Canada: Supreme Court case could have far-reaching implications for international child custody cases

It took four years battling her estranged husband in German and Canadian courts before Kate Baggott was finally allowed to settle with her two children in Canada.

On Thursday, the St. Catharines woman hopes to begin the final chapter of her struggle when the Supreme Court of Canada examines the workings of an agreement that determines the fate of children caught up in international child custody and abduction cases.

Ultimately, the court’s ruling could change the way Canadian authorities decide what country these children should live in and result in a more child-centric approach.

In Baggott’s case, the years of legal wrangling meant that her children lived in limbo, moving back and forth between Germany and Canada, disrupting their education and making it impossible to put down roots.

“Ultimately nothing was gained from having gone through this process,” Baggott told the Star in an interview.

She described the experience as “surreal” and said the court process was too focused on legal arguments instead of what is best for the children.

The Supreme Court’s ruling will have no effect on Baggott’s case, after a German court finally awarded her full custody of her son, 15, and daughter, 11, from their father John Paul Balev and let the three return to Canada in April. But the court decided to proceed anyway with the appeal of Ontario Court of Appeal ruling as it recognized the importance of the issue.

All the parties at Thursday’s hearing hope the high court can provide guidance on the definition of “habitual residence” under the Hague Convention, an international child protection agreement recognized by 98 countries.

The designation determines where a child in a custodial dispute should temporarily stay while the case is ongoing and which country has the authority to adjudicate the case.

“This comes down to how we figure out where a child’s habitual residence is. Right now, there is no national consistency on this,” said Patric Senson, a co-counsel for the Baggott, one of eight parties with standing before the Supreme Court.

“Whatever comes out, it will provide some clarity for everybody involved in this situation so everyone will be working from the same page . . . reduce the amount of litigation and stress for the child and litigants.”

In Canada and elsewhere, different courts have different interpretations of habitual residence, with some defining it as the last place of the residence agreed upon by the parents prior to the removal of the child by one party, while others base it on the children’s best interests.

The appeal to the Supreme Court was brought by the Office of the Children’s Lawyer (OCL), a Ontario body that represents children under age 18 in court cases involving custody, access and child protection, as well as in civil, and estates and trusts cases.

Baggott, a writer, and Balev, a computer programmer, married in Toronto in 2000 and moved to Germany on work permits the following year for his job. Their two children were both born there but were not eligible for German citizenship.

The couple’s relationship fell apart but the family still lived together in the same house when the mother and their two children moved back to Canada in 2013 after the father agreed to let the children stay with their mother in Canada for 16 months.

However, according to Baggott’s submission to the high court, Balev later went to German authorities claiming Baggott abducted their children, sparking the four-year legal battle.

Last September, the Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed the children’s objections to returning to Germany and ruled that the mother breached the Hague Convention and they must all go back because Germany was their “habitual residence.”

In its factums to the Supreme Court, the OCL said the appeal court decision to return Baggott’s two children to Germany was wrong because it failed to consider the best interests of the minors, who at that point had lived in Canada for three years, were in school and had friends and support in the community.

“The goal of deterring ‘abduction’ and protecting the interests of children generally was prioritized over the rights of the individual children before the courts,” said the OCL in its submission.

“As a result, (the children) were harmed by the operation of the very Convention that was meant to protect them. In this appeal, the OCL urges an interpretation of the Convention that is child-centric, consistent with Canada’s obligations.”

However, the attorneys general in Ottawa, Ontario and British Columbia argue the current approach in determining the child’s residence offers an “objective” guide for Canadian authorities to follow.

“The Convention is intended to combat international child abductions, including the wrongful retention of children in foreign states and to protect children from their harmful effects,” said the submission from the federal attorney general.

The submission said “the prompt return of the child to the state of habitual residence best protects the interests of children by respecting rights of custody under domestic laws. The Convention is not intended to determine the custody arrangement that is in the best interests of the child.”

Ontario warns in its submission that the child-centric approach proposed by the appellant “would incentivize parents to subject their children to ‘harmful manipulation’— developing artificial attachments to their new environment — in order to influence the child’s perspective about their habitual residence.”

While the case is still up in air, both Baggott and Balev said in their submissions the fight has exhausted their financial resources.

“The Hague Convention is meant for genuine cases of abduction when one parent disappears with the child in the night,” said Baggott, who is still struggling to turn a new page of her life with her two children. “It is not meant for cases like ours.”

If you have any questions or concerns regarding parental abduction to or from Canada or Germany feel free to contact us 24 / 7.  We are always available at or by calling our offices – +1 (805) CHILD-11 (+18052445311)


Equador / Slovakia: Ekvádorčanka bojuje o svoje dieťa so Slovákom: Izabelkin prípad sa poriadne zamotáva

Izabelkin prípad sa poriadne zamotáva. Okresný úrad v Bratislave rozhodol, že dieťa ekvádorskej mamy a slovenského otca nebude chodiť do školy v Jakubove (okr. Malacky).


