Dad Whose Sons Were Internationally Abducted by Mom Wins in Maryland's Highest Court
April 11th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
"The decision was closure to six years of criminal and civil court dates. Throughout, [I] have yet to be once on the ‘losing’ side of any judge or jury’s outcome. Yet the changes in the state and federal law have done nothing for my family or sons. [The] only solace is they all know – or will someday know the extraordinary efforts gone to recover the boys, and that we have never stopped thinking of them."--Michael Shannon
According to the Associated Press story Court upholds jury award in international custody battle (4/10/08):
"Maryland's highest court has upheld a $3 million dollar jury award in favor of an Anne Arundel County man whose two sons were illegally taken out of the country by his ex-wife and mother-in-law.
"The Court of Appeals upheld Michael Shannon's right to seek civil damages and denied claims by Nermeen Khalifa Shannon and her mother, Afaf Khalifa, that the award was excessive.
"The court opinion says the women knowingly deprived Shannon of the love and comfort of his two children. The boys were taken to Egypt nearly seven years ago, when one was 4 and the other was less than a year old. They are believed to be living in Cairo."
This is a nice legal victory for Jeff Leving on behalf of a father whose two sons were internationally abducted. The sons are pictured above, on a poster Shannon keeps in his home.
Leving's press release on the court decision is excerpted below:
"A Maryland Court of Appeals upheld a jury’s decision on Wednesday, granting Michael Shannon over 3 million dollars in punitive and compensatory damages. The decision is stemming from visitation interference against Shannon’s ex-wife and mother-in-law, after they abducted their two sons to Egypt. This is a groundbreaking case and is the first successful case in the US filed over an international kidnapping and is precedent setting.
"International fathers’ rights attorney Jeffery M. Leving, who is coordinating all litigation in the US and Egypt for the father, said this verdict is part of his strategy to put pressure on the mother to return the children. Leving has also retained Egyptian counsel to persuade the Egyptian court in Cairo to recognize and enforce Mr. Shannon’s custody orders entered in a US court.
“'The decision was closure to six years of criminal and civil court dates. Throughout, [I] have yet to be once on the ‘losing’ side of any judge or jury’s outcome. Yet the changes in the state and federal law have done nothing for my family or sons. [The] only solace is they all know – or will someday know the extraordinary efforts gone to recover the boys, and that we have never stopped thinking of them…' says Mr. Shannon.
"The court opinion, written by Judge Lynne A. Battaglia, says the Khalifas 'Consciously and knowingly have deprived a father of the love and comfort of his two children for an extended period of time.' The opinion also stated that Mr. Shannon will never be fully compensated for the time he has lost with his children.
"Shannon's legal team is trying to convince the Egyptian court to order the mother to return the boys to the US. The boy’s mother, who has dual citizenship in Egypt and the US, will face criminal charges if she returns to the US. The ex-wife’s mother was convicted of kidnapping and incarcerated in Maryland, but was recently deported to Egypt.
"According to Leving:
"Shannon v. Khalifa will have a significant effect on the future of parental rights. Not only is this case a victory for Mr. Shannon, but it’s a victory for parents who have had their children abducted and taken out of the United States."
"));
19 queries. 0.443 seconds.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:20 pm
---“The opinion also stated that Mr. Shannon will never be fully compensated for the time he has lost with his children.”
I’m glad this judge has the human decency to realize that simple fact.
However, the money is important because it’s the only thing most of them understand.
When it’s no longer profitable to kidnap children, or traffic in them in order to enslave the father, the courts will stop doing it.
April 11th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Jeffery M. Leving..You are the man!!!! Now go get his boys back!!!!!!!
April 11th, 2008 at 11:25 pm
'Consciously and knowingly have deprived a father of the love and comfort of his two children for an extended period of time.'
This is a phrase we need to hear more often, much more often, before we can rightly expect to start hearing it less.
P.S. While I laud the Maryland court for their ruling on general principles, Egypt is not a signatory to the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction and American law does not apply there, so it is not clear to me how this helps Mr. Shannon and his children. If anything does it not make their return less likely?
April 12th, 2008 at 2:28 am
JD,
It establishes a precedent decision for future use by fathers in similar circumstances seeking to gain legal backing to take a child abduction case beyond our borders.
Gunner Retired
April 12th, 2008 at 4:28 am
Well said, GR, and we only had to wait till 2008.
April 12th, 2008 at 6:23 am
"International fathers’ rights attorney Jeffery M. Leving, who is coordinating all litigation in the US and Egypt for the father, said this verdict is part of his strategy to put pressure on the mother to return the children. Leving has also retained Egyptian counsel to persuade the Egyptian court in Cairo to recognize and enforce Mr. Shannon’s custody orders entered in a US court."
I fear this may be a Pyrrhic victory, since I'm not optimistic of being able to enforce the order in Egypt.
April 12th, 2008 at 10:57 am
GR: "It establishes a precedent decision for future use by fathers in similar circumstances seeking to gain legal backing to take a child abduction case beyond our borders."
Agreed, but it is more likely to be counter-productive for Shannon himself. This is, of course, how they win, by forcing each father to fight on his own and oftentimes in ways which are not of help to other fathers.
International law is especially tricky because one country's laws do not apply in another's and in cases like these "justice" often hangs on interpretation of one country's laws by the other. Even in Hague cases horrendous double standards abound, even in the US. In practice, you often want to minimize the resistance to a return. That the fugitive will face steep legal repercussions on return will often be seen as a reason for the destination country to deny that return and protect the real criminal - would an American court return children to Egypt if they knew the mother could not follow because she would spend the rest of her life in penury as a result of a decision like this one? (If you have the slightest inclination to believe that might happen, I know this guy in Nigeria who has free money to give away, all he needs are your bank details...)
Unless Shannon has the philanthropy of a saint for his fellow fathers, I suspect that he has pretty much given up hope of seeing his kids back on American soil.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Money is unimportant next to reunification with his children, which is unlikely to happen, unfortunately. Still, this is a great development, even in the rare judicial acknowledgement that a father suffers from being deprived of his children. The icing on the cake would be a nice, long prison sentence for dear ol' mom.
And BTW, for those here who reflexively bash all lawyers involved in family law .... do you feel stupid now?
