Commercial Aviation
Program Aimed at High-Risk Parent Abductors Could Aid in Preventing Abductions Gao ID: GAO-11-602 June 23, 2011Since 2000, the annual number of new international parental child abduction cases reported to the Department of State--many of which likely involved air travel--has nearly tripled. Such abductions occur when a parent, family member, or person acting on behalf thereof, takes a child to another country in violation of the custodial parent's or guardian's rights. Once a child is abducted, the laws, policies, and procedures of the foreign country determine the child's return. Thus, preventing such abductions can help keep parents and children from being separated for a long period or indefinitely. As requested, this report addresses (1) the policies and measures airlines, federal agencies, and others have to prevent international parental child abductions on airline flights and (2) options federal agencies, airlines, and others could consider for helping prevent such abductions on airline flights, as well as the advantages and limitations of those options. To perform this work, GAO reviewed applicable laws and policies, interviewed government officials, and surveyed airlines and nonprofit associations.
As private sector entities, airlines do not have the authority to verify or enforce court and custody orders in an effort to prevent international parental child abductions and thus, upon request, work in cooperation with law enforcement. The Department of State has measures such as a dual-signature passport requirement and a passport notification program that are focused on preventing abductions before abductors reach an airport. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has measures that are focused on prevention when abductors reach the airport, such as a Prevent Departure list which prevents non-U.S. citizens from departing on an international flight with a child of concern, if certain criteria are met. DHS also checks the National Crime Information Center Missing Persons File and has partnered with other agencies to distribute AMBER Alerts at airports if child abductions meet certain criteria. Two options--a parental-consent letter requirement and a high-risk abductor list--were cited by stakeholders (federal agency, airline, and nongovernmental organization officials) as having potential to prevent abductions, but consent letters may be impractical to adopt while a high-risk list may help prevent some abductions. A consent letter policy could require that children traveling alone, or without both parents, have a note of consent from the nonaccompanying parents authorizing the child to travel. Stakeholders GAO met with and surveyed noted that such consent letters may be effective in deterring some abductions, but the relative ease in forging a letter along with other significant issues indicate that such a requirement is not a practical option. A high-risk abductor list program could operate similarly to the Prevent Departure list program but would apply to U.S. citizens. While stakeholders pointed out certain limitations to such a high-risk abductor list--such as the relatively difficult and time-consuming steps needed to place a child and potential abductor on this list--such a list may be helpful in preventing abductions on airline flights. GAO recommends that DHS consider creating a program similar to the child abduction component of its Prevent Departure program that would apply to U.S. citizens. DHS concurred with the recommendation, but cited challenges toward implementing it, such as potential constitutional, operational, privacy, and resource issues.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Gerald L. Dillingham Team: Government Accountability Office: Physical Infrastructure Phone: (202) 512-4803GAO-11-602, Commercial Aviation: Program Aimed at High-Risk Parent Abductors Could Aid in Preventing Abductions
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-602
entitled 'Commercial Aviation: Program Aimed at High-Risk Parent
Abductors Could Aid in Preventing Abductions' which was released on
June 23, 2011.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility.
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features,
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters,
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
Report to Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, House of Representatives:
June 2011:
Commercial Aviation:
Program Aimed at High-Risk Parent Abductors Could Aid in Preventing
Abductions:
GAO-11-602:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-11-602, a report to Subcommittee on Aviation,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of
Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Since 2000, the annual number of new international parental child
abduction cases reported to the Department of State”many of which
likely involved air travel”has nearly tripled. Such abductions occur
when a parent, family member, or person acting on behalf thereof,
takes a child to another country in violation of the custodial parent‘
s or guardian‘s rights. Once a child is abducted, the laws, policies,
and procedures of the foreign country determine the child‘s return.
Thus, preventing such abductions can help keep parents and children
from being separated for a long period or indefinitely
As requested, this report addresses (1) the policies and measures
airlines, federal agencies, and others have to prevent international
parental child abductions on airline flights and (2) options federal
agencies, airlines, and others could consider for helping prevent such
abductions on airline flights, as well as the advantages and
limitations of those options. To perform this work, GAO reviewed
applicable laws and policies, interviewed government officials, and
surveyed airlines and nonprofit associations.
What GAO Found:
As private sector entities, airlines do not have the authority to
verify or enforce court and custody orders in an effort to prevent
international parental child abductions and thus, upon request, work
in cooperation with law enforcement. The Department of State has
measures such as a dual-signature passport requirement and a passport
notification program that are focused on preventing abductions before
abductors reach an airport. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
has measures that are focused on prevention when abductors reach the
airport, such as a Prevent Departure list which prevents non-U.S.
citizens from departing on an international flight with a child of
concern, if certain criteria are met. DHS also checks the National
Crime Information Center Missing Persons File and has partnered with
other agencies to distribute AMBER Alerts at airports if child
abductions meet certain criteria.
Figure: Federal Programs Aimed at Preventing International Parental
Child Abductions:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Outside of airport:
* State Department requires both parents‘ or guardians‘ consent prior
to the issuance of a child‘s passport.
* Parents can sign up for the State Department‘s Children‘s Passport
Issuance Alert Program.
* Parent can contact the State Department to place a suspected non-
U.S. citizen abductor on DHS‘ Prevent Departure list if certain
criteria are met.
At airport:
* DHS Prevent Departure list program to match non-U.S. citizen
abductors with an identified child.
In limited circumstances:
* DHS check of NCIC data on missing children against airlines‘
passenger list;
* AMBER Alert at airport, if abduction case meets criteria.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Two options-a parental-consent letter requirement and a high-risk
abductor list”-were cited by stakeholders (federal agency, airline,
and nongovernmental organization officials) as having potential to
prevent abductions, but consent letters may be impractical to adopt
while a high-risk list may help prevent some abductions. A consent
letter policy could require that children traveling alone, or without
both parents, have a note of consent from the nonaccompanying parents
authorizing the child to travel. Stakeholders GAO met with and
surveyed noted that such consent letters may be effective in deterring
some abductions, but the relative ease in forging a letter along with
other significant issues indicate that such a requirement is not a
practical option. A high-risk abductor list program could operate
similarly to the Prevent Departure list program but would apply to
U.S. citizens. While stakeholders pointed out certain limitations to
such a high-risk abductor list-”such as the relatively difficult and
time-consuming steps needed to place a child and potential abductor on
this list”-such a list may be helpful in preventing abductions on
airline flights.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO recommends that DHS consider creating a program similar to the
child abduction component of its Prevent Departure program that would
apply to U.S. citizens. DHS concurred with the recommendation, but
cited challenges toward implementing it, such as potential
constitutional, operational, privacy, and resource issues.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-602] or key
components. For more information, contact Gerald Dillingham at
dillinghamg@gao.gov or (202) 512-2834.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Background:
Airlines Do Not Have Authority to Adopt a Preventative Role; the State
Department and DHS Have Programs That Attempt to Prevent International
Parental Child Abductions:
Stakeholders Identified Two Additional Options--a Parental-Consent
Letter Requirement and a High-Risk Abductor List--That May Help
Prevent International Parental Child Abductions, but Cited Limitations:
Conclusions:
Recommendation for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Destination Countries Accounting for the Most International
Parental Child Abductions from the United States, Fiscal Years 2007-
2009:
Table 2: Airlines Responding to Survey:
Table 3: Nonprofit Nongovernmental Organizations Responding to Survey:
Figures:
Figure 1:International Parental Child Abduction Cases Reported to
State Department, Fiscal Years 2000-2009:
Figure 2: Nonborder Countries Children Were Abducted to Most, Fiscal
Years 2007-2009:
Figure 3: Federal Programs Aimed at Preventing Parental International
Child Abductions:
Abbreviations:
AMBER: America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
DOJ: Department of Justice:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
NCIC: National Crime Information Center:
NCMEC: National Center for Missing and Exploited Children:
TSA: Transportation Security Agency:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
June 23, 2011:
The Honorable Thomas E. Petri:
Chairman:
The Honorable Jerry F. Costello:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Aviation:
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure:
House of Representatives:
Since 2000, the annual number of new international child parental
abduction cases for which parents requested Department of State (State
Department) assistance has nearly tripled. Such abductions occur when
a parent, family member, or person acting on behalf of a parent or
family member takes a child to another country in violation of the
rights of the custodial parent or guardian.[Footnote 1] The State
Department reported that, from fiscal year 2007 through 2009, it
received 3,011 parental abduction requests for assistance in returning
4,365 children to the United States from other countries.[Footnote 2]
Although 36 percent of these children were abducted to a bordering
country, the nonborder countries with the most child abductions--the
United Kingdom, Germany, India, Japan, Brazil, and Australia--almost
all involve cross-oceanic travel and, therefore, likely involved the
parent and child leaving the United States aboard an airline flight.
