International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 (IPKCA)

The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 (IPKCA) is a United States federal law that criminalizes the act of international parental kidnapping. Enacted on December 2, 1993, this legislation aims to deter parents from removing children from the United States or retaining them abroad in violation of another parent’s custodial rights.

Historical Context:

Prior to IPKCA, international parental kidnapping was primarily addressed through civil remedies and the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. However, the increasing frequency of international parental abductions and the limitations of existing mechanisms prompted the U.S. Congress to create a federal criminal statute specifically targeting this issue.

Key Objectives:

  1. To deter international parental kidnapping
  2. To provide a legal basis for federal law enforcement intervention in such cases
  3. To complement existing civil remedies and international agreements
  4. To demonstrate the United States’ commitment to combating international parental kidnapping
  5. To provide a tool for negotiating the return of abducted children

Scope and Applicability:

IPKCA applies to cases where a child is removed from the United States or retained outside the United States. It covers children under the age of 16 and applies regardless of whether the United States has an extradition treaty or diplomatic relations with the country to which the child has been taken.

Key Provisions:

  1. Criminal Offense:
    • Makes it a federal crime to remove a child from the United States or retain a child outside the United States with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights
  2. Definition of Parental Rights:
    • Defines parental rights as the right to physical custody of the child, whether the right is joint or sole, and whether the right arises by operation of law, court order, or legally binding agreement
  3. Penalties:
    • Provides for fines and/or imprisonment for up to three years for violations
  4. Affirmative Defenses:
    • Allows for certain affirmative defenses, including fleeing from domestic violence or returning a child to the legal custodian
  5. Application of the Fugitive Felon Act:
    • Permits the issuance of federal warrants for arrest under the Fugitive Felon Act
  6. Extradition:
    • Facilitates extradition proceedings for individuals charged under the Act

Process Under IPKCA:

  1. Reporting: The left-behind parent reports the abduction to law enforcement.
  2. Investigation: Federal authorities, often the FBI, investigate the case.
  3. Prosecution: If evidence supports it, the U.S. Attorney’s Office may prosecute the case.
  4. International Cooperation: U.S. authorities work with foreign counterparts to locate the child and abducting parent.
  5. Legal Proceedings: Criminal proceedings under IPKCA may run parallel to civil proceedings for the child’s return.

Case Studies:

  1. United States v. Amer (2nd Circuit, 1997): One of the first cases prosecuted under IPKCA, involving a father who took his children to Egypt.
  2. United States v. Shahani-Jahromi (11th Circuit, 2002): Addressed the constitutionality of IPKCA and clarified its application in cases where custody orders were obtained after the abduction.
  3. United States v. Fazal (5th Circuit, 2016): Dealt with issues of intent and the interpretation of “retains” under the Act.

Advantages of IPKCA:

  1. Deterrence: Provides a strong deterrent against international parental kidnapping.
  2. Federal Involvement: Enables federal law enforcement resources in these cases.
  3. Negotiation Tool: Serves as a diplomatic tool for negotiating child returns with other countries.
  4. Complementary Measure: Works alongside civil remedies and international agreements.
  5. Awareness: Raises public awareness about the seriousness of international parental kidnapping.

Challenges and Limitations:

  1. Enforcement Difficulties: Prosecuting cases when the abductor is in a non-extradition country can be challenging.
  2. Potential Conflict with Civil Proceedings: Criminal proceedings may complicate ongoing civil efforts for the child’s return.
  3. Limited Effectiveness in Child Return: While it may punish the abductor, it doesn’t directly secure the child’s return.
  4. Interpretation Issues: Courts have grappled with interpreting certain provisions of the Act.
  5. Balancing Interests: Cases involving allegations of domestic violence or abuse require careful consideration.

Comparison with Other Laws:

  1. Hague Convention on Child Abduction: IPKCA provides criminal sanctions, while the Hague Convention focuses on civil remedies for child return.
  2. Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA): IPKCA addresses international cases, while UCCJEA primarily deals with interstate custody issues.
  3. Federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA): IPKCA focuses on international cases, whereas PKPA addresses interstate jurisdictional issues.

Impact on Specific Groups:

  1. Left-Behind Parents: Provides an additional legal recourse and potential leverage in seeking a child’s return.
  2. Domestic Violence Survivors: The Act’s affirmative defense provision acknowledges the complex dynamics in some abduction cases.
  3. International Families: Increases the legal risks associated with unilateral decisions to relocate children internationally.