April 12th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Kevin C.,
Notice how the terms "sexual assault" and "sexual encounters" are used rather than the word "rape"?
We wouldn't want women to be acknowledged as "rapists" now would we? It is tough to cast a "rapist" as a victim.
April 12th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
"Unless Shannon has the philanthropy of a saint for his fellow fathers, I suspect that he has pretty much given up hope of seeing his kids back on American soil."
JD is partly correct. I am not a saint (though St. Christopher has adorned my neck for 21 years).
But as Adam and Jason come of age, there situation is much different than other children abducted by their fathers to a foreign country.
As both boys, their father, and their mother were born in U.S., they can never be Egyptian citizens, go to Egyptian schools, vote, or have any rights in that nation under Egyptian law.
Only reason my ex had citizenship was that her father was born in Cairo, she was born outside Chicago.
The birthplace of your father determines citizenship in almost all Arab countries.
Stephen Cullen took case 'Pro bono' as their was no benefit for myself or my family involved.
The arrest, conviction, and 10-yr sentence given in Annapolis to my ex-mother-in-law sent shock waves through
the international community in 2003.
This case will be cited for 50 yrs in legal breifings 'Shannon v Khlaifa' as a deterent of both criminal and civil implications. Mr. Cullen told Maryland Supreme Court he has waited 12 years for a case this 'horrible' to use as a test for changing Civil law.
U.S. federal govt. still places children at a lower priority than any other nation on earth...
April 12th, 2008 at 6:53 pm
Michael wrote: "But as Adam and Jason come of age, there situation is much different than other children abducted by their fathers to a foreign country."
Part of the problem is that many think international child abduction is a problem of deranged, non-custodial fathers trying to hurt the children's mother. However, mothers, often custodial mothers, are an increasing problem - they may even be the dominant demographic because many noncustodial fathers, recognizing the prejudices for what they are, don't fight.
April 12th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Actually, I had full-protective custody of both boys in 2001.
The Maryland courts gave the mother one weeks "unsupervised" visitation in August when their Egyptian grandmother came here to visit.
She had DUI, child-abuse, and other convitions.
Like a good American, I followed the Court order...
Michael Shannon
April 12th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
Oh My God, this is so significant. Awesome job Jeffrey
April 12th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
This is the risk you run when marrying a foreign woman.
April 13th, 2008 at 12:39 am
As no one else has said it, a warm welcome to you Michael Shannon. I and many others here wish you well. You and your sons are in my prayers.
April 13th, 2008 at 1:16 am
(Jay R. Says:
April 12th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Kevin C.,
Notice how the terms "sexual assault" and "sexual encounters" are used rather than the word "rape"?
We wouldn't want women to be acknowledged as "rapists" now would we? It is tough to cast a "rapist" as a victim.)
Great point.
April 13th, 2008 at 3:26 am
Big deal.
3 million but who is going to collect it? No one.
And the kids are still in Egypt.
A Pyrrhic victory at best.
April 13th, 2008 at 3:27 am
I worry that "victories" like this will do more to discourage men than encourage them.
April 13th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
why on earth did the mom abduct the kids????? if she filed a court appearance in the US, the court would have allowed them to leave and ordered the father to pay child support . just like happened to me.
April 15th, 2008 at 12:32 am
Thank you for fighting and congratulations on the court victory Michael.
I am wondering how your case / ruling can help those of us who have had our children taken to another state (not out of the country) with a "family court" judge unwilling to do anything to the kidnapping mother?
Are their any domestic victories like this or does it have to be done on a state by state basis?
April 15th, 2008 at 12:34 am
Dear All,
I see that this movement as a whole, is not attacking the true issue and that is to expose the fact that all individuals are property of the govrenment. If the government can give and take custody, dictate how a child will be educated or socialized than the state is the parent. There is no law that says that the state cannot simply take a child or dictate to the (so called parents) how the child is to be educated or socialized do so unless the parents are found, via clear evidence, that they are either incompetent, neglectful and or abusive to the child(ren). Since this is a fact, than it makes sense to deduce that the state is the true parent. After the state decides who will take care of its child, than that individual could be considered a foster parent. In reality, both male and female biological contributers of human genetic material that is potentially recombinant and self replicating are themselves still government property. Property is NEVER emancipated from have a owner.
We need to to start fighting this and pushing the argument that we are men and women and human beings, which the state may view as a being that is a human animal and has no more rights than a donkey. We need to start pushing the fact that the state did not create us, we created the state. This is what all great people (eg: Ghandi, King, Jesus, Sojourner Truth, etc) state and attempted to get us to live. We must be in controll over ourselves and that we are fighting against the state and its ideals and desires. The state has taken on a life of its own by draining the life of the people.
Sincerely,
John Logan
nycfathers@yahoo.com
April 15th, 2008 at 10:07 am
Dubious Brother:
I don't know what state you're from, but ALL states have criminal custodial interference laws which deal with interstate abduction. Enforcement lies in the criminal court, not the family court. Many states also have tort laws which enable a parent to seek damages against the abducting parent for recovery of expense related to location and recovery of the child in addition to punitive damages, plus the ability to seek recovery through the criminal court by seeking compensation as part of the sentencing and fine process.
The laws in each state differ: some states will issue warrants only if the non-custodial parent takes the children, some when either parent abducts (violation of visitation OR primary custody), some, like CA even in the absence of a custody order if both parents have a right to custody (meaning neither parent is barred by court order or protection order from custody rights) . How each parent proceeds depends on the laws in his jurisdiction. There are immediate remedies and the process doesn't differ much between jurisdictions.
One of the problems facing "left-behind" parents is that they aren't very well informed about what the remedies are and what they can and should do when their child is abducted. Too often parents hire an attorney to simply seek a contempt action, which is of course can't be served on a hiding parent, then wait for the courts to "do something". No matter where you're from you have remedies available to you but they need to be actively pursued. How you proceed depends on your custody order and what your state law regarding criminal interference is, These two things determine what you need to do after filing the missing child report. If you're in a state which protects both parents under the criminal law, then you need to seek a felony warrant. If you're in a state which doesn't specifically protect both parents, you may need to seek an emergency custody order first. If you know where your child is and the mother can be served, then you need to file both a contempt action and a motion to modify. You need to move quickly so that your court retains subject matter jurisdiction.