Priklonil sa k názoru súdu, ktorý rozhodol ešte minulý rok, že dieťa sa vráti s matkou do Južnej Ameriky. V skutočnosti však aj naďalej podľa zástupkyne riaditeľky navštevuje spomínanú školu. Ide o spor o dieťa, v ktorom bola zainteresovaná aj detská ombudsmanka Viera Tomanová a poslankyňa NR SR Natália Blahová.

Okresný úrad v Bratislave vydal v januári 2018 rozhodnutie, že Izabelka nemá chodiť do školy v Jakubove a zrušil jej prijatie. Nový Čas sa bol pozrieť, či otec verdikt dodržiava. Ráno naozaj prišiel do školy sám, bez dcéry. Zástupkyňa riaditeľky ZŠ nám však povedala, že dievčatko na vyučovanie stále chodí a rozhodnutie úradu ešte nie je právoplatné. „Týmto rozhodnutím okresný úrad zrušil rozhodutie o prijatí dieťaťa do školy. Výrok okresného úradu sa rešpektovať okamžite po prijatí hlavne z dôvodu, že neexistuje právoplatné rozhondutie o prijatí dieťať do danej školy. Úrad postupoval podľa rozhodnutia okresného súdu, a to bolo právoplatné 6. 10. 2017.“ povedala matkina právnička Daniela Ježová. S týmto zdôvodnením nesúhlasí otcov právnik Andrej Gara, ktorý si myslí pravý opak. „Rozhodnutie okresného úradu nenadobudlo právoplatnosť, pretože môj klient ho ešte nemá. Podáme žalobu a požiadame o preskúmanie verdiktu,“ vyjadril sa Gara. O jeho právny názor sa opiera aj otec dievčatka Peter Gajdár, ktorý tvrdí: “Izabela môže naďalej chodiť do školy v Jakubove a zúčastňovať sa vyučovania, nakoľko ako slovenský štátny občan je zo zákona zúčastnená na povinnej školskej dochádzke.”

Otec IzabelyRozvedení rodičia Izabelky, Mariella Fajardo (32) z Ekvádoru a otec Peter Gajdár (34) zo Slovenska, bojujú o svoju dcéru od polovice roku 2017. Dievčatko vtedy prišlo za otcom na prázdniny a do Južnej Ameriky sa nevrátilo. Zúfalá matka podala žalobu na súd a ten rozhodol, že dcéra sa vráti do Ekvádoru. Otec dievčatka ignoruje súdne rozhodnutia, zapísal ju do školy a zamestnal sa v jej triede ako asistent učiteľa.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding parental abduction to or from Equador or Slovakia feel free to contact us 24 / 7.  We are always available at or by calling our offices – +1 (805) CHILD-11 (+18052445311)


USA: Expert on Parental Abduction running for District Family Court – Judicial Q&A: Beth Barron


1. Who are you and what are you running for?

I am Beth Barron. I am running for Judge of the 280th Family District Court. I am 56 years old. As a single woman, I adopted my precious daughter from CPS when she was an infant. She is now 11 years old. Before law school, I was an “Interior Architect” and then a flight attendant for Continental Airlines for 8 years. The last three years of flying, I attended law school. I flew on the weekends and went to law school part-time at night during the week. I studied all 7 days. My last year of law school, I was a full-time paid intern at the Harris County District Attorney’s Office and went to school at night. Today I have been an Assistant District Attorney for 21 years. My daughter and I like to travel, read, and cook. Two years ago we were lucky enough to travel to Africa. This past Christmas season, we traveled to Canada with her youth choir to sing.

2. What kind of cases does this court hear?

The 280th Family District Court is often known as the “Family Violence Court”. This court has the ability to hear any family case. However, statutorily, it must give preference to those family cases that involve allegations of family violence. Historically it has only heard Protective Order cases which are lawsuits for a court order to prohibit family violence and provide other protections for victims of family violence.

3. Why are you running for this particular bench?

I am running because the people of Harris County deserve to have the very best judge to hear and pass judgement on these most serious cases with serious allegations. The judge of this court must possess extensive training and experience to be able to make a just ruling. No other candidate for this court can come close to my training and experience.

4. What are your qualifications for this job?

I have had the honor of being an Assistant District Attorney for over 21 years. The first 4 ½ years I handled criminal cases. I was the attorney representing the State of Texas and the people of Harris County in various criminal cases of misdemeanor and felonies. These included misdemeanor thefts, drug possession, DWI, prostitution, assaults (including family violence assaults) etc. and felonies of felony theft, burglary, Forgery, Aggravated Assaults (including family violence assaults), Criminally Negligent Homicide and drug cases etc.