Once a child is abducted from this country to another, the laws,
policies, and procedures of the foreign country determine whether and
how the child will be returned. Thus, prevention of international
parental child abductions, including through air travel, is critical
to ensure that parents are not separated from their children for a
long period or indefinitely. Preventing abductions involving airline
flights, however, can be difficult. Although the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS)--in collaboration with the airlines--screens
all travelers boarding international flights, the United States does
not generally exercise exit controls on its borders that would prevent
U.S. citizens holding a valid passport from leaving the country with a
child.[Footnote 3]
You requested that we study the prevention of international parental
child abductions involving airline flights. This report provides (1)
information on policies and measures airlines, federal agencies, and
other entities have in place to prevent international parental child
abductions involving airline flights and (2) options federal agencies,
airlines, nongovernmental organizations, and others could consider to
prevent international parental child abductions involving airline
flights, as well as the advantages and limitations of those options.
In determining policies and measures that are in place to prevent
these types of abductions, we examined relevant laws and regulations.
We met with officials from the DHS and the Departments of Justice
(DOJ), State, and Transportation (DOT), and seven nongovernmental
child advocacy organizations. During these meetings, we obtained and
analyzed information related to major policies and measures in place
to prevent such abductions. We also met with and obtained and analyzed
information provided by two airline associations to determine what
policies and measures airlines have in place to prevent international
parental child abductions. In addition, we received information from
eight cross-continental airlines regarding their policies and measures
to prevent international parental child abductions. Our focus was
primarily on abductions that occur when a parent, family member, or
person acting on behalf of the parent or family takes a child from the
United States, violating the rights of the parent left behind. In
determining additional options that federal agencies and others could
consider to prevent abductions involving airline flights, we developed
a list of hypothetical options from the federal agencies,
nongovernmental child advocacy organizations, and airline associations
mentioned above. We then designed and implemented a Web-based survey
of domestic and foreign airlines, as well as nongovernmental child
advocacy organizations to obtain their views regarding the
effectiveness, advantages, limitations and key issues of two specific
options for further preventing these types of abductions involving
airline flights. Of the 14 airlines in our sample, 6 domestic and 3
foreign airlines responded. We also used a survey to obtain views on
additional options for preventing abductions from five nongovernmental
child advocacy organizations, all of which responded to our survey. We
assessed the advantages, limitations, and key issues the airlines and
nongovernmental organizations identified for the two specific options
detailed later in our report to determine their practicality. For more
information on our scope and methodology, see appendix I.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2010 to June 2011,
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe
that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Background:
International parental child abductions reported to the State
Department have been increasing. The State Department reported that it
received 1,135 new requests for assistance in international parental
child abduction cases in fiscal year 2009, the most recent fiscal year
with comparable data. The annual number of new requests received has
increased each fiscal year since fiscal year 2000 (see figure 1).
Figure 1: International Parental Child Abduction Cases Reported to
State Department, Fiscal Years 2000-2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: line graph]
Fiscal year: 2000;
Cases: 405.
Fiscal year: 2001;
Cases: 541.
Fiscal year: 2002;
Cases: 542.
Fiscal year: 2003;
Cases: 592.
Fiscal year: 2004;
Cases: 607.
Fiscal year: 2005;
Cases: 626.
Fiscal year: 2006;
Cases: 642.
Fiscal year: 2007;
Cases: 794.
Fiscal year: 2008;
Cases: 1,082.
Fiscal year: 2009;
Cases: 1,135.
Source: GAO presentation of State Department data.
[End of figure]
According to literature we reviewed, such abductions can take an
emotional toll on children--who can encounter serious psychological
effects--and on the parent whose child has been abducted. Research
shows that recovered children often experience a range of problems,
including anxiety, eating problems, nightmares, mood swings, sleep
disturbances, and aggressive behavior. Parents whose children have
been abducted may encounter substantial psychological, emotional, and
financial problems in fighting for the return of their children. When
a child has been abducted across international borders, a parent may
face an unfamiliar legal system, as well as significant cultural
differences and linguistic barriers that can hinder a parent's
attempts to reunify with his or her child.
Although we could not find definitive data on the extent to which
parents and others have used airline flights to abduct children
abroad, many international parental child abductions most likely
involve airline flights. The State Department reported that, from
fiscal year 2007 through 2009, it received 3,011 requests for
assistance in returning 4,365 children to the United States from other
countries. About 30 percent of these children were abducted to Mexico,
while about 6 percent were abducted to Canada.[Footnote 4] The
remaining 64 percent were abducted to other countries that do not
share a border with the United States. The State Department and other
organizations told us that an airline flight was likely the primary
means of transportation for most abductions to these nonborder
countries.[Footnote 5] Of the six nonborder countries that had the
most child abductions, it is highly likely that an airline flight was
used in many of these abductions (see figure 2).
Figure 2: Nonborder Countries Children Were Abducted to Most, Fiscal
Years 2007-2009:
[Refer to PDF for image: world map]
Nonborder Countries Children Were Abducted to Most:
Australia;
Brazil;
Germany;
India;
Japan;
United Kingdom.
Sources: GAO and Map Resources (map).
[End of figure]
Child custody and abduction issues have historically been addressed at
the state and local level. State family courts determine child custody
status, including issuing custody and court orders that can limit the
travel of children. According to State Department officials, currently
there is no nationwide database that captures information from custody
and court orders. State and local law enforcement are generally tasked
with enforcing the provisions of these custody and court orders. When
a child is at risk of imminent abduction or harm, a judge may issue an
order and direct law enforcement to take physical custody of a child.
