Let's Get Honest! Absolutely Uncommon Analysis of Family & Conciliation Courts' Operations, Practices, & History

http://www.prevent-abuse-now.com/unreport.htm

Parental Child Abduction
is Child Abuse

by Nancy Faulkner, Ph.D

Presented to the
United Nations Convention on Child Rights
in Special Session, June 9, 1999,
on behalf of P.A.R.E.N.T.
and victims of parental child abduction.

© Nancy Faulkner 1999-2006

Interesting:  The NCJRS

Seems to sort “child-stealing” under two main headings:

This would be coherent with the recent Click-Hill case, as the girl disappeared after allegations of child abuse.  The other reason for child-stealing (see “Garrido,” and others) might be for personal sexual abuse by strangers, or prostituting kids.

Two reasons I can think of might be to protect a child, or to punish the other parent.  Authorities ought to get which is which straight…  (More on the NCJRS info towards end of this post)

pc 278.5 IS (California) Penal Code 278.5.

I have come to believe this law was written for men, not women, to get their kids back.  I would like to hear of any California woman whose children of around that age were actually returned to her under this code.

We already know of women in this and other states who have been incarcerated for much lesser custodial interference (see Oconto, WI blog, and “Lorraine.”  Or, Joyce Murphy.

http://custodyscam.blogspot.com/2009/06/joyce-murphy-accused-of-kidnapping-her.html

SO WHEN IS THIS LAW TAKEN SERIOUSLY, AND WHEN NOT?

It reads as follows:

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/278.5.html

(a) Every person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds,
or conceals a child and maliciously deprives a lawful custodian of a
right to custody, or a person of a right to visitation, shall be
punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, a
fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or both that fine
and imprisonment, or by imprisonment in the state prison for 16
months, or two or three years, a fine not exceeding ten thousand
dollars ($10,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) Nothing contained in this section limits the court’s contempt
power.
(c) A custody order obtained after the taking, enticing away,
keeping, withholding, or concealing of a child does not constitute a
defense to a crime charged under this section.

Do you see the word “SHALL” in there?

Here’s 287.7, which indicates circumstances — unbelievably, it seems – -in which a parent or someone COULD take, entice, or conceal a child.  It is to handle possible abuse or imminent harm to the child.  (Child, FYI, is defined as under 18 in this law).

(a) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child.

(b) Section 278.5 does not apply to a person with a right to custody of a child who has been a victim of domestic violence who, with a good faith and reasonable belief that the child, if left with the other person, will suffer immediate bodily injury or emotional harm, takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals that child.
“Emotional harm” includes having a parent who has committed domestic violence against the parent who is taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing the child.

 (c) The person who takes, entices away, keeps, withholds, or conceals a child shall do all of the following:
(1) Within a reasonable time from the taking, enticing away, keeping, withholding, or concealing, make a report to the office of the district attorney of the county where the child resided before the action.

In other words, such a person shall, as an adult, give an account to the authorities of his or her reasons for the devastating action of removing a child from a parent.

NOW HERE WE ARE IN THE CLICK-HILL CASE, and a mother disappears with a daughter (mid-1990s, right when VAWA and NFI had gotten started), having accused the father of child molestation, after which he got (apparently) unsupervised time with the girl, again, then disappears.

Here’s an article by Robert Salonga:

Resurfacing of Walnut Creek girl highlights strains of parental abductions

By Robert Salonga
Contra Costa Times

Posted: 03/05/2010 04:45:10 PM PST

Updated: 03/05/2010 05:35:35 PM PST

WALNUT CREEK — The arrest this week of a woman who took off with her 8-year-old daughter in 1995 during a child custody dispute is being lauded by police and missing child experts as an exceptional event.

In some ways, it wasn’t an exception at all.

Parental and family abductions account for nearly 97 percent of child abduction reports in the state. In Contra Costa County, all 29 abductions reported in 2008 involved family, and just one of the 64 reported in Alameda County that year was committed by a nonrelative.

Click said Friday that he divorced Wendy Hill in the early 1990s, and their relationship became estranged after he was granted primary custody of their daughter. When he went to pick her up from his ex-wife’s Redlands home in the summer of 1995, they had moved out. He never saw Jessica again, he said.