It is all dealt with on a case by case basis, determined by jurisdiction. While everyone is looking at the monetary award in Michael Shannon's case, we should be looking at his victory in getting the criminal sanctions on his mother-in-law. This can be, and has been, a huge "bargaining chip" in many abduction cases.
April 15th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Dear
The issue is sometimes not with the law but with the application of the law. "Criminal custodial interference laws" are often NOT used when the abdector is the mother becuase she is often the custodial parent and the argument that police and even the courts give is that, as a non-custodial parent, unless you have a custody order clearly stating that neither parent can take the child out of state without the other parents consent, you have no say. The custodial parent can do WHATEVER they want. If the parents have joint legal custody and the order says, "neither parent can take the child out of state without the other parents consent" it is often irrelevent to law enforecement. Men are also discouraged by the court and police adn often threatened with arrest, physical abuse and death.
Sincerely,
Mr. John Logan
nycfathers@yahoo.com
April 15th, 2008 at 3:43 pm
First, the police are required to enter the missing child report in the NCIC no matter which parent takes the child. This is federal law through the Missing Children's Assistance Act. If the custodial parent absconds, the courts can - and usually do when petitioned - issue a temporary emergency custody order to the left-behind parent, and often will use language directing that the child be located and turned over to the parent pending a modification hearing.
Law enforcement acts on the missing child report. I don't know where you're getting the information that the laws aren't used when the abductor is the mother. 90% of all custodial interference warrants are issued against abducting mothers. The warrants stay in place until the abductor is arrested and the child is returned. The problem with the "application of the law" is that most parents are thrust into the situation without knowing what their rights are, without knowing the law and without knowing that they have full recourse. The only way one parent can legally move is by petitioning the court and modifying the existing custody order. Sans that, custodial interference kicks in and the left behind parent can avail himself of the remedies.
This lack of knowledge is what hurts parents caught in this situation. Since 2000 many states have revised their criminal codes to address the custodial-noncustodial situation. Some states no longer distinguish, some states have relevant wording about "parent-child contact", some have relevant wording regarding .....for instance Montana redifined "custodial interference" to include interference with parent-child contact and added a section regarding taking a child before entry of a custody order (50,000/10 year max) making it the same as custodial interference. Nevada and NJ now allow law enforcement to remove a child from the custodial parent if in danger of being removed from the jurisdiction.
As I said, how you proceed depends on your jurisdiction and state code, but you can proceed. You don't need "special wording" in the custody order. Interference with custody and abduction are usually pretty clear cut events. It appears that you're from NY. The NY family courts are very cooperative when these situations arise and I have found that NY law enforcement has no problem following through on parental abduction cases. While NY code was revised in 2001, the courts have been fully cooperative at least for the last 20 years. There is voluminous case law on all the issues surrounding parental abduction, including tort actions, restricting visitation after recovery of a child, bonds, etc. I don't know what cases you are thinking of or hearing about, but my instinct would be to say that you are dealing with parents who have no idea what the laws are or what they can and need to do.
In 30 years I have only heard of one parent with a threat of arrest and that was a case where the left behind parent was harrassing relatives and friends of the ex. The bottom line is that today, in 2008, a custodial parent can no longer do "whatever they want" unless the target parent doesn't avail himself of the available remedies. The first "remedy" is for a parent to arm himself with some knowledge.
April 15th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Dear Madame,
If the police " ...are required" than they are not doing there job. I have met many men who have not seen or heard anything from their children and they have gone to court adn the court turns them away as I previously stated. The police often intimidate these male parents and will often flat our REFUSE to file a criminal report against the mother. Even in my case, I had a custody order adn the cops REFUSED to homor it adn then filed a FALSE REPORT stating that I was incorrect adn a criminal even though I had the court order stating I was to see my son on a certain day adn time.
You seem to be discounting what I and other men may be stating about our law enforcement, judicial and legal system over all. It is already a known fact that this country has more civil and human rights abuses than almost any other country, so it is not beyond our legal and law enforcement systems to not protect everyone equally under the law.
If the police and the judiciary are not doing what is required of them (following the law and applying it equally to all parties regarless of gender) than HOW do we make them accountable? Many people have filed suit against the police and the judiciary is exempt form prosecution for the most part. This is a MAJOR issue. How do we force our civil servants to be responsive and responsible to the individuals that they are supposed to serve?
You made the statement that 90% of all " custodial interference warrants" are issued against the mother but how many is that when looking at how many mother take the children and and nothing is done about it. I have met quite a number of men who received no relief.
You are correct that people do not know their rights but you also must deal with the isue of intimidation and flagrent disregard for one (supposed ) parent over the other by police and by the courts.
I have not found "...The NY family courts are very cooperative when these situations arise..." and I have not found "...that NY law enforcement has no problem following through on parental abduction cases". I hvae only seen them go who;e heartedly after the man adn not the woman. As I stated I had police flat out refuse to help me and threaten me with jail and physical violence. Maybe this is becuase I'm an African American man and in the eyes of the court and police we are definitly 'no good' .
Please do not forget that Jim Crow only partially ended 35 - 40 years ago.
I would definitely like to know more on how to proceed since I have a small group that I have started in Queens and Brooklyn, NY.
April 16th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
John - I sent you a response offline....
But, for the benefit of others reading this blog, I wanted to respond to your last comments. You said that you had visitation rights and wanted a warrant against the mother. Under NY law, if the mom had primary custody then she was not in criminal violation of the order. You needed to file in family court for contempt and for modification of custody if mom had absconded and was concealing the child. If you didn't know where she was, you could have filed for emergency relief, THEN sought the criminal remedies once a new order was in place.
In a scenario such as you describe, the police could do nothing except advise you to talk to an attorney. At the very outside they can do a "stand-by" when you knock on the door for visitation, but that's all. Under NY law enforcement of visitation is not a criminal matter. You are talking about a criminal report for interference with visitation and unfortunately you don't live in a state with a code that provides for that. The only thing the police can do is provide a report that they were present as stand-by and you were refused access to the child as provided in your order.