A court order can prohibit the removal of a child from the United
States and that can allow a parent or law enforcement official to
contact the airport authority police, who may assist in intercepting
the abductor. However, enforcement of such orders is difficult, in
part because of the lack of a nationwide database that maintains
custody orders, and because the United States does not generally
exercise exit controls on its borders that would prevent an adult U.S.
citizen holding a valid passport from leaving the country with his or
her child who also holds a valid passport. Generally, any citizen
holding a valid passport may leave or enter the United States freely.
According to a DOJ report on international child abductions, parents
who fear that their children may be abducted can request a court order
to have the other parent surrender his/her passport and the child's
passport to the court. Foreign governments, however, are not bound by
U.S. custody orders and may issue passports to children who are their
nationals.
The lack of exit controls makes timing crucial in preventing
international parental child abductions involving an airline flight.
If a child has a valid passport, preventing an abduction on an
international airline flight could be very difficult even if a parent
has obtained a custody order barring such travel because that parent
would not only need to involve law enforcement but do so with enough
time to intercept the abducting parent and the child before they board
an international flight. Once a parent reports a child as abducted,
rapid communication and coordination among law enforcement, airport,
and airline authorities are necessary to prevent a child from boarding
an international flight. What can often happen in these cases,
however, is that a parent does not know that another family member
plans to board the child on an international flight, and thus may not
contact law enforcement in time. For example, the American Bar
Association led a survey of 97 left-behind parents that found that
nearly half of the abductions reported by the left-behind parents
occurred during a legal visitation between the abducting parent and
abducted child.[Footnote 6] The left-behind parent was likely unaware
of the other parent's abduction intentions.
Airlines Do Not Have Authority to Adopt a Preventative Role; the State
Department and DHS Have Programs That Attempt to Prevent International
Parental Child Abductions:
Airlines Do Not Have the Authority to Enforce Court and Custody Orders
but Have Policies and Procedures for Boarding Children Traveling Alone:
As private sector entities, airlines in the United States do not have
the authority to verify or enforce court and custody orders.
Stakeholders we interviewed stated that the airline's main role
related to the prevention of international parental child abductions
is cooperating upon request with law enforcement officials or
prosecutors. For example, a few alleged abductions in progress have
been intercepted when local court officials or law enforcement
officers contacted airport police and airline personnel to prevent a
suspected abducting parent and at-risk child from leaving on an
international airline flight. Several airline stakeholders told us
that law enforcement should take the main role in preventing
international parental abductions, but that airlines work to support
the law enforcement agencies in this role.
While airlines may not be in a position to question the
appropriateness of a child and adult traveling together, airlines have
procedures in place for children traveling alone internationally or
domestically. Although policies and procedures can vary by airline,
most domestic airlines will permit children who have reached their
fifth birthday to travel unaccompanied. Children aged 5 through 11 who
are flying alone must usually travel pursuant to special
"unaccompanied minor" procedures, which involve an additional fee. On
many domestic carriers, children aged 5 through 7 may only fly
unaccompanied on nonstop and through flights; children 8 and over may
take connecting flights unaccompanied. As a common procedure for
unaccompanied minors, airlines require the names and contact numbers
of the persons dropping the child off and picking the child up. The
person picking up the child may be asked to show his or her
identification. However, because airlines do not have authority to
verify court or custody orders, the unaccompanied minor procedures
would not include checking the parentage or legal guardianship status
of any of those persons dropping off or picking up children traveling
unaccompanied. Once a child has reached the age of 12 (or 15 on some
airlines), most domestic carriers do not apply "unaccompanied minor"
procedures or seek parental permission for the child to travel.
Airlines may apply some additional procedures for unaccompanied minors
traveling internationally; for example, some airlines automatically
apply the unaccompanied minor procedures to children through age 17
for international travel.
For certain international destinations, airlines can request that
children traveling with only one parent have a letter of consent from
the nonaccompanying parent to help passengers meet the entry
requirements of the country of destination. For example, according to
the State Department, Mexico and Chile require that children entering
or departing those countries by airline flight without both parents
have such a letter of consent. As such, the airlines in our study
reported instructing passengers to be ready with such documentation if
traveling with children to countries that may have such requirements.
Representatives of the Air Transport Association told us that any
airline flying to these countries may be forced to provide the
passengers with a free trip back to the United States for accepting
children onto their flight without having documentation showing that
both parents or guardians consented to the international travel. We
discuss this parental-consent letter requirement in more detail later
in our report.
The State Department Has Measures Related to the Issuance of
Children's Passports, while DHS Has Measures to Intercept an Abductor
at the Airport:
The State Department has preventative measures that are focused
outside of the airport environment, before a suspected abductor
reaches an airport with a child, while DHS's measures focus on
preventing child abductions once an abductor reaches an airport with a
child. Figure 3 illustrates these measures, which are described in
greater detail in the next section.
Figure 3: Federal Programs Aimed at Preventing Parental International
Child Abductions:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Outside of airport:
* State Department requires both parents‘ or guardians‘ consent prior
to the issuance of a child‘s passport.
* Parents can sign up for the State Department‘s Children‘s Passport
Issuance Alert Program.
* Parent can contact the State Department to place a suspected non-
U.S. citizen abductor on DHS‘ Prevent Departure list if certain
criteria are met.
At airport:
* DHS Prevent Departure list program to match non-U.S. citizen
abductors with an identified child.
In limited circumstances:
* DHS check of NCIC data on missing children against airlines‘
passenger list;
* AMBER Alert at airport, if abduction case meets criteria.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
The State Department has a signature requirement and a passport
issuance alert program in place to directly address international
parental child abductions. A law passed in 1999 requires both parents
to execute and provide documentary evidence of custodial rights on any
application for a passport for a minor.[Footnote 7] If this cannot be
done, a parent can take certain steps, in accordance with the law, to
execute the passport application, such as by providing documentary
evidence that he or she has sole custody of the child, has the
documented consent of the other parent to the issuance of the
passport, or is acting in place of the parents and has the documented
consent of both parents.
The State Department also administers the Children's Passport Issuance
Alert Program, a service through which a parent can request State
Department notification if a passport application is submitted for his
or her child of less than 18 years of age. State Department officials
told us that if a passport application is received for a child listed
in the alert program, State Department officials would contact the
parent who requested the alert notice to see if the parent's concern
still exists before determining whether to issue the passport.
[Footnote 8] The issuance alert program enhances prevention
opportunities since there are exceptions to the two-parent signature
requirement. State Department officials told us that about 42,000
children are currently registered in the program and that the
program's database includes information such as name, date, and place
of birth for each child. Before adding a child to this alert system
and adding the parent as the person to alert, State Department
officials verify the relationship between the parent and the child
through documentation such as the birth certificate, custody orders,
and other identifying documentation. State Department officials noted
that, even if a parent requesting an issuance alert loses custody of
the child after the child has been entered into the alert system, the
State Department would still notify a parent if the other parent or
another person applies for that child's passport. According to the
State Department, in some instances, enrollment in the issuance alert
program has succeeded in locating children whose whereabouts were
unknown before the new passport application was submitted, which
thereby allowed the State Department to assist the left-behind parent
in seeking the child's return.