Expert Opinions:

Professor Merle H. Weiner, an expert in international family law, notes: “While IPKCA has been a valuable tool in some cases, its effectiveness in actually securing the return of children has been limited. It’s most powerful as a deterrent.”

FBI Special Agent John Shipley, experienced in international parental kidnapping cases, comments: “IPKCA has given us important leverage in negotiating with foreign authorities, but successful prosecutions remain challenging, especially with non-extradition countries.”

Future Outlook:

  1. Enhanced International Cooperation: Efforts to strengthen bilateral agreements for enforcing IPKCA across borders.
  2. Technological Advancements: Improved use of technology in tracking and preventing international child abductions.
  3. Legislative Refinements: Potential amendments to address interpretational issues raised in court cases.
  4. Integration with Civil Proceedings: Developing better coordination between criminal proceedings under IPKCA and civil return proceedings.
  5. Prevention Initiatives: Increased focus on preventive measures and education to complement IPKCA’s punitive approach.

Practical Considerations for Legal Practitioners:

  1. Swift Action: Advise clients to report international abductions immediately to maximize the effectiveness of IPKCA.
  2. Coordinate Efforts: Work closely with federal authorities while pursuing civil remedies.
  3. International Awareness: Understand the interplay between IPKCA and international laws/treaties.
  4. Evidence Gathering: Assist in collecting evidence that demonstrates intent to obstruct parental rights.
  5. Client Counseling: Advise clients on both the potential and limitations of IPKCA in their cases.
  6. Prevention Strategies: Counsel clients on preventive measures in high-risk situations.

Conclusion:

The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 represents a significant step in the United States’ efforts to combat international parental child abduction. By criminalizing this act at the federal level, IPKCA provides a powerful tool for deterrence and prosecution, complementing existing civil and international mechanisms.

While the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act has faced challenges in enforcement and interpretation, particularly in cases involving non-extradition countries, it has undoubtedly raised the stakes for potential abductors and provided left-behind parents with additional recourse. The Act’s mere existence serves as a deterrent and a clear statement of the seriousness with which the United States views international parental kidnapping.

As globalization continues to increase the number of international families, the importance of IPKCA is likely to grow. Future developments in international cooperation, technology, and legal interpretation will shape its effectiveness. For legal practitioners, a thorough understanding of IPKCA, its interplay with civil remedies, and its practical applications is crucial in advising clients facing the complex and emotionally charged issue of international parental kidnapping.

Ultimately, while IPKCA is an important piece of legislation, it is most effective when used as part of a comprehensive approach that includes prevention, civil remedies, and international cooperation, all aimed at protecting the best interests of children caught in cross-border parental disputes.

Coverage Areas

Domestic
International

Office Locations

New York: (212) 203-8001 – 590 Madison Avenue, 21st Floor, New York, New York 10022

Brooklyn: (347) 983-5436 – 300 Cadman Plaza West, 12th Floor, Brooklyn, New York 11201

Queens: (646) 357-3005 – 118-35 Queens Blvd, Suite 400, Forest Hills, New York 11375

Long Island: (516) 208-4577 – 626 RXR Plaza, 6th Floor, Uniondale, New York 11556

Westchester: (914) 414-0877 – 50 Main Street, 10th Floor, White Plains, New York 10606

Connecticut: (203) 489-2940 – 500 West Putnam Avenue, Suite 400, Greenwich, Connecticut 06830

New Jersey: (201) 630-0114 - 101 Hudson Street, 21 Floor, Jersey City, New Jersey 07302

Washington DC: (202) 655-4450 - 601 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Suite 900, Washington DC 20004

For Assistance Serving Legal Papers

Simply pick up the phone and call Toll Free (800) 774-6922 or click the service you want to purchase. Our dedicated team of professionals is ready to assist you. We can handle all your process service needs; no job is too small or too large!

Contact us for more information about our process serving agency. We are ready to provide service of process to all of our clients globally from our offices in New York, Brooklyn, Queens, Long Island, Westchester, New Jersey, Connecticut, and Washington D.C.

“Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction, and skillful execution; it represents the wise choice of many alternatives”– Foster, William A