I don't know what you mean by being "turned away by the court" because if you file the proper motions seeking remedy you aren't turned away but rather the case will be heard. If mom is home and simply refusing to give you the child, you must seek remedy by filing a contempt action, possibly coupled with a motion to modify if the behavior is habitual and egregious. Fathers who have "not seen or heard from their children" have obviously not appropriately gone to the court for remedy. What I hear on a regular basis is "Why should I have to hire and attorney and go to court?? Why doesn't the court just take care of it??" The answer is because that's where you begin to avail yourself of the remedies available to you. I know for a fact that both the Family Courts in Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan issue emergency relief orders regularly. I have clients there who not only are given the emergency orders but who have been then able to pursue the criminal remedies. However, their attornies filed the appropriate motions seeking relief. While it may be unpleasant for people to recognize the need for good legal representation in these cases, that is the only appropriate mechanism.
If you are talking about simply demanding that police enforce a violated visitation order, then you have no basis in law that would enable them to do anything for you. That is civil contempt....first....not criminal interference. In NY, criminal interference with custody is when a non-custodial parent absconds and conceals a child in violation of a custody order. ..... at least until the non-custodial parent avails himself of the civil remedies first.
I am not an attorney. However I have been consulting on parental abduction cases for 30 years, I know the civil and criminal remedies available in all states and I know very well that when a parent proceeds appropriately through the court relief is granted. It has nothing to do with your race or gender, but rather all to do with whether you appropriately sought remedy through the actual law, not your interpretation of the law. I don't discount what men are thinking or saying about the system, however I recognize that much of the frustration and misconception occurs because lack of knowledge and understanding of the laws and rules of procedure.
April 17th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Dear Judi,
I requested police assistance so that my visitation order would be enforeced. THis should have been what they did, however, they informed me that they would absolutely NOT assist since she was the mother.
If the visitation cannot or will not be enforeced than what is the point. People, especially the non-custodial parent (most often the father) often is not in a position to consistantly go back and forth to family court to file papers especially when it means that they will are losing time and often money from their jobs. THis places the non-custodial parent in a position where they may lose their job for taking too much time.
What I meant by turned away is that since I did not know the propert papers to file, I was at a loss. The individuals in the court that are supposed to assist informed me that I could not do anything except file a change for custody or a violation of the visitation order, which I did. The case when to court and the retired judge hearing the case decided to plece and keep the order as a temporary order.(now over a year) . i have decided not to fight (as many men often do) at this time untill I learn more and have assistance.
There is definitely a bias in the court against men and what I see as a major issue is the fact that the children are property of the statte. This is clear to me when i am called a non custodial 'parent' adn the other individual is called a custodial 'parent.'. Only a parent has the right to educate, socialize or determine who cares for the child. Since the state excersices this power it is clear that all children are at most offspring of the state. The individual who is called the custodial parent is simply a foster parent. However, the state is not paying money to this individual to care for its child, it forces another individual to pay.
i will contact you offline.
April 17th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
John -
The reason they couldn't assist is not because she's the mother but because they have no ability to enforce custody orders. Nothing criminal occurs until and unless a parent absconds with and conceals a child (parental abduction). At the very least a stand by cop can tell the other parent that there is a court order, that you're there for court-ordered parenting time, and if she refuses to give you the child your recourse is to file a contempt action with the court coupled with a motion to modify if there is a pattern of interference.
The court clerks aren't allowed to "assist" you any further than to tell you what it is you need to file. They cannot assit with paperwork or give legal advice. What the court actually did by putting a temp order in place was give you some time to "get your ducks in a row", seek legal advice and appropriately file. Since you are still working with only a minimal temp order, you absolutely need to move forward and obtain a final custody order. You will have the opportunity to argue for joint custody, shared parenting, or any other equitable arrangement. When it is left to the court without proper argument, then generally the standard order will be put in place.
There is a difference between joint legal custody and joint physical custody. Joint - or shared - legal custody means both parents have a say in issues which affect the education, medical care, etc of the child irregardless of the parenting time arrangement. Sole legal custody means one parent makes all the legal decisions even if there is joint physical custody.
If there is a consistent pattern of interference, meaning you aren't able to pick your child up per the court order, there shouldn't be a pattern of repeatedly filing but rather a single filing of contempt showing the pattern of behavior coupled with the motion to modify. At the very least you will be heard and have the opportunity to seek a more equitable arrangement in the process. Since you don't even have a full custody order yet, that is the first thing you need to do. There are many attorneys who will give you a free consult, or at least a reasonable price for a consult, who can easily tell you what it is that needs to be done. Any local attorney will be able to discuss with you the actual -not perceived - "climate if the court" ( the court's tendencies toward custody issues).
It is easy to blame the "system" for problems with custody, but the reality is that unless you have a valid custody order to begin with you have nothing to enforce. Once you have the order only the court can enforce it so the "necessary evil" then is to go and establish the order. If you choose to represent yourself, you are not apt to win unless you are highly skilled in knowing how the system works, what the rules are and have the ability to adequately argue your case in the courtroom - which means knowing the rules of procedure, knowing what to say or not say, knowing how to present a legal argument versus an emotional or "in my own mind" argument. (That means thinking "Well that's what the law says, but in my own mind it shouldn't be that way!".
Just keep in mind that the court can't give you something you don't appropriately ask for.
April 18th, 2008 at 6:17 am
Hi I was in a similar position here in Australia,
I lost my children for a while my wife, ran off at a time we were going through money problems. She went from away from me in Australia to near her parents in Scotland. I paid thinking it was only going to be a brief holiday. She refused to come back.
Initially I was denied any legal help literally because I was male and therefore likely to be on my own. As I was leaving the door of the legal aid office I commented 'I bet this wouldn't happen to a single parent'. They agreed, I mentioned my son from a previous marriage was living with me. I was ushered back and asked a few details and it was on. I was about to embark on a presedent creating Hague Convention case with the wife cited as a kidnapper.
It took about 6 months until I finally went to Scotland to fight the case in court. After a 29 hr flight I walked to the lawyers place in central Edinburgh and they behaved in a way I had never expected a lawyer to do .. they actually made sense.