However, the signature requirement and passport issuance alert
programs have the following limitations:
* Once it issues a passport to a child, the State Department may not
revoke that passport except in limited situations.[Footnote 9] Thus,
some children may have been lawfully issued passports before a
possible international abduction situation arose.
* The State Department does not have a way to track the use of a
passport once it has been issued since the United States does not
generally exercise exit controls for citizens leaving the country.
* Parents with citizenships from other countries can obtain a foreign-
issued passport for their child, which can circumvent State
Department's signature requirement and the passport issuance alert
program.
While the State Department's efforts are focused on passport issuance,
DHS administers a child abduction component of its broader Prevent
Departure program, designed to keep non-U.S. citizens identified as
potential abductors from leaving the country with a child at risk for
abduction. DHS's broader Prevent Departure program is aimed at
preventing the departure of non-U.S. citizens whose departure could be
harmful to the security of the United States. Such persons could
include, for example, suspected fugitives fleeing prosecution for
felony crimes. The Prevent Departure program originated from the
Immigration and Nationality Act, which authorized departure control
officers to prevent non-U.S. citizens' departure from the United
States under certain specified circumstances.[Footnote 10]
Specifically, DHS implementing regulations do not permit such
departure if the departure would be prejudicial to the interests of
the United States, as enumerated in regulation.[Footnote 11] DHS
established a parental child abduction component of the Prevent
Departure program in 2003.[Footnote 12] DHS officials have interpreted
international parental abductions by non-U.S. citizens to be
prejudicial to national interests, thus falling under its Prevent
Departure program authority.
DHS policy stipulates that only law enforcement officers and specified
State Department officials can request an alert for a non-U.S. citizen
potential abductor traveling with an identified at-risk child under
this program. Although parents cannot contact DHS directly, parents,
family members, prosecutors, and others concerned about a forthcoming
abduction could contact the State Department's Office of Children's
Issues to add names to the list. In addition, DHS requires law
enforcement officers and State Department officials to provide court
orders specifying that a child, regardless of age, is banned from
traveling internationally with a non-U.S. citizen parent or person
acting on behalf of the parent. If State Department officials
determined that a case meets all the criteria for inclusion on the
list, the agency would pass this information to DHS officials who
would then place a potential abductor on the list. DHS officials told
us that, once a potential abductor is on the list, an accompanying
note is made identifying the at-risk child who is not to travel
internationally with the potential abductor. Subsequently, if a person
on the list is identified as attempting to board an international
flight with an identified child, the airlines and DHS collaborate with
law enforcement to prevent the boarding of the non-U.S. citizen with
the child.
DHS officials told us that this measure is an effective tool at
preventing some cases of international parental child abductions.
Prevent Departure is the only program we identified that has the
potential to prevent international child abductions at the airport
when it is not known that an abduction is in progress, but the
potential abduction risk and the potential abductor have been
identified. However, the usefulness of this program is limited because
it only applies to non-U.S. citizens.
DHS also checks the Federal Bureau of Investigation's National Crime
Information Center (NCIC) Missing Persons File routinely for travelers
leaving the United States, which, in very limited circumstances, may
result in intercepting a child before an international flight departs.
[Footnote 13] For passengers traveling internationally on a commercial
flight, airlines are required to provide passenger manifest data
(generally, information listed on government-issued passports)
obtained at check-in from all passengers to DHS's Customs and Border
Protection no later than 30 minutes prior to the securing of the
aircraft doors, or transmit manifest information on an individual
basis as each passenger checks in for the flight up to but no later
than the securing of the aircraft.[Footnote 14] DHS officials told us
that they have automated systems to check this passenger manifest data
against the NCIC Missing Persons File and, that if a match is made,
DHS officials contact the law enforcement officials who originally
entered the case into the missing persons file to determine what
action to take. Actions could include collaborating with law
enforcement and airlines to, among other things, prevent the child
from departing on an international flight.
According to DHS officials, however, even if there were a match
between passenger manifest data and the missing person's file, they
still may not be able to prevent an international parental child
abduction on an airline; DHS officials can receive passenger manifest
data as late as 30 minutes before securing an aircraft, making it
difficult to coordinate with law enforcement, airport, and airline
officials in enough time to prevent the abducted child from departing
on an international flight. Furthermore, names might not be entered
into the database in time for a match to be made. To include an
abducted child in this database, a parent would need to contact a
local or state law enforcement agency and file a missing person's
report. In addition, local law enforcement officers may not enter
reported parental abduction cases into the NCIC database because they
may not view them as qualifying; they may view them as private family
disputes instead of criminal matters. DHS could only confirm two cases
in which it identified a match using this system, and an official who
administers the matching stated that she did not know if the two
matched cases resulted in preventing the child from boarding an
international flight.
Other federal agencies also have efforts in place that may indirectly
support the prevention of international parental child abductions
involving airline flights. DOJ, in particular, has educational efforts
and the AMBER Alert (America's Missing: Broadcast Emergency Response)
program that may help to prevent abductions. DOJ's Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention develops educational materials and
training programs aimed at increasing the awareness among parents, the
law enforcement community, and others about the issue of international
parental abductions. For example, A Family Resource Guide to
International Parental Kidnapping is an educational guide for parents,
intended to provide them with information on how to better prevent
these abductions or stop them while in-progress, among other things.
[Footnote 15] DOJ also provides training to more than 4,500 local law
enforcement officers each year about how to respond to cases of
missing children, including parental abduction cases.
In addition, since 2007, the Transportation Security Agency (TSA)
within DHS has partnered with the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children (NCMEC)[Footnote 16] and other agencies to
distribute AMBER Alerts at airports across the country to help prevent
child abductions involving airline flights. AMBER Alert programs are
voluntary partnerships between law enforcement agencies, broadcasters,
and transportation agencies to use the Emergency Alert System[Footnote
17] to air a description of an abducted child and the person suspected
of abducting the child to assist in the search for and safe recovery
of the child. Since the first local AMBER Alert program was launched
in Texas in 1996, similar programs have been implemented at state and
local levels across the United States creating a nationwide alert
network that has successfully led to the recovery of over 500
children.[Footnote 18] However, because a main criterion for
disseminating an AMBER Alert is that law enforcement officials must
believe the abducted child is in imminent danger of serious bodily
injury or death, many international parental child abductions may not
be entered into the AMBER Alert system since physically harming a
child is usually not the abducting parent's intent. According to DOJ,
in many parental abduction cases, the abducting parent's goal is to
permanently alter custodial access by taking the child across state or
international borders.
Nongovernmental organizations also indirectly support the prevention
of international parental child abductions, often in collaboration
with local, state, and federal agencies. For example, NCMEC offers a
variety of services that aid in national and international searches
for missing children, including a toll-free hotline; photograph and
poster distribution; technical case analysis and assistance; recovery
assistance; training and coursework for investigators; and legal
strategies, among other services which indirectly support the
prevention of abductions involving airline flights. In addition, the
Association of Missing and Exploited Children's Organizations, Inc.,
has a "sub-AMBER alert" program that allows local law enforcement
officers to contact businesses in airport terminals to notify them to
look out for a child believed to be abducted and possibly at their
airport so that staff can contact local law enforcement officers or
airport police to halt the abduction.