This sounds to me like a custody-switch; another version (below) says he got unsupervised visitation…  There were allegations of child molestation, which is every bit as much a crime as child-stealing, but is often not handled as such in family law system.

Here’s another one…

Man waits to reunite with daughter

found 14 years after being abducted

as a 7-year-old by her mother

March 5, 2010 |  4:26 pm

A woman who vanished 14 years ago with her 7-year-old daughter was arrested Tuesday in Monrovia and her daughter was located unharmed, authorities said Friday.

Wendy Hill, 52, was spotted at a local Claim Jumper restaurant and arrested on suspicion of abducting her own daughter.

Jessica Click-Hill, now 22, was contacted by authorities after the arrest. She is believed to be living out of state.

“I’m just so excited that Jessica is found and well and that, physically, she’s fine,” said the girl’s father, Dean Click. “She’s got family who haven’t gotten to be with her, to spend Christmas or Thanksgiving together, so we’re looking forward to reconnecting with each other.”

Click said that since his daughter is an adult, authorities will not release her contact information. “At this point, she will have to come to me,” he said. 

The father said he and his ex-wife were in a custody dispute when Hill cleaned out her Redlands apartment in the fall of 1995 and left with the girl.

Click said he lived in Walnut Creek in Northern California at the time and for years had not been able to visit his daughter without a mediator present. [[he probably means supervised visitation.  Mediation is something different.]]  He said at the time he’d been accused of molesting his daughter, a claim he denied.

He said he ultimately was exonerated and that his rights were restored for full, unsupervised visits. On his first visit, he said he celebrated by bringing his parents along and taking Jessica out to lunch.

On his second visit, he said he arrived at the apartment complex and found that his ex-wife and daughter had left.

Authorities said Hill changed her name to Gail Jackson and moved from state to state. She was sighted outside Tampa, Fla., and at one point lived in Boston, authorities said.

A warrant was issued for her arrest in 1996 out of Contra Costa County, and the FBI issued its own warrant a year later.

Click said he kept in touch with authorities, but leads were few and far between. Then a tip came in several months ago from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children about the mother’s alias and her location, said Sgt. Tom Cashion of the Walnut Creek Police Department .

Hill flew to Los Angeles, apparently for a business meeting, and was picked up Tuesday at the Monrovia restaurant, Cashion said.

She has since been taken to Northern California, where she was being held on $250,000 bail.

Click said he was asked by prosecutors if he wanted to press charges.

“I said ‘yes’ because she’s been a thief and she’s taken away those years that I did not get to spend with my daughter,” Click said.

— Amina Khan

Here’s another version, from a blog apparently local to the area she was stolen from.  March 4, 2010:  This isn’t quite current — the mother is now out on bail.

WALNUT CREEK GIRL MISSING SINCE 1995 FOUND HEAR L.A.:  MOM ARRESTED FOR ABDUCTION.

8-year-old Walnut Creek resident Jessica Click-Hill was allegedly abducted by her mom in 1995, and today, the Walnut Creek Police announced they found the girl, who’s now 22-years-old, and arrested her mom for parental abduction.The following is from the Walnut Creek Police….

Walnut Creek Police Detectives took Wendy D. Hill into custody for the parental abduction of her eight year old daughter Jessica Click-Hill in Los Angeles.

This case started in 1995 when Jessica’s father Dean Click reported to Walnut Creek Police that he believed his wife had abducted their child, Jessica. Detectives worked the case and in 1996, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office filed charges against Wendy Hill and an arrest warrant was issued for her PC 278.5.

In 1997, the FBI issued an unlawful flight to avoid prosecution warrant (UFAP warrant). Recently, Walnut Creek Police and the FBI were alerted by NCMEC regarding a possible location for Wendy Hill and Jessica.

WCPD and the FBI followed up on the information and started their search. On March 2, the FBI located Wendy Hill in Monrovia (Los Angeles County) and arrested her on their UFAP warrant.

Walnut Creek Detectives were immediately sent to Los Angeles where they took custody of Wendy Hill.

The FBI has also located and made contact with Jessica.

Early this morning, detectives booked Wendy Hill into the Martinez Detention Facility in Martinez and she is being held on $250,000 bail.

(THIS WOMAN HAS SINCE BEEN RELEASED)..