She ( I had chosen a female strategically) said "no-one wins a case like this, if you win you take kids away from a life they are new and begining to like. this will in future be looked back on as you taking them away from the good life,. On the other hand, if she wins I would have travelled all the way from the other side of the world because I love them so much, they will always be torn between two worlds. The ONLY way for all of us to win was to find a compromise that suited both parents.
I suggested to my wife she came back and if life did not get better within a couple of years we would all move to Scotland. She agreed and moved back with the kids after three months. That was nearly 10 years ago , we are still together and have since had another child. I still cant believe how well that lawyer read the situation.
Colin
April 18th, 2008 at 8:52 am
i find it intersting that here in NYC a woman can leave a marriage and just take the children yet, if a father does the same he is indanger of being arrested once found. I did inquire with the NYC police pertaining to this so that I could inform my group that this is a real possibility even if they leave due to abuse.
April 21st, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Anyone that claims there is no bias against fathers in the Family Courts is the one that's not informed at all!
I have an order for joint legal custody of my child, but in the Family court that means SHE gets the child and I get the bills and pay child support. I'm continuously refused court ordered contact with my child and the court has refused to lift a finger to do anything about it. I've not been allowed to see my child for nearly 2 years, and at this time have not been able to even find him. I learned of their last address too late, my ex took off again after being paroled on drug charges. The courts don't care!
One judge told me I'm too obsessed with wanting to see my child, (yes, I'm desperate to see him and scared to death for his safety). Another told me I should maybe move to the last state she was in and try to get something started in the courts there--after 5 years of trying here, in the state with jurisdiction. In other words, they just want me to go away and fight my futile battle someplace else. They do nothing at all about the violation of my rights or my child's. I've met several fathers in the exact same situation.
I HAD attorneys the past five years and have brought many motions for change to the family court, and every time has just left me more discouraged and frustrated. Orders for visitation and parental rights are worthless unless the system is willing to ENFORCE their own orders at some point.
If fathers can be jailed for not paying court-ordered child support, mothers should also be jailed when they refuse court-ordered visitation. Why should the support be MORE important than having a father, which seems not to matter at all any longer.
Most attorneys CAN NOT help, and are just impotent puppets of the corrupt and biased family court system. I made the huge mistake of believing that hiring an attorney was my ticket to getting my court ordered rights enforced, but never even got close.
This system cares nothing about the "best interest of the child". I'll never believe the phony BS again! There's a method to their madness, but the welfare of any child isn't it.
If I had known 5 years ago what I know now, I probably would have saved some of my sanity and assets (paid to impotent attorneys), given up sooner and walked away. I've finally stopped torturing myself in the family courts and now center on fathers' rights and Family law changes for future fathers and children.
It took a while to come to grips with the reality that I could file motions and plead forever and never have my parental rights recognized in the Family Court system.
My constant prayer is that my son and I have a chance to come together again when he's older and out from under the destructive thumb of the Family court system and my ex. A few times a day I "talk" to my son, hoping in some way he'll hear and know I love him, wherever he's at.
April 22nd, 2008 at 11:51 am
RG -
No one has claimed their isn't bias. What IS fact though is that the courts are gradually starting to treat dads more fairly and more dads are getting primary custody today than ever before. The courts do react to egregious behavior, parental alienation has now been dealt with in most jurisdictions as grounds to change custody and interference is less tolerated today by the court than ever before.
It sounds as if you had some either very bad or omitted advice. If you had joint legal custody, in any state, and your ex disappeared with the child, you had the right to immediately file a missing child report (contrary to popular belief law enforcement is required by federal law to make the entry!), file a petition for emergency relief to award you temporary sole custody and the right to seek a criminal interference with custody warrant. Your order for joint legal custody doesn't have anything to do with who gets the child. That is determined by what your parenting time arrangement is. Also in true joint physical custody there can be a deviation in child support awards which can mean the higher income parent can pay some or no support.
Advice that you "move to the last state and start proceedings there" is bogus advice and is contra to the UCCJEA since the child is only in the new state by the wrong-doing of the parent. I suspect that one of your problems was an attorney was attempting to locate the mother for service, an exercise in futility. If you were simply filing contempt actions periodically you wouldn't get any further than perhaps a finding of contempt. Were any of your filings motions to modify custody based on a pattern of bad behavior and non-compliance of the mother? If so, were they supported by a documented pattern of interference with the custody order? Did you have an attorney who had any expertise in post-decree custody issues? Or, did you hire an attorney to just file contempt actions and not a fully supported motion to modify? It makes an enormous difference.
Joint legal custody does not necessarily mean joint physical custody. Legal custody refers to decisions on health, education and other issues which directly deal with the needs of the child. Joint physical custody means just that: 50-50 parenting time. At this time, it appears that mom is in criminal violation of the custody order. How you proceed depends on what state you're in. Custodial interference is what is known as an "on-going crime" so you have, and had, actual options.
It both angers and saddens me when I hear stories like yours since no matter where you live you had immediate recourse yet no one advised you of the actual remedies and your rights under the current laws and you obviously still unaware of the fact that those remedies are still there.
April 22nd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
John Logan -
What you state is not accurate. Either parent can be criminally charged if they abduct a child in violation of a custody order, but not prior to one being entered. Before a divorce and/or custody action is filed there is no criminal code available, unless one parent abducts during the pendency of the court action.
The only time there could be a situation you describe is when the parents were never married and paternity and custody rights have not been established. In that situation if the purported, or alleged, father takes and conceals a child before he has established paternity and custody rights, then he can be charged with kidnapping since he has established no legal connection to the child.
It is patently wrong for either parent to take a child and conceal or withhold him from the other parent. As far as I'm concerned this is a form of egregious child abuse. If someone at the police department told you what you state, then it sounds as if you got an opinion not based on any law. Criminal custodial interference is based on violation of a custody order. It is true that NY law initially protects the custodial parent and not the parent with just a visitation order, but there is a remedy for that too. For a dad to be charged the way you say, he has to violate the court order that states he is the non-custodial parent, by taking and concealing the child from the "lawful custodian" as put forth in the order. If the custodial parent takes the child the non-custodial parent has the options of : a)file for emergency relief ex-parte custody; b)file for contempt if the custodial parent's whereabouts are known; and c)bring a criminal complaint when the emergency temp order is issued. The police can't help the non-custodial parent, other than to enter a missing child report, until that parent gets his ducks in a row.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Dear Judi,
It is intersting that in an issue as you stated prevously, "...when the parents were never married and paternity and custody rights have not been established..", "... if the purported, or alleged, father takes and conceals a child before he has established paternity and custody rights, then he can be charged with kidnapping since he has established no legal connection to the child..." Shouldn't this be the same for the mother if she does not secure legal rights to the child. Especially in these days, just pushes a child out does not mean that the child is biologically hers. This is an assumption.