Even with these efforts in place, preventing international child
abductions can be very difficult and depends on a number of factors,
including the parent's knowledge of the abduction risk and the
existence of clear custody status for the child. While prevention
efforts available to parents, such as contacting the State Department
to request a passport alert for a child, generally require that the
parent has some knowledge beforehand of the risk that an abduction
might occur, abductions often occur when the parent has no such
knowledge. In general, prevention efforts also require clear child
custody status. For example, in order for a parent to add a child and
suspected abductor to DHS' Prevent Departure list, the requesting
parent must demonstrate that he or she has parental or custodial
rights to the child and that there is a court order barring the child
from traveling internationally with the suspected abductor. However,
custody laws vary by state, and many parents may not have such clear
custody documentation available. For example, according to DOJ, many
unmarried parents may not be aware that they would need to pursue
court procedures to obtain a custody order for their child. Such
documentation is often essential for a parent who wishes to
demonstrate custodial rights in any context when no court order exists
because states vary widely in their statutory presumptions regarding
the child custody rights of unmarried parents. In addition, according
to DOJ, many parents in these situations cannot afford to hire
attorneys to obtain the necessary documentation of custody. In cases
where the parent is unaware of the abduction risk, and where there is
no documentation of the child's custody status, preventing such
abductions is extremely difficult.
Stakeholders Identified Two Additional Options--a Parental-Consent
Letter Requirement and a High-Risk Abductor List--That May Help
Prevent International Parental Child Abductions, but Cited Limitations:
Federal Agency Officials, Nongovernmental Organizations, and Others
Identified Two Potential Options: a Parental-Consent Letter
Requirement and a High-Risk Abductor List:
Concerns about increasing cases of international parental child
abductions have led federal agency officials, nongovernmental
organizations, and others to suggest a number of potential options
aimed at preventing such abductions. Based on input from various
stakeholders, we identified two options that directly address the
issue of international parental child abductions involving airline
flights: a parental-consent letter requirement and a high-risk
abductor list of adults. We further explored these options with
airlines, federal agencies, and nongovernmental organizations to
understand their views on the potential effectiveness of these options
and to identify advantages and limitations of these options.
A parental-consent letter requirement could specify that children
traveling alone or without both parents on international flights be
required to have a note of consent from the nonaccompanying parent(s)
authorizing the child to travel. DHS recommends, but does not require,
parents to travel with such documentation. As previously mentioned,
certain foreign countries have similar parental consent letter
requirements in place. Under such a consent requirement option (and
pending the grant of authority), airline or security staff, such as
TSA employees, could check that all children traveling internationally
have such parental-consent letters as a condition to boarding an
international flight.
A program to identify adults at high risk for committing child
abductions could operate similarly to DHS's Prevent Departure program
but would apply to U.S. citizens--such a program may require
additional statutory authority. DHS could provide a list of children
at high risk for abduction, and family members identified as potential
abductors, to the airlines, who would then prevent those placed on the
list from boarding international flights if traveling together. DHS
would only add names of potential abductors and children at risk to
this list if the request came from designated law enforcement officers
or federal officials, but not from the parents. Similar to Prevent
Departure, DHS could require law enforcement officers and State
Department officials to provide court orders specifying that a child,
regardless of age, is banned from traveling internationally with a
U.S. citizen parent or someone acting on behalf of the parent.
Stakeholder Views Indicate That Consent Letters May be Impractical,
while a High-Risk Abductor List May Help Prevent Some Abductions:
Parental Consent Letters Appear Impractical:
Federal agency, airline, and nongovernmental organization stakeholders
reported that the presence of some type of parental-consent letter
requirement may be effective in deterring some parents from attempting
to abduct their children abroad. One nongovernmental organization
official noted that, this requirement may deter a parent from
attempting an abduction, since the parent would have to take this
parental consent requirement into consideration before going to the
airport thus deterring abductions that might occur without advance
planning.
However, these stakeholders also identified a limitation that may
compromise the effectiveness of such a consent requirement: most
stakeholders pointed out that it would be very easy to produce
fraudulent consent letters. Of the eight airlines we surveyed on the
two options, half reported that this measure would not be effective.
Several stakeholders noted that a parental-consent requirement could
be more effective if parents were required to have the letters
notarized. Even with a notarization requirement, however, the majority
of stakeholders we met with told us that parents who want to abduct
their children abroad could still try to forge the consent letter
documents, and airline or TSA staff may have difficulty verifying the
authenticity of such letters, if they had the authority to do so.
Airline officials told us that their staff does not have the training
or authority to verify the authenticity of such documentation. DOT
officials added that, if a consent document were required on all
children traveling internationally, airline employees would not be
able to call the parent not traveling to verify and confirm the
parent's consent, given the sheer volume of children traveling. As a
result, another organization may need to provide airline and security
staff with assurance of the authenticity of these consent letters. An
official at Child Find of America stated that the consent letters
would only be successful if the letters came with an additional
requirement for parents to submit the letters to a federal authority
in advance to verify the authenticity of the letters. She added,
however, that this additional verification step would be very
burdensome for parents and the federal agency tasked with the
verification responsibility.
Stakeholders also cited the following three key issues to consider
before implementing such a requirement:
* Parental-consent letters could place a major burden not only on
parents--particularly single parents--but on all airline travelers.
Several stakeholders said that single and divorced parents would have
to take burdensome additional steps to contact the other parent and
obtain their permission for the international travel. This requirement
could be particularly difficult for a single parent traveling
legitimately with a child if that single parent faced an uncooperative
ex-spouse or if the parent had to provide documentation such as
custody papers. This requirement could impact and burden parents and
children traveling when there is very little risk of an abduction
situation. A State Department official noted that a separate line may
be needed at the airport for children traveling internationally if a
parental-consent letter requirement were in place, so as to not delay
other travelers. Similarly, NCMEC officials told us in the current
airport configuration--where travelers with domestic and international
destinations enter the same security screening lines--checks to verify
parental consent that occur during security screening would be quite
burdensome for all travelers due to the extra time needed to make such
verifications.
* A parental-consent requirement could significantly increase an
airline's liability. For example, a domestic airline official told us
that, if a family member were to forge such a note and abduct a child
to another country, the left-behind parent could file a lawsuit
against the airline for failing to prevent the abduction. An
International Air Transport Association official added that airlines
do not keep copies of documents presented at check-in, so it could be
difficult for an airline to defend against such a lawsuit. He added
that carriers do not capture and hold copies of passengers' documents
following check-in because this could, among other things, violate
national personal data protection or data privacy laws.
* Airlines may face financial losses depending on whether airlines
would have to deny boarding to passengers not having the required
parental consent letter. For example, a domestic airline official told
us that this requirement could impact the airlines financially if
airlines were required to deny boarding, and potentially refund
travelers, for lacking the required parental consent letter. Four of
the seven domestic airlines that responded to our survey offer refunds
to passengers they refuse to transport due to a lack of
identification. Consequently, these airlines may be financially liable
for denying boarding to those that do not have the required consent
letters.