I have been the sole attorney on 35 Jury trials and 30 bench trials. In the year 2000, I took a special position at the District Attorney’s Office that I am still at today. It was originally slotted as a one year stint. I changed all that when I found I couldn’t leave it. For the last 17 years, I have had the honor of representing victims of family violence.  I have represented over 10,000 victims of family violence in the various family courts on a civil suit for a Protective order against their abusers. I have handled over 900 contested court trials. The victims in these cases represented over 30 different countries with many different races, religions languages, immigration status and cultures. I have been honored that they have trusted me to help them despite the fact that there were often prejudices against them.

I am partially paid by a federal VAWA grant (Violence Against Women Act). Under that grant, I am also charged with investigating complaints of Parental Kidnapping, Harboring a Runaway, Criminal Non-Support and Bigamy. I have taken complaints from hundreds of individuals in Harris County on these cases. Parental Kidnapping investigations involve intense research into the original family case documents. I have reviewed and assisted in the investigation of over 400 cases of Parental Kidnapping and directed law enforcement in their investigation of these cases. These cases necessarily involved all facets of family cases including divorce, custody, modifications, writs of attachment, writs of habeas corpus etc. I have assisted and advised 6 different states’ officials in their attempts to recover missing children who were located in Texas. I have worked with numerous out of state police agencies in their investigation of these cases including a case in Canada.

I am published by the Texas District and County Attorney Association (at their request) to provide guidance to District and County Attorneys (and their assistants) all over the state of Texas on the issues of family violence and Protective orders. This booklet was distributed to every District and County Attorney’s Office in Texas. I regularly receive calls from those agencies for my advice and expertise in these cases.

I have trained judges, lawyers, over 30 different police agencies, social workers, court staff, clergy, and advocates on family violence and protective orders all over the state of Texas. I have trained at 12 family violence conferences in Texas, California, Florida, Louisiana and have presented and spoken at 2 international conferences on family violence.

I have taught law school classes. I am an expert in Family Violence and Protective Orders and have testified in both misdemeanor and felony criminal cases.

5. Why is this race important?

All anyone has to do is read or watch the news to know that family violence is a serious social issue in our county. Not just for the victims but everyone. Family violence affects immediate family members, extended family members, friends, employers, clergy, health care and the criminal justice system. This court hears allegations of family violence and has the arduous task of making the right and just decision in these cases.

6. Why should people vote for you in the March primary?

I am simply the best candidate for this court. I have the training and experience this court demands. I am pragmatic and fair and possess the judicial temperament required of a true judge. I am responsible, thoughtful, and never impulsive. I have had the unique freedom for over 21 years of being charged with only making the right decision in my cases. If I don’t believe in a case, I do not file it. If I file a case and then find out it was not the right thing to do, I dismiss is. Unlike a private/paid attorney, I do not feel pressured to go forward on a case simply because someone has paid me to. I represent the people of Harris County. I am well respected by my peers at the courthouse and elsewhere.

if you have any questions or concerns regarding parental abduction to or from The United States feel free to contact us 24 / 7.  We are always available at or by calling our offices – +1 (805) CHILD-11 (+18052445311)


UK: The impact of Brexit on family law


The withdrawal date for the UK leaving the EU is just over a year away, and the impact of Brexit upon family law clients remains unclear.

There are two main EU Regulations that can impact on UK based family law clients. These are commonly referred to as Brussels II bis and the EU Maintenance Regulations.

Brussels II bis provides rules of jurisdiction to regulate which country’s court can hear a divorce, as well as which court will take precedence in the event of two competing divorce actions (for example a husband raising a divorce action in Scotland and the wife raising a divorce in Spain). Although Scottish family lawyers will be able to cope if we lose the rules of jurisdiction contained within Brussels II bis, it will be harder for us and our clients if we lose the rules for enforcement which Brussels II bis also contains. If a parent removes a child from one EU country to the other, without the appropriate permissions, Brussels II bis provides a fast and easy mechanism to secure the return of that child to the country from where they were removed. If Brexit results in us losing the enforcement aspect of Brussels II bis we still have the Hague Convention on International Child Abduction to fall back on, but that provides the removing parent with a greater potential to defend an application for the return of a child than Brussels II bis.

Similarly to Brussels II bis, the EU Maintenance Regulations provide rules for jurisdiction of maintenance claims, including how to deal with competing maintenance claims between two courts as well as the enforcement of maintenance obligations.

The reach of the EU Maintenance Regulations is wide, impacting on: married clients who have connections with another EU country; married clients with a connection between Scotland and England, such as an English wife living in