Also, the circumstances that you stated indicates that the "state" is automatically the parent of everychild born. This seems in opposition to (i assume) what is called natural law. This confirms to me what I have been informed adn that is the fact that the state is the owner of all individuals and that we are not viewed as men and women with a creator that is higher than the state but as animals.
In this case, the biological mother and father are never parents but simply caretakers of the states property.
April 22nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Dear Judi and All,
What many men need is access to free and/or low cost legal advice or representation. There are many programs out that assist women with these issues often for free regardless of their financial standing.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:23 am
Judi-
I understand what you're saying, and appreciate that may be how things are suppose to be- but it's just not what they really are.
I have a stack of "motions to modify", from each time my ex disappeared and refused court-ordered contact- none worth the paper their written on. One was filed when I learned the mother was jailed on drug charges, and I wanted an order so I could go to her state and find out where my child was at and who he was with. That's when the judge told me I should go to the other state and try filing there. I needed an order because it's standard procedure for schools, police and others to NOT allow the father information even with joint custody orders. I was told that I had to produce proof that I have physical custody, or they would tell me nothing about my child.
I had continuously had problems with getting my child's school to abide by orders and allow me any academic information. My child was absent one-third of school days and was said to be "at risk" by his teacher. This was due solely to neglect, because he's very smart and did great in school when I had custody.
The only reason I lost custody was because I couldn't afford to pay for a biased Home Study. If I had the money I wouldn't have paid anyway. The Study was later shown (at hearing) to be so biased the judge was forced to throw it out. They put the person who did the study on the stand and their own testimony proved their bias.
The damage had already been done and they wouldn't change custody back . I've also had totally false accusations made by my ex against me that were dismissed in court, but still are allowed to be used against me successfully by her attorney at every court date. All the proof I show is disregarded, but every lie they utter is allowed. It's pure and simple bias!
The biggest reason my parental rights continue to be violated in the court is because my exes attorney is a pro bono from a local women's legal organization. This is one area where it's very unfair (as John Logan mentioned). Mothers have several places to get free legal and other help, but the father has no such benefit. It's common knowledge here that this organization runs the courts and judges, as my attorney informed me. The same judges who rule these cases also do fundraisers for this women's legal organization.
In every case where this place is involved the mother is handed everything without even showing up, even when proven unfit and unwilling to care for the child at all. Even when proven to be in contempt of court orders over and over again, and to have lied under oath and on a sworn statement.
There may be slow changes coming about in some places, but they're not here yet, and father's and children's rights are still basically nonexistent.
April 24th, 2008 at 8:48 am
Another reason we (people in general) do not get Justice is becuase we are not recognizing a reality. We like our children are property of the state.
Under the law if ony a parent can do certain things thanwhy is the state making parental decisions (custody) when the child has two parents that have not been proven to be unfit or incompetent?
April 24th, 2008 at 11:40 am
RG -
May I inquire what state you're in? Also, do you know what your state's "Access Laws" are regarding information on the child? If I were to hazard a guess I would say that you're in the state of Washington, possibly King County. There are very few jurisdictions where a woman can get pro bono legal work anymore for ongoing custody issues and then only if she is in a DV shelter.
John Logan -
The state makes decisions for two reasons: 1) a divorce or custody action has been filed which in effect is asking the court to make the decision if the two "fit and competent" parents can't work an arrangement out themselves and enter into an agreed entry regarding custody and 2)in a post decree situation (modification) one side is asking the court to make a new custody determination based on egregious behavior from the other side or other serious problems arising out of the current custody arrangement.
The sad fact of life is that more often than not the two parents cannot cooperate and co-parent without intervention. While you may not like the system as it stands, the reality is that if you don't have a valid custody order after splitting up you have nothing to enforce, nothing to modify and no ability to see your child if the other parent denies access. Fit and competent parents do NOT deny access, conceal the child, deny information or attempt to alienate the child. Only selfish, controlling parents do this. It is the parents who use the child as property, as possessions, not the state.
The state does not make "parental decisions" unless the child has become a ward of the state. All the court does is determine the division of parenting time when the parents can't or won't cooperate or agree. All the "parental decisions" - health, education, welfare, discipline, etc. - are not interfered with by the state until and unless the child has been determined to be abused, abandoned or neglected and placement is removed from the parents.
What you are saying is that the state should not make any custody decisions and that the "battle" should be just left as a private matter between the parents?
April 25th, 2008 at 10:39 am
Judi,
I do differ with you pertaining to the issue why the state makes custody decisions. If children were not already state property, there would be notway for the state to make a custodial decision since the child is not the states' and the state has not proven either parent to be deficient or a danger to the child.
To use an excuse (meaning the state, not you) that the state must decide who gets the child if parents cannot agree is, in my eyes criminal. All parents disagree, however, instead of the state removing itself from a situation that is going ot harm the child, the state actively participates in seperating a child form one parent. This is almost NEVER in the child's best interest. If you harm the biological parent in anyway, you will harm the child.
What the state should do in a situation, where it is not declaring either parent incompetant, deficient or a danger to the child, is simply state that both parents are parents and hat time will be equally devided. And in the best interest of the child, the court can require both parents to attend mediation as well as parenting class. The state should also remove itself form the business of child support, since it does not require all parents to pay support and parents should have the benefit of the doubt where the state will assume that the parents will financially care for their child. (If the state wants parents to spend a particular amount on their child than the state should be truthfull and clearly list all children as foster care children and then the state itself should pay foster care money.)
This would go much further to reducing conflict. Once both parent as well as th state knows that no money can be made using the child adn that one or both parents wil not lose their child.
In cases of false abuse or false reporting of domestic violence, the party that does so would then be prosecuted for a felony punishable up a certain number of years in jail potentially with out parole.