In addition, neither the airlines nor DHS currently have the authority
to implement a parental-consent letter requirement and would thus need
to seek authority and necessary resources before such a requirement
could take effect.
High-Risk Abductor List May Help Prevent Abductions:
A high-risk abductor list may be helpful in preventing international
parental child abductions involving airline flights in cases where a
U.S. citizen has been identified as a high risk for attempting an
abduction. Stakeholders, however, pointed out that the relatively
difficult and time-consuming steps needed to place a child and
potential abductor on this list may limit its effectiveness. A
majority of the airline stakeholders surveyed on the options added
that such a list would only be effective if incorporated into the
security screening processes already in use and would not be effective
if the airlines were charged with managing this list. In addition, DHS
will not be able to establish such a high-risk abductor list without
statutory authority and potentially additional financial resources.
Stakeholders who viewed this list as effective emphasized that it
would be helpful in keeping family members already identified as high
risk for abducting a child from boarding an international flight with
the child of concern. The results of the aforementioned American Bar
Association survey of 97 left-behind parents suggested that at least
some of the parents were aware of the abduction risk before the
abduction occurred; 51 percent of the surveyed parents reported that
they had taken measures to prevent the abduction beforehand, such as
seeking supervised visitation arrangements, custody orders prohibiting
removal of the child from the jurisdiction, and passport denial or
restrictions.[Footnote 19] As previously discussed, DHS officials told
us that their Prevent Departure list--which requires a custody or
court order specifically banning the child in question from traveling
internationally with a specified parent or someone acting on behalf of
the parent--is quite effective at preventing abductions involving non-
U.S. citizen abductors. Officials at the State Department added that a
similar list for U.S. citizens would be very effective in cases where
there was already a custody or court order preventing the child from
traveling abroad with the specified parent. Some nongovernmental
organization stakeholders reflected similar views. For example, an
official at Child Find of America noted that a list would be helpful
in cases where an abduction attempt is anticipated.
Several stakeholders cited the relatively difficult, time-consuming
steps needed to place a child and potential abductor on a high-risk
abductor list as a factor limiting its effectiveness. Parents would
need to obtain a custody or court order banning the child from
traveling internationally with the suspected adult to provide
assurance that their request to include a child on the list stems from
authentic abduction concerns rather than other conflicts between
parents, but they may face difficulty in having a judge issue such a
ban. DHS officials told us that many judges who deal with custody
issues simply are not aware of the risk for international parental
child abductions and thus may fail to issue a court order banning such
travel. Officials at the State Department added that some judges are
not adequately trained to issue court or custody orders that ban
international travel in cases where abduction is a real concern.
Obtaining such a custody order may require a parent to obtain support
from local law enforcement to prove that a suspected abductor has
previously attempted to abduct the child or has refused to follow a
child custody determination, among other things. Stakeholders
emphasized, however, that local law enforcement may view such custody
disputes as a private matter and would thus be reluctant to get
involved. In addition, the steps needed to put a potential abductor on
such a list may not occur swiftly enough to prevent an anticipated
abduction. Three nongovernmental organization stakeholders told us
that an abduction could occur before a parent succeeds in involving
law enforcement, courts, and others and then taking the needed steps
to put the abductor on the high-risk list.
Six of the eight airline stakeholders we surveyed about the options
reported that a high-risk abductor list would only be effective if the
list was incorporated into current security screening processes
already in use, such as Secure Flight; the Prevent Departure list is
not part of Secure Flight.[Footnote 20] A few airline stakeholders
added that any other administration of the list would burden them with
creating new systems for administering such a list. Officials at two
airlines told us that a high-risk abductor list would benefit from
additional information beyond just names, such as biometric
information, to ensure that the correct travelers are identified. An
official at a foreign airline added that his airline would have to
develop a customized program to input such biometric information,
which would be costly. DHS's Prevent Departure list is not
incorporated into Secure Flight, however, indicating that airlines may
not need to develop a customized program to administer a high-risk
abductor list. Thus, a high-risk abductor list similar to Prevent
Departure may not significantly burden airlines.
As a final barrier, DHS may need additional statutory authority and
potentially additional financial resources to implement a high-risk
abductor list for U.S. citizens. As previously discussed, the
Immigration and Nationality Act provided departure control officers
with the statutory authority necessary to prevent non-U.S. citizens
from departing the country through the Prevent Departure program. This
authority is insufficient to establish and administer such a list for
U.S. citizens. Consequently, DHS would need to explore other current
existing statutory authority or seek new authority to administer a
program similar to the Prevent Departure program that would apply to
U.S. citizens. In addition, DHS and the State Department may need
additional financial resources to hire additional staff to handle
incoming requests and collaborate with airlines to prevent boarding.
These departments' potential success in obtaining additional resources
is unclear.
Conclusions:
Although it is very difficult to prevent an international parental
child abduction, and we found that the options for doing so are
limited, DHS may have the potential to better prevent high-risk
abductors--as identified through court and custody orders--from taking
children out of the country. DHS already has a program it finds to be
effective at preventing non-U.S. citizens identified as high risk from
undertaking international parental child abductions. Thus, a similar
program designed to prevent U.S. citizens identified as high risk for
undertaking these abductions from departing on an international flight
with an identified child could be appropriate. While such a program
will not prevent all international parental child abductions on
airline flights, it may help in developing a comprehensive approach to
keep people identified as high risk for attempting such abductions
from succeeding. Where options for directly preventing international
parental child abductions on airline flights are limited, such an
improvement may be a step forward.
Recommendation for Executive Action:
To further help prevent international parental child abductions
involving airline flights, particularly for persons identified as high
risk for attempting such abductions, we recommend that the Secretary
of Homeland Security consider creating a program similar to the child
abduction component of the Prevent Departure program that would apply
to U.S. citizens.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Departments of Homeland
Security, Justice, State, and Transportation for review and comment.
The Departments of Justice and State had no comments. The Department
of Transportation provided technical clarifications, which we
incorporated into the report as appropriate. The Department of
Homeland Security provided written comments, which are reproduced in
appendix II. DHS concurred with our recommendation and agreed with our
conclusions. However, while stating its commitment to working with the
Department of State and other stakeholders to better prevent these
abductions, DHS also discussed challenges, including "potential
constitutional, operational, privacy, and resource issues," to viably
implementing a high-risk abductor list for U.S. citizens.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees and the Secretaries of Homeland Security, Justice, State,
and Transportation. The report is also available at no charge on the
GAO Web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report,
please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov. Contact
points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs
may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major
contributions to this report are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.
Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
In response to your request, this report provides (1) information on
policies and measures airlines, federal agencies, and other entities
have to prevent international parental child abductions involving
airline flights and (2) options federal agencies, nongovernmental
organizations, airlines, and others could consider to prevent
international parental child abductions involving airline flights, as
well as the advantages and limitations of those options.
In determining policies and efforts federal agencies, airlines, and
others have to prevent international parental child abductions, we
examined relevant laws and regulations and met with and obtained and
analyzed information provided by the federal agencies (Departments of
Homeland Security, Justice, State, and Transportation) and seven child
advocacy associations. During these meetings, we obtained and analyzed
information related to major policies and measures taken to prevent
international parental child abductions. We also met with, and
obtained and analyzed information provided by, two airline
associations to determine what policies and measures airlines had in
place to prevent international parental child abductions. In addition,
we surveyed eight airlines regarding their policies and measures to
prevent international parental child abductions. See our discussion
later for more detail regarding the eight airline companies we
surveyed. Our focus was primarily on international parental child
abductions that occur when a parent, family member, or person acting
on behalf of the parent or family takes a child from the country
violating the rights of the custodial parent or guardian left behind.
In determining options federal agencies and others could consider to
prevent international parental child abductions on airline flights
including advantages and limitations of these options, we obtained a
list of hypothetical options for preventing international parental
child abductions on airline flights from federal agencies, child
advocacy associations, and airline associations mentioned above. From
the list of all hypothetical options, we identified two that directly
addressed international parental child abductions on airline flights.
We then designed and administered a Web-based survey of domestic and
foreign airlines and interviewed nongovernmental organizations
representing child advocacy associations on their views regarding the
effectiveness, key issues, advantages, and limitations of the two
measures that directly address preventing international parental child
abductions on airline flights. A large number of the questions on the
survey were closed-ended, meaning that respondents were provided with
a list of possible responses. Most of the questions, however, were
open-ended, meaning that respondents were provided with space to
explain or elaborate on their answers. In developing the
questionnaires, we took steps to ensure the accuracy and reliability
of the responses. To ensure that the questions were clear,
comprehensive, and unbiased, and to minimize the burden on
respondents, we sought input on our question set from the Air
Transport Association and officials from a domestic airline, as well
as internal GAO stakeholders, including methodological specialists.
In determining which airlines to survey, we initially selected all
eight major domestic airlines that travel internationally. We also
selected seven flag carriers (airlines registered under the laws of
countries whose respective governments give them partial or total
monopoly over international routes) representing countries from which
parents requested State Department assistance in recovering children
to which about 50 percent of children abducted from the United States
from fiscal years 2007 through 2009 were taken.[Footnote 21] These
countries include Mexico, Canada, United Kingdom, Germany, India,
Japan, and Nigeria. See table 1 for a listing of the destination
countries that accounted for the most international parental child
abductions from the United States. We learned that the United States
had only recently allowed Nigerian airlines to conduct operations in
the United States and consequently eliminated that airline from our
sample. The eight domestic airlines we contacted accounted for 64
million of the 83 million (77 percent) international passengers flying
on U.S. airlines in 2009. Of the eight domestic airlines we contacted,
six responded to our survey, and another domestic airline (United)
completed less than half. These six airlines accounted for 42 million
(51 percent) of the 83 million international passengers flying on U.S.
airlines in 2009. Of the six foreign airlines remaining in our sample,
two completed the entire questionnaire--representing the countries
that had the second and sixth most children abducted from the United
States between fiscal years 2007 and 2009--and another foreign airline
(Aero Mexico) completed less than half--representing the country that
had the most children abducted from the United States from fiscal year
2007 through 2009. Because only two foreign carriers provided us with
usable information, our data are not reflective of the views of most
foreign carriers representing countries outside the continent of North
America, including Europe and Africa. The airlines who fully responded
to our survey are listed in table 2.
We also obtained views on additional measures for preventing
international parental child abductions from five nongovernmental
child advocacy organizations. From the seven nongovernmental child
advocacy organizations we initially met with or gained preliminary
information from, we surveyed (through interviews) the five that had
nonprofit status according to Internal Revenue Service information,
four of whom fully responded to our survey, while another (the
Association of Missing and Exploited Children's Organizations)
provided responses from their membership on the high-risk abductor
list option. The nongovernmental child advocacy organizations who
fully responded to our survey are listed in table 3. We analyzed
airline and nongovernmental child advocacy organization responses to
assess the advantages, limitations, and key issues the airlines and
nongovernmental organizations identified for the two main options to
determine their practicality.
Table 1: Destination Countries Accounting for the Most International
Parental Child Abductions from the United States, Fiscal Years 2007-
2009:
Country: Mexico;
Abductions in fiscal year 2007: 474;
Abductions in fiscal year 2008: 533;
Abductions in fiscal year 2009: 320;
Total: 1,327.
Country: Canada;
Abductions in fiscal year 2007: 104;
Abductions in fiscal year 2008: 83;
Abductions in fiscal year 2009: 56;
Total: 243.
Country: United Kingdom;
Abductions in fiscal year 2007: 71;
Abductions in fiscal year 2008: 53;
Abductions in fiscal year 2009: 63;
Total: 187.
Country: Germany;
Abductions in fiscal year 2007: 71;
Abductions in fiscal year 2008: 49;
Abductions in fiscal year 2009: 31;
Total: 151.
Country: India;
Abductions in fiscal year 2007: 41;
Abductions in fiscal year 2008: 45;
Abductions in fiscal year 2009: 32;
Total: 118.
Country: Japan;
Abductions in fiscal year 2007: 34;
Abductions in fiscal year 2008: 57;
Abductions in fiscal year 2009: 21;
Total: 112.
Country: Brazil;
Abductions in fiscal year 2007: 31;
Abductions in fiscal year 2008: 25;
Abductions in fiscal year 2009: 31;
Total: 87.
Source: GAO analysis of State Department data.
Note: The actual number of cases may be greater because some parents
never report the abductions to the State Department but instead pursue
a remedy directly with foreign authorities.
[End of table]
Table 2: Airlines Responding to Survey:
Domestic airlines:
Alaska:
American:
Delta:
Republic:
Jet Blue:
US Airways:
Foreign airlines:
Air Canada:
Japan Airlines:
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
Table 3: Nonprofit Nongovernmental Organizations Responding to Survey:
Child Find of America:
International Social Service:
National Center for Missing and Exploited Children:
Parents and Abducted Children Together:
Source: GAO.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
June 20, 2011:
Gerald Dillingham:
Director, Physical Infrastructure:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Re: Draft Report GAO 11-602, "Commercial Aviation: Program Aimed at
High-Risk Parent Abductors Could Aid in Preventing Abductions"
Dear Mr. Dillingham:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft
report. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the
U.S. Government Accountability Office's (GAO's) work in planning and
conducting its review and issuing this report.
The Department is pleased to note the report's positive acknowledgment
of DHS efforts to prevent international child abductions involving non-
U.S. citizen abductors and air travel. The report also recognizes that
DHS may need additional legal and budget authority to pursue similar
efforts involving potential U.S. citizen abductors. To further help
prevent international parental child abductions involving airline
flights, particularly for persons identified as high-risk for
attempting such abductions, GAO recommended that the Secretary of
Homeland Security:
Recommendation: Consider creating a program similar to the child
abduction component of the Prevent Departure program that would apply
to U.S. citizens.
Response: Concur. DHS strongly agrees that preventing international
child abductions is a very important issue. The Department also agrees
that expanding its current efforts along these lines to include pre-
departure flight screening for potential U.S. citizen abductors could
be helpful in preventing some abductions. However, a number of
challenges exist to viably implementing a high-risk abductor list for
U.S. citizens. These include potential constitutional, operational,
privacy, and resource issues, among others. DHS remains committed to
continuing its work with the U.S. State Department, the airlines, and
other stakeholders to better prevent these abductions. DHS will consider
options to expand its efforts, as reasonably appropriate.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
draft report. We look forward to working with you on future Homeland
Security issues.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jim H. Crumpacker:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D., (202) 512-2834, or dillinghamg@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the individual named above, Maria Edelstein (Assistant
Director), Samer Abbas, Jessica Bryant-Bertail, Lauren Calhoun, Pamela
Davidson, and Amy Rosewarne made key contributions to this report.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Although the State Department defines international parental child
abductions as those in which the abductor is a family member or a
person working on behalf of a family member, federal law makes it a
felony for any person to remove, or attempt to remove, a child under
16 from the United States, or to retain a child (who has been in the
United States) outside of the United States, with the intent to
obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights. 18 U.S.C. § 1204(a).
Thus, the federal law also makes child abductions by strangers a
felony; however, those abductions are outside the scope of this
report. Parental rights are defined as the right to physical custody
of the child, whether the right is joint or sole (and includes
visitation rights), and whether the right arises by operation of law,
court order, or legally binding agreement of the parties. 18 U.S.C. §
1204(b)(2). Future citations of "parental rights" in this report
include those of the parents and legal guardians.
[2] The actual number of cases may be greater because some parents
never report the abductions to the State Department but instead pursue
a remedy directly with foreign authorities.
[3] Exit control procedures can vary by country but generally include
checking the traveler's name against customs and immigration
databases. The results of such checks can lead to travelers being
denied departure.
[4] Stakeholders we met with speculated that Mexico's proximity and
high rate of immigration to the United States may be factors leading
to such a high percentage of children being abducted to Mexico.
[5] We did not find any organization that collected information on the
mode of transport used in reported international parental abductions.
[6] Janet Chiancone, Linda Girdner, and Patricia Hoff, Issues in
Resolving Cases of International Child Abduction by Parents, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Washington, D.C.:
December 2001). Research for this study was conducted from 1995 to
1997.
[7] In 1999, the Admiral James W. Nance and Meg Donovan Foreign
Relations Authorization Act established the "two-parent signature"
requirement, requiring both parents or each of the child's legal
guardians, if any, to execute and provide documentary evidence of
custodial rights on any application for a passport for a minor under
the age of 14, among other things. Pub. L. No. 106-113-Appendix G,
div. A, title II, subtitle B, § 236, 113 Stat 1501, 1501A-430 (1999),
at 22 U.S.C. § 213 note. The law required the Secretary of State to
promulgate regulations implementing the program, which he did in 2001.
66 Fed. Reg. 29904 (June 2001), codified at 22 C.F.R. § 51.28. In
2007, the Secretary amended the regulations to expand this requirement
to those minors under the age of 16. 72 Fed. Reg. 64930 (November
2007). There are several exceptions to the "dual signature"
requirement, including special family circumstances and circumstances
that jeopardize the health or welfare of the child. See 22 C.F.R. §
51.28.
[8] Any person with parental or guardianship rights can register their
child in the system. For example, State Department officials told us
that some parents register their child in the system due to fear of
having the child run away. State Department will notify the requesting
parent of a passport application for a child in the program until that
child turns 18.
[9] See 22 C.F.R. §§ 51.60, 51.62 for a greater description of these
limited situations.
[10] Pub. L. No. 82-414, § 215, 66 Stat. 190-191 (1952), codified as
amended at 8 U.S.C. § 1185.
[11] DHS implementing regulations (8 C.F.R. part 215 and 22 C.F.R.
part 46), authorize departure-control officers to prevent a non-U.S.
citizen's departure from the United States if that person's departure
would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States. 22 C.F.R.
§ 46.2, 8 C.F.R. § 215.2.
[12] Future citations of the Prevent Departure program in this report
refer to this parental child abduction component of the overall
Prevent Departure program.
[13] NCIC is a computerized database available anytime to federal,
state, and local law enforcement authorities for criminal law
enforcement purposes. The National Child Search Assistance Act of
1990, Pub. L. No. 101-647, title XXXVII, §§ 3701-3702, 104 Stat. 4789,
4967, codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. §§ 5779-5780 requires every
federal, state, and local law enforcement agency to report each case
of a missing child under the age of 21 to the National Crime
Information Center.
[14] 19 C.F.R. § 122.75a.
[15] U.S. Department of Justice Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, A Family Resource Guide to International
Parental Kidnapping (Washington, D.C.: February 2002, revised January
2007).
[16] The Missing Children's Assistance Act of 1984, as amended,
directs the Administrator of DOJ's Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention to make an annual grant to NCMEC to carry out
various responsibilities related to missing and exploited children. In
general, these responsibilities include operating a 24-hour, toll-free
tip line to receive tips about missing children; serving as the
official national resource center and information clearinghouse for
missing and exploited children; coordinating public and private
programs to locate missing children; providing technical assistance
and training; and providing a variety of information and assistance
services. 42 U.S.C. § 5773(b)(1).
[17] The Emergency Alert System is a national public warning system
that requires broadcasters, cable television systems, wireless cable
systems, satellite digital audio radio service providers, and direct
broadcast satellite providers to provide the communications capability
to the President to address the public during a national emergency.
State and local authorities may also use the system to deliver
important emergency information, such as AMBER Alerts and weather
information targeted to specific areas.
[18] In 2003, the Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to End the
Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003 (PROTECT Act) was enacted,
which formally established the federal government's role in the
network of AMBER Alert systems. Pub. L. No. 108-21, 117 Stat. 650
(2003). The federal AMBER Alert coordinator within the Department of
Justice is responsible for issuing guidance to state and local
jurisdictions about what criteria should be required before activation
of an alert, among other responsibilities. DOJ recommends that an
AMBER Alert be issued if there is reasonable belief by law enforcement
an abduction has occurred; the abduction is of a child age 17 years or
younger; the law enforcement agency believes the child is in imminent
danger of serious bodily injury or death; there is enough descriptive
information about the victim and abductor for law enforcement to issue
an AMBER Alert to assist in the recovery of the child; and the child's
name and other critical data elements, including the Child Abduction
flag, have been entered into the National Crime Information Center
(NCIC) computer.
[19] Janet Chiancone, Linda Girdner, and Patricia Hoff, Issues in
Resolving Cases of International Child Abduction by Parents, Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (Washington, D.C.:
December 2001).
[20] Secure Flight is a behind-the-scenes process that TSA and
airlines collaborate on to compare the information passengers provide
to airlines (including full name, date of birth, and gender) against
government watch lists. While under Secure Flight, TSA conducts the
matching of passengers to watch lists and simply requires airlines to
prevent the boarding of certain travelers, Prevent Departure requires
airlines to compare their passenger lists with the Prevent Departure
list and also to help prevent certain passengers from traveling with
an identified at-risk child.
[21] The Bureau of Transportation Statistics defines major carriers as
those with over $1 billion in annual operating revenues.
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