The “California Family Institute” founder boasts (on the site) how he was one of the first to get a substantial reward under this law… Here’s the resume…(portions of it):

MICHAEL KELLY, ESQ. RESUME:

Martindale Hubbell A.V. (VERACITY, Highest Possible Lawyer Rating by Judges and Peers, Preeminent National Lawyer Directory Listing):

California Divorce Attorney, Best interest of Child Advocate, Accomplished Victorious Lawyer:

I. Professional Leadership (42 Years Family Law Experience):

• Chairman of American Bar Custody Committee 2003
• Chairman of CA State Bar Custody & Visitation Comm., two terms
• Chairman of CA Trial Lawyers – Family Law Section Mem. Comm.
• Chairman of American Bar Association – Family Law, Law Practice Economics Committee
• Chairman of American Bar Interstate Custody Task Force Committee; UCCJEA (Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act)
• Chairman of American Bar Association – Family Law, Practical Use of Computers Committee
• Chairman of California Family Law Institute
• Chairman of California Custody Commission
• Chairman of Santa Monica Chamber of Commerce – Legal Committee
• Chairman of Santa Monica Bar Association – Family Law Committee, Three Terms
• Judge Pro Tem in Los Angeles County Superior Family Law Courts 20-years
• Family Law Mediator in Santa Monica, Torrance & LA Central District Superior Courts, 24-years
• Executive Member of the American Bar Association – Continuing Education Committee
• Executive Member of the American Bar Association – Economics of Practice Committee
• Secretary of California State Bar – Custody & Visitation Committee, Two Terms
• Produced and Moderated a Course on Negotiations – 1988 Joint Meeting of California State Bar, Child Custody, Support and Division of Property Committees

II. Legal Achievements:

• First CA attorney to try a Grandparents’ rights suit (January 1970) (Petrikin)
• First CA attorney appointed by children to represent them as individuals (June 1984) (Ryan)
• First CA attorney to file suit against an abducting parent under Penal Code 278.5, for $2.5 Million (1985)
• Largest child abduction award litigated in the United States, $12.4 Million (July 1993) (Wang)
• Rewrote and expanded CA Civil Code 4606, “Children’s right to an attorney” (1985), expanding childrens rights to an attorney (Ryan)

III. Teacher:USC Law School, Advanced Family Law & Divorce Litigation classes. All courses have been certified and accredited by the California State Bar Family Law Specialization Committee for attorney certification as family law specialist since 1986 to present.

While I’m at it, let me point out this site was SPECIFICALLY called a site addressed to MEN on an information sheet at a law library near a courthouse in Northern California.    Look at the connections this person has, and the functions he has worked, in the family law venue.  It is unbelievably interwoven…

This is the same site, where, while women are being told that conflict is bad, and if they have “conflict” with their ex, their heads need to be examined (let us appoint someone official, that we have trained), while apart from this, sites friendly to fathers have pages like this one:

.

Evil unanswered, is evil supported. You cannot allow evil to exist, and you cannot fight it with evil. Evil resisted by evil means, contaminates the resistor. The end that justifies the means is an imperfect and flawed concept. No end justifies evil, hurtful, injurious and mean behavior to others or against innocence.

The very concept of mediation and supervised visitation, parenting plans, etc., in the family venue is a brainchild of increasing noncustodial parent visitation time, when due process, fact-gathering, and evidence wouldn’t.  The Family Law venue IS a violation of due process, and it IS a venue where the end (“required outcome– more noncustodial parent time [[noncustodial parent being, “father,” as far as the intent of such programs]] justifies the means, and as such, might be characterized as “evil.”  IF the concept is justice, and due process.

Evil flourishes by creating distraction, misdirection, trust, ease, inattention, enjoyment, false pride, etc. If one were asked, “What do you do?”, the answer could ask “I wage war against evil, in all of its myriad forms and colorations, at all times, places and at all costs.”

You cannot face evil on impulse; it thrives on such action. You cannot defeat evil with anger . . . anger makes evil burn brighter. You can only cut down evil with cold, fierce force driven by the vision of right, honor, truth, and godliness. Evil is so opposed to these forces that anything else simply exacerbates the evil.

Evil is heartless by necessity. Both it and the person possessed by it see circumstances and events with the view of a malignant narcissist. All things that do not agree with their view of the world are immediately labeled “Deadly Opponents” in an opposition to the self-appointed right of the evil person to their sole view of what is right and wrong, what is proper behavior and what is not, what should and should not be said, or done . . . how things should or should not be done.

Question:

SO when is a crime not a crime?  Or a law against felony child-stealing not a felony or not applicable?

Answer:

When someone in authority says it’s not.  And that’s up to whoever decides to prosecute, or, alternately, decides NOT to prosecute. This is NOT up to the parent, but to the reporting officers, and after that, the D.A. 

When it is bounced to family law, and ends up as a check mark on a mediator’s report form. 

I just searched the well-known “NCJRS” on “Child-stealing” and got these results.  notice — they aren’t exactly “current,” for the most part (note years).

Here are Miscellaneous Abstracts and characterizations from these ties:

FROM “typology of Female Offenders.”  Kinda reminds you of Chesler “Women & Madness…”

(I beg your pardon, but due to internet access time, I’m simply copying and pasting.  Better option — check the links yourself).

“Young Caucasian Fathers”

Language:	English
Annotation:	Analysis of parental child–stealing cases in Los Angeles reveals that this crime occurs after a divorce action and following a period of compliance with court-ordered visitation privileges.
Abstract:	Study data came from cases screened for prosecution by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office between July 1977 and June 1978, the first year in which California law made this activity illegal. A total of 91 cases were examined. The crime generally involved young Caucasians, with fathers generally abducting children from mothers awarded custody. The crimes occurred equally throughout the seasons of the year, but took place more often on weekend days than during the week. The parents communicated after the child theft in almost half the cases. The communication usually involved announcing the offender’s intention to keep the child, trying to influence the severed relationship, or justifying the crime. Surprise abductions and use of force were rare. Although just over half the abductions took place within 18 months of the divorce, 37 percent occurred 2 or more years after the divorce. The child stealing reflected the offender’s desire to maintain a full-time relationship with the child and to help reestablish the marital relationship. Additional California and national data suggest that about 1 child theft occurs annually for every 22 divorces. Further research should focus on other jurisdictions and other aspects of child stealing. One note, data tables, and 22 references are supplied.
Index Term(s):	California; Child snatching; Crimes against children; Family offenses

IN OTHER WORDS, the young Caucasian fathers didn’t want their women to leave them, so to keep the mother attached, they stole the kids.  Nice…  It’s not necessarily that they loved the child, or were concerned about his or her welfare.

1980: Parental Child Stealing – California’s Legislative Response

. . . Prior to July 1, 1977, California law had provided that the father and mother of a legitimate unmarried minor child were equally entitled to custody, services, and earnings.

What is a “legitimate” unmarried minor child?  One whose parents were married?

Because parents had equal rights, neither parent was in violation of the law, civil or criminal, by taking and concealing the child in the absence of a court order giving custody to a particular parent. On July 1, 1977 the California legislature transferred child stealing from the civil to the criminal jurisdication and toughened sanctions and legal procedures dealing with child stealing. This California legislation is a significant effort toward clarifying numerous legal discrepancies and oversights wich have prompted parents to employ child stealing as an extra-legal method of securing their children.

I find it interesting that child-stealing went from CIVIL to CRIMINAL.

Now, depending on the context, and the prosecutors, it appears to me to be going straight back to CIVIL where protective parents (typically but not always mothers) are involved….  This was my case.  It was treated like a minor blip on the radar by a “mediator.”  I put the word in quotes, because what happened to us wasn’t “mediation” in any sense of the word, but a bypass of the judicial process, which otherwise would have shown missing kids!

When I search adding the word “parental kidnapping,” results differ:

Parental Abduction: A Review of the Literature
		NCJ 190074, Janet Chiancone, 2000, OJJDP, (13 pages).

Overall, the research on parental abductions indicates that this type of crime can be traumatic for both children and left-behind parents and that the longer the separation continues the more damaging the experience becomes.

THAT would be an understatement! 

(some reformatting added 2017Aug ,when I approved a comment that had mistakenly been overlooked.  FYI, comments on this blog are few and far between, despite the number of views or followers showing on the front sidebar. I was working hard on current posts (this one now about 7 years old), which takes a lot of focus, and am less active on my own email.  I’ll try and remember to check it more recently for submitted comments from now on… //LGH.).