argue it is fine for her to leave and cool off, but to take the child, in any manner ie kicking and screaming or surrepticiously while the OP is at work, is traumatizing and destabilizing to the child. (Once again few details here as to the age of the child)
For the OP to attempt to retrieve the child on his own is wrong, and will get him arrested. Should he go to court and get an order to have the child retrieved and placed into his custody, if it is his desire then by all means he should do so.
I must agree with Rylan, we are not fighting "over" our children but "for" them. And he is correct about the culture of discrimination towards fathers in this society. Not only in the Family Courts and Law Enforcement agencies but it is an insidious prejudice within all of us.
Just a thought dependant on if the fight was negotiations or an outright fight, it may have been wise that an adult picked up the child and left the scene. This could in itself be a rational choice in removing the child from the premises and ending all the trauma that the child was witnessing. Hence if the fight was bad enough the woman has proven that she had just cause in removing the child at the time.
Would not either parent have the option on doing so if one is thinking to remove a child for thier own good and putting an end to a confrontation that was becoming out of hand?
I have no idea how bad the argument was, but witnessing an argument could be considered more traumatizing imho than having a child sleeping elsewhere till all problems are settled. The child could consider it in itself like an outting or a camping trip to someplace else. If the child is staying with other family members for the time being so be it. The child would then just be told we are visiting for a few days with your grandparents etc...
Would not either parent have the option on doing so if one is thinking to remove a child for thier own good and putting an end to a confrontation that was becoming out of hand?
I have no idea how bad the argument was, but witnessing an argument could be considered more traumatizing imho than having a child sleeping elsewhere till all problems are settled. The child could consider it in itself like an outting or a camping trip to someplace else. If the child is staying with other family members for the time being so be it. The child would then just be told we are visiting for a few days with your grandparents etc...
As long as you know where they are i would leave it be for now. Consider it a fight and give her time to cool off. She needs to come back to pick up a few things anyhow. If you lose contact with her and don't know where she is or if she comes back to get some things and indicates she is moving out of city then involve the police/lawyers.
I've been separated for 4 years and she took my daughter. I let her even tho i know i could take care of her better than she can but the fight is not worth the emotional trauma it would put on my daughter. I talk to my daughter everyday and see her often.
As long as my daughter has a roof over her head, clothes on her back, food on her table, an education, her health and contact with me. Then I do everything I can to help her feel she is normal and her family life is normal. Draggingn into courts unnecessarily can do more harm than good. Besides courts can get nasty and don't be surprised if she hires a private dick to catch you with a private pussy on film... not good.
I've been separated for 4 years and she took my daughter. I let her even tho i know i could take care of her better than she can but the fight is not worth the emotional trauma it would put on my daughter. I talk to my daughter everyday and see her often.
As long as my daughter has a roof over her head, clothes on her back, food on her table, an education, her health and contact with me. Then I do everything I can to help her feel she is normal and her family life is normal. Draggingn into courts unnecessarily can do more harm than good. Besides courts can get nasty and don't be surprised if she hires a private dick to catch you with a private pussy on film... not good.
You celarly...
EACH parent has the legal right to remove the child from the home. Are you retarded? A parent can't take their child to school? What is illegal about the woman leaving with her kid??
The man said he had a FIGHT. He didn't say they were getting a divorce, or were even separated. What he implied for all the world was that they had a fight, he came back from work, and found the wife and the child gone. Not good, not cool, but exactly how the fuck is it going to help for him to go over to his inlaws and SNATCH the child back??
He should deal with whatever the fight was / is about, and then presumably she and the kid will come back home. Until then, unless he thinks the kid is actually at risk, WTF reason is there to escalate this shit?? THE KID IS WITH HIS MOTHER.
I think I have some ideas how you came to garner that baggage you are carrying dude...you should stick to researching strippers and NOT conflict resolution....
...either have reading comprehension problems, are carrying ALOT of baggage around, or are an idiot.Sexy_Dave said:
EACH parent has the legal right to remove the child from the home. Are you retarded? A parent can't take their child to school? What is illegal about the woman leaving with her kid??
The man said he had a FIGHT. He didn't say they were getting a divorce, or were even separated. What he implied for all the world was that they had a fight, he came back from work, and found the wife and the child gone. Not good, not cool, but exactly how the fuck is it going to help for him to go over to his inlaws and SNATCH the child back??
He should deal with whatever the fight was / is about, and then presumably she and the kid will come back home. Until then, unless he thinks the kid is actually at risk, WTF reason is there to escalate this shit?? THE KID IS WITH HIS MOTHER.
I think I have some ideas how you came to garner that baggage you are carrying dude...you should stick to researching strippers and NOT conflict resolution....
And I am...
No where did I say the child was BETTER with the mother. What I am suggesting is that since he / she is already WITH the mother, there is no point in playing "I have him now!!!" with the kid.
Did both of you miss the part where he said he wanted to leave the lawyers and cops out of it??
Look...he had a fight with his wife. She got mad and ran to her parents (presumption on my part...if he didn't know where she was, he wouldn't be leaving the police out of it). QUITE NATURALLY, she didn't leave the kid at home by itself. The shit you guys are suggesting will only make the situation worse...
He needs to try to FIX THE PROBLEM...which is that his wife is wherever she is instead of being at home. When she comes home, so will the kid. Fighting OVER, FOR or anything else regarding the kid is not going to give her ANY reason to come back home...nor frankly does it get the kid back.
What makes more sense...him eating two days of humble pie admitting his ass has no business in strip clubs / with escorts (and YES, I am assuming again...I get to do that...this isn't a fucking court of law), or spending TWO YEARS trying to get fair custody rights??
And *I* give bad advice???
...just as surprised with you, but given how you ripped me for saying I didn't want to marry an escort, based on my presumptions, but then defended the rights of escorts to discriminate on the clients they see based on their presumptions, maybe I've given you too much credit.Rylan said:
No where did I say the child was BETTER with the mother. What I am suggesting is that since he / she is already WITH the mother, there is no point in playing "I have him now!!!" with the kid.
Did both of you miss the part where he said he wanted to leave the lawyers and cops out of it??
Look...he had a fight with his wife. She got mad and ran to her parents (presumption on my part...if he didn't know where she was, he wouldn't be leaving the police out of it). QUITE NATURALLY, she didn't leave the kid at home by itself. The shit you guys are suggesting will only make the situation worse...
He needs to try to FIX THE PROBLEM...which is that his wife is wherever she is instead of being at home. When she comes home, so will the kid. Fighting OVER, FOR or anything else regarding the kid is not going to give her ANY reason to come back home...nor frankly does it get the kid back.
What makes more sense...him eating two days of humble pie admitting his ass has no business in strip clubs / with escorts (and YES, I am assuming again...I get to do that...this isn't a fucking court of law), or spending TWO YEARS trying to get fair custody rights??
And *I* give bad advice???
Last edited:
Do you believe she is just "hot under the collar" and will return home. Or are you really saying we had a thermonuclear argument, she's moved out and it's all over?cali said:
Seeing a member of the Matrimonial Bar who takes a collaborative approach may be good merely to see what your options are, and to know what your time frames are for various options.
If she left after a fight and is staying at her parents or a friend's house, then she may very well come back sooner or later. If you want to save the relationship, talk it out with her and try to patch things up. Maybe call her cell and leave a message saying you miss her and want to talk?
Hmmm...somebody forgot to take their meds. I suggest you reread my posts so that you may better comprehend what I wrote.MLAM said:
Here are some excerpts from the Children's Law Reform Act.
"Purposes, Part III
19. The purposes of this Part are,
(a) to ensure that applications to the courts in respect of custody of, incidents of custody of, access to and guardianship for children will be determined on the basis of the best interests of the children;
(b) to recognize that the concurrent exercise of jurisdiction by judicial tribunals of more than one province, territory or state in respect of the custody of the same child ought to be avoided, and to make provision so that the courts of Ontario will, unless there are exceptional circumstances, refrain from exercising or decline jurisdiction in cases where it is more appropriate for the matter to be determined by a tribunal having jurisdiction in another place with which the child has a closer connection;
(c) to discourage the abduction of children as an alternative to the determination of custody rights by due process; and
(d) to provide for the more effective enforcement of custody and access orders and for the recognition and enforcement of custody and access orders made outside Ontario. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 19."
Note subsection (c)
"Custody and Access
Father and mother entitled to custody
20. (1) Except as otherwise provided in this Part, the father and the mother of a child are equally entitled to custody of the child. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 20 (1).
Rights and responsibilities
(2) A person entitled to custody of a child has the rights and responsibilities of a parent in respect of the person of the child and must exercise those rights and responsibilities in the best interests of the child. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 20 (2)."
"Where parents separate
(4) Where the parents of a child live separate and apart and the child lives with one of them with the consent, implied consent or acquiescence of the other of them, the right of the other to exercise the entitlement of custody and the incidents of custody, but not the entitlement to access, is suspended until a separation agreement or order otherwise provides. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 20 (4).
Note: On a day to be named by proclamation of the Lieutenant Governor, section 20 is amended by section 77 by adding the following subsection:
Duty of separated parents
(4a) Where the parents of a child live separate and apart and the child is in the custody of one of them and the other is entitled to access under the terms of a separation agreement or order, each shall, in the best interests of the child, encourage and support the child’s continuing parent-child relationship with the other. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 77.
See: R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, ss. 77, 85.
Access
(5) The entitlement to access to a child includes the right to visit with and be visited by the child and the same right as a parent to make inquiries and to be given information as to the health, education and welfare of the child. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 20 (5)."
Note in Section 4 that it says "with the consent, implied consent or acquiescence". This means the longer the OP waits the less chance he has of regaining custody. But it does not diminish his right to access, which is being witheld by the wife.
"Habitual residence
(2) A child is habitually resident in the place where he or she resided,
(a) with both parents;
(b) where the parents are living separate and apart, with one parent under a separation agreement or with the consent, implied consent or acquiescence of the other or under a court order; or
(c) with a person other than a parent on a permanent basis for a significant period of time,
whichever last occurred. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 22 (2)."
And furthermore.
"Abduction
(3) The removal or withholding of a child without the consent of the person having custody of the child does not alter the habitual residence of the child unless there has been acquiescence or undue delay in commencing due process by the person from whom the child is removed or withheld. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.12, s. 22 (3)."
As there is no Order in effect when the wife left with the child the OP's right to the child that is "habitually" residing with him prior to the events are being infringed upon. And again, "unless there has been acquiescence or undue delay in commencing due process by the person from whom the child is removed or withheld", it is important for the OP not to delay.
MLAM rather than attempting to bully and intimidate me with your vitriolic invective, which adequately demonstrates your seriously dysfunctional emotional state and limited intelligence, I would suggest that you seek out a competent Psychologist to help you contend with your obvious feelings of guilt and lack of self-worth. And any ideas you may have are best kept yourself to save you from further embarassing yourself.
Sorry ..one more thing.
From the Criminal Code, Section 283.
"Abduction
283. (1) Every one who, being the parent, guardian or person having the lawful care or charge of a person under the age of fourteen years, takes, entices away, conceals, detains, receives or harbours that person, whether or not there is a custody order in relation to that person made by a court anywhere in Canada, with intent to deprive a parent or guardian, or any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person, of the possession of that person, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Consent required
(2) No proceedings may be commenced under subsection (1) without the consent of the Attorney General or counsel instructed by him for that purpose.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 283; 1993, c. 45, s. 5.
Defence
284. No one shall be found guilty of an offence under sections 281 to 283 if he establishes that the taking, enticing away, concealing, detaining, receiving or harbouring of any young person was done with the consent of the parent, guardian or other person having the lawful possession, care or charge of that young person.
1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 20.
Defence
285. No one shall be found guilty of an offence under sections 280 to 283 if the court is satisfied that the taking, enticing away, concealing, detaining, receiving or harbouring of any young person was necessary to protect the young person from danger of imminent harm or if the person charged with the offence was escaping from danger of imminent harm.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 285; 1993, c. 45, s. 6.
No defence
286. In proceedings in respect of an offence under sections 280 to 283, it is not a defence to any charge that a young person consented to or suggested any conduct of the accused.
1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 20."
From the Criminal Code, Section 283.
"Abduction
283. (1) Every one who, being the parent, guardian or person having the lawful care or charge of a person under the age of fourteen years, takes, entices away, conceals, detains, receives or harbours that person, whether or not there is a custody order in relation to that person made by a court anywhere in Canada, with intent to deprive a parent or guardian, or any other person who has the lawful care or charge of that person, of the possession of that person, is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Consent required
(2) No proceedings may be commenced under subsection (1) without the consent of the Attorney General or counsel instructed by him for that purpose.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 283; 1993, c. 45, s. 5.
Defence
284. No one shall be found guilty of an offence under sections 281 to 283 if he establishes that the taking, enticing away, concealing, detaining, receiving or harbouring of any young person was done with the consent of the parent, guardian or other person having the lawful possession, care or charge of that young person.
1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 20.
Defence
285. No one shall be found guilty of an offence under sections 280 to 283 if the court is satisfied that the taking, enticing away, concealing, detaining, receiving or harbouring of any young person was necessary to protect the young person from danger of imminent harm or if the person charged with the offence was escaping from danger of imminent harm.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 285; 1993, c. 45, s. 6.
No defence
286. In proceedings in respect of an offence under sections 280 to 283, it is not a defence to any charge that a young person consented to or suggested any conduct of the accused.
1980-81-82-83, c. 125, s. 20."
And to the point on "trauma" to the child on being removed from the home, or abducted...
http://www.ourmissingchildren.gc.ca/omc/publications/FinalEnglishParentalabductionstudy.pdf
"As a result of being abducted, all the left-behind parents felt their child experienced
emotional harm, followed by some verbal and physical harm. Parents qualified these
types of harm by describing some facts from the abduction situation: the child was
forced to cross-dress to hide his or her identity; the child was told the other parent
6
did not love them anymore, or was dead; the child lived like a fugitive; and, changed
their identity to escape from authorities.
After the child victims returned home, there were some observable changes,
including nightmares, sleeplessness, lack of concentration and difficulty making
friends. They also displayed some insecurity, anxiousness and fear.
In essence, those family members, who are touched by the circumstances
surrounding an abduction incident, find it very stressful, costly, and frustrating.
Furthermore, even though the police response to an abduction report has improved
over the last decade, the extent of the risks must be understood more fully. The
familiar phrase “the child is with the parent so there is no need to worry” is outdated
and unrepresentative. There are victims and the risk is present."
"However, in many ways parentally abducted children are harmed emotionally. They
are victims of a torn relationship. They are forced to leave their family and friends.
They are removed from familiar surroundings. On occasion, they live the life of a
fugitive, moving from place to place to escape authorities. In these situations,
normal relationships are difficult to develop and sustain. Furthermore, when the
child is told that the left-behind parent does not want him or her anymore or has
died, the child feels betrayed.
Young children adapt to the new situation fairly readily, but older children may
think they have caused the abduction. They may blame themselves and feel guilty for
not telling someone. As well, they may be torn between the duty to protect the
abducting parent’s location and their need to communicate with the left-behind
parent."
"Abducted children also develop a lack
of trust toward others, which may affect their relationship with the custodial parent.
In essence, it takes considerable time for the reunited child to trust others and feel
comfortable with the new custody arrangements."
http://www.ourmissingchildren.gc.ca/omc/publications/FinalEnglishParentalabductionstudy.pdf
"As a result of being abducted, all the left-behind parents felt their child experienced
emotional harm, followed by some verbal and physical harm. Parents qualified these
types of harm by describing some facts from the abduction situation: the child was
forced to cross-dress to hide his or her identity; the child was told the other parent
6
did not love them anymore, or was dead; the child lived like a fugitive; and, changed
their identity to escape from authorities.
After the child victims returned home, there were some observable changes,
including nightmares, sleeplessness, lack of concentration and difficulty making
friends. They also displayed some insecurity, anxiousness and fear.
In essence, those family members, who are touched by the circumstances
surrounding an abduction incident, find it very stressful, costly, and frustrating.
Furthermore, even though the police response to an abduction report has improved
over the last decade, the extent of the risks must be understood more fully. The
familiar phrase “the child is with the parent so there is no need to worry” is outdated
and unrepresentative. There are victims and the risk is present."
"However, in many ways parentally abducted children are harmed emotionally. They
are victims of a torn relationship. They are forced to leave their family and friends.
They are removed from familiar surroundings. On occasion, they live the life of a
fugitive, moving from place to place to escape authorities. In these situations,
normal relationships are difficult to develop and sustain. Furthermore, when the
child is told that the left-behind parent does not want him or her anymore or has
died, the child feels betrayed.
Young children adapt to the new situation fairly readily, but older children may
think they have caused the abduction. They may blame themselves and feel guilty for
not telling someone. As well, they may be torn between the duty to protect the
abducting parent’s location and their need to communicate with the left-behind
parent."
"Abducted children also develop a lack
of trust toward others, which may affect their relationship with the custodial parent.
In essence, it takes considerable time for the reunited child to trust others and feel
comfortable with the new custody arrangements."