Once this is settled, you would not have ot have a "new" custody decree becuase both parents would still be parents and the court is simply requring, for the benefit of all pareties, mediation and parenting classes.
Also, under New York state law, Nether parent has a right to a minor child. It should read BOTH parents have a right to their child. Since it does not state it, it is a clear indication that the child does not belong to either parent.
People may not like what I'm saying, howeverm when examining the actual practice, it is clear that people as well as their children are property of the state. I often wonder when are emancipated from the state, since the state has the power to give and take custody?
Aso, i have not seen any law specifically stating that the state cannot simply just take a child. If this is not specifically stated it then is up to Judicial discrsion, which often is not worth anything.
April 25th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Also, you stated that parent decision are not interfered with except when it comes to the non-custodial parent.
This has been my experience and what the judiciary informed me.
It is also my understanding that , A non-custodial parent cannot sue on behalf of their child without the custodial parent's consent.
May 28th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
you should think of a way of encouraging her to come back to the states by dropping the case and not anything that would jeopardize her coming back.
July 19th, 2008 at 3:54 am
This case could be called a victory for any parents with children abducted internationally but the $3m awarded will never be seen by mr Shannon as the USA and Egypt dont have reciprocal arrangements with laws. The USA courts can not even force the Egyptian government to return the children. In order for Mr Shannon to get his money, he is going to have to take a lein on properties owned by the Egyptian grandfather in countries the USA has reciprocating arrangements. For me the $3m US is a mute award by the court, if they can not enforce it. The only thing it may do is place in the minds of others intending to do similar that the penalties can be awarded, but then again they only need look up countries that are not in Hauge convention, Japan, Egypt etc......
July 19th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
It doesn't matter whether a country is signatory to the Hague or not. The US does not and cannot "force" ANY country to return a child. There is a disclaimer on the application that states this fact very clearly. What the Hague might do is assist in getting a parent visitation with their child in the foreign country. Egypt actually has a "memorandum of agreement" with the US but it is about as useless as the Hague.
Most often a child is abducted to another country because the left behind parent had no knowledge that there are prevention mechanisms which will stop the abducation to begin with. Lack of knowledge is a key factor in these situations and it helps no one to rant on about what the laws "should" be or unknowledgable, uninformed interpretations being passed on as "advice". Most abductors already know the consequences and most don't care because they also realize that if they "escape" with the child to begin with there is little which can be done in most situations.
Also, one person "assuming" that since he/she lost a particular case then it follows that the court is just biased and NO ONE can win is rather naive, sour grapes advice and is doing an injustice to parents who actually have the ability to succeed. The fantasy of "should be" is useless. People who need help need to block out the fantasy and learn what the reality is, what the remedies are and how to go about getting the help they need,
July 19th, 2008 at 8:50 pm
Judy, this case is similar to the recent Australian case, where the father had a Departure Prevention Order because the mother was a Swiss national. The mother had passports obtained by fraudulent means. The courts returned the children under Hauge, only to have the Australian courts return them back to the mother. I dont disagree with you that Hauge is useless. I disagree that the prevention measures work, as has been highlighted here by the Shannon case and the one I mention. I read recently an article on the need for an International Family Court, ( http://www.law.northwestern.edu/journals/jihr/v2/7/ ) which would be another mute promise from the UN, IMHO. Because Hauge and the ICJ can not get restitution for Shannon, nor can they get his children back from Egypt.
Perhaps a better idea would be international police that could go into any country, whether that country agree's or not, and recover children and the criminal parent to face the justice in the country that they remove the children from.
July 20th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Information like you offer in anecdotal stories related to what OTHER countries do or don't do has absolutely nothing to do with what is done in the U.S. You can disagree all you want about what measures work or don't work. I deal with these cases every day, throughout the country, and I have intimate working knowledge of what works, what the process needs to be and how to go about getting it done.
Prevention is working better now than at any time in history. Those parents without knowledge of what they need to do and with no knowledge of how to proceed are those parents who lose their children. As I said before, wishing the laws were something other than they are is of no use to parents today.
July 20th, 2008 at 2:29 am
Judi is correct in one sense.
In July of 2001 I did not realize you could write a letter to the Dept. of State from a strange address and request a copy of two minors' passports you did not have custody of.
The Federal laws changed since, and some measures have been taken in many states to prevent foreign grandparents from 'unsupervised' visitations...
July 20th, 2008 at 11:08 am
I listened to Michaels interview on dads on the air radio, here in Australia and the similarities in the deception to obtain the childrens passports was what sparked my interest.
Am I incorrect in saying that Michael had departure preventions in place in 2001? Those measures failed, was the impression I got from the interview. Just as did the Australian fathers measures, at least the US have recognised that deficiency in their passport system. In the Australian case, a friend of the mother who had two children of similar age took the children with her childrens birth cirtificates to obtain passports and the mother travelled to Sweeden with the children as a "guardian". Are there measures in place in the US to prevent this sort of fraud? The Australian government has made no attempt to prevent this happening again.
The Australian case is not just anecdotal but factual, and as both our countries laws are based in English law, and Aussie laws tend to very closely follow US laws, I think my opinion, not advice as you claim, is very valid. Im sure Michael wont disagree it is another father who feels the same "death" he has felt.
You may well deal with legal aspects, but its people like me that have to deal with the aftermath, helping guys like Michael Shannon after the fact, or advising them in our little groups of how to deal with similar situations before it happens so it does pay to be rather well informed about the legalities and how they work.
I applaude you Judi, for the work your doing but I dont understand why you jumped down my throat, I hope you dont treat your clients like "drongoes". I'm sure we agreed that Hauge is useless, and in Michael's own words, "I'll never see one cent of that" makes us agree that the fine is a joke also. Gee, they might as well have awarded him the Pyramids of Gaza, or the Sydney Harbour Bridge or free tickets to Atlantis. Thats sarcasm Judi, or contempt, not sour grapes.....
My father taught me long ago that ignorance of the law is no escuse for commiting a crime, and I guess the same applies for any parent when it comes to having an international partner and divorce/separation where children are involved. Hang on, didnt you say that in a roundabout way.
Judi wrote
"Also, one person "assuming" that since he/she lost a particular case then it follows that the court is just biased and NO ONE can win is rather naive, sour grapes advice and is doing an injustice to parents who actually have the ability to succeed."
Your last paragraph above must have been directed to someone else because I did none of those things. All to often we see fathers in our groups get angry at the wrong people, when its they themselves they should be angry at, and quite often it is because they lack the ability to type off and email a simple letter, or an understanding of what is occuring to them and how to deal with the emotional and financial stresses of separation from their children. The last thing I would expect is "friendly fire" from anyone on this blog, we are on the same side.....
I dont neccesarily think sending in International Police to get children is a good idea, probably frighten the hell out of them, but the threat that it could happen would prevent far more parents taking the first step than Hauge or a $3m US fine ever will. What are your thoughts on something like this Judi, without friendly fire?
July 20th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Ross -
I was not directing anything to you in particular. I usually attempt to speak to the broader audience.
What happened in the Australian case could not happen under US law today. What I was referring to in that last paragraph was the fact that I hear repeatedly from fathers who repeat a litany of bad advice, misinterpretation of the the laws and have not one glimmer of factual, solid advice. There is such a prevailing attitude within much of the fathers' rights groups and blogs that many parents desparately seeking advice feel they have only been given more reason to despair.
I did not intend my posts to be taken as friendly fire, but rather as encouragement to those parents who have a chance to NOT lose their children. It needs to be understood that most of those seeking advice and help are completely new to the "game", to the arena and arrive at these blogs hoping to learn. When what they "hear" is "you can't win", "all lawyers are crooks", all judges are biased and indifferent,the laws don't work, etc., and hear only the horror stories (and the anger of which you speak) and none or few of the successes it only increases their fears.
I attempt to counter that with the simple facts: All attorneys arent' corrupt, all judges aren't biased or corrupt - (keeping in mind that no judge can truly issue a good ruling if the attorney presenting the case doesn't know what he's doing!) - and there are good laws and remedies available to all. Recently the U.S. State Department even amended the passport laws to raise the age from 14 to 16 regarding the requirement for BOTH parents to be present and sign the passport application for a child. Courts now routinely, when appropriately motioned to do so, confiscate passports and when there is ANY risk of international abduction children and parent are flagged by ICE and by Interpol so that the movements of the foreign national parent can be tracked and can be easily prevented from absconding with the child.
There are too many obstacles to "international police" organization to make this feasible....at least beyond the functioning scope of Interpol as it already exists. What needs done is for the terms of the Hague contract to be strengthened so that a signatory country is required by treaty to absolutely return abducted children to their home of record. What it does now is say that once a child is in a new country, after a year the "new" country becomes the "place of habitual residence" - no matter what criminal OR civil sanctions or orders are in place in the originating country. The U.S. routinely returns children abdcuted to the U.S. to their home country, but fails to even attempt to force anyone to return a child to the U.S. This is dishonorable and completely controverts the original purpose of the Hague. The State Department attempts to convince parents to drop criminal warrants, dismiss custody actions and go to the foreign country and "negotiate" with the abductor. Of course with the warrants gone, the custody orders gone and no teeth left for the left behind parent the abductors would hold a parade.
There is nothing which will deter or frighten 99% of the parents who intend to abduct, and they already know they essentially can't be touched. So, I can only repeat, as a litany, appropriate, viable, valid prevention is the primary protection available. And yes, I said ignorance of the law is dangerous, so what has to be put forth is solid, viable advice and explanation, including how to find an attorney who knows what he's doing. Mike Shannon had Steve Cullen who is one of the most well-versed in international abduction in the country. Steven is not available to everyone though and I can tell you without reservation that probably 85% of the family law attorneys in the country know little beyond what the codes say and essentially nothing in the practical application and process. Too often the attorney must educate the judge or at least have someone available who can so selection of the attorney is probably one of the most important aspects of prevention.
Please don't take my comments personally, Ross. I probably offer more valid free advice and have more actual working knowledge of the process than almost anyone else you will find. So I will always stay on the same track of trying to impart some professional wisdom whenever I can. I know the emotional and financial stress this behavior places on parents because I have been working with these parents for 30 years. I know the devestation a parent feels when a child has been concealed for years, is reunited with that child who is only a stranger and must relive the loss again because the child walks away. So whatever it takes to prevent an abduction and whatever it takes to recover a child quickly if an abduction - domestic or international - occurs is what must be done.
I deal with only the reality of what is possible NOW. I have seen the laws change, in fact have helped create and rewrite some of them, I know all of the "tricks of the trade" and I know without question how to convince the most stubborn judge and how to prepare even an idiot attorney to proceed. This I will continue to do until I am too old or senile to help anymore or until I am no longer angry with the fact that stupidity is left unchecked at the bench and children disappear without valid reason except for the fact that a parent didn't really understand that it doesn't have to happen.
July 21st, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Judi and Ross,
I was lucky to find Mr. Stephen Cullen as an attorney in Maryland.
He has suffered a personal tragedy himself while in Scotland and is well versed in international law.
The recorded voice of 4-yr old Adam asking when his Pop-Pop and myself were going to "bring him home" in 2002 is more than any person can endure.
The Khalifa attorneys in U.S. even obtaiined a warrent to confiscate any recorded conversations I had with my sons!!!
I denied their being any, even though John Walsh played them on national T.V.
For some reason the Maryland States Attorneys office did not prosecute me...
Michael E. Shannon
July 21st, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Thanx for the response Judi and Michael. Judi, I must say it is great to see integrity has not died.
July 21st, 2008 at 11:09 pm
Michael -
I have a long working relationship with Steve Cullen and the primary reason he is the crusader he is is that he cares about each of these children and he understands fully each parent's anguish. Any parent he even chats with about their case leaves the conversation feeling better.
I would imagine there was no move to prosecute you for the recordings because the law does not cover conversations with a parent and minor child. The child cannot give legal permission for the recording so Voila! it is the option of the parent. Parents still have inherent rights even though it sometimes seems otherwise. Keep in mind the complainant must be the "victim", not the grandparents or other parent or some bureaucratic do-gooder.
Ross: It is always nice to have positive feedback and know that I have been heard and my message is understood. Thank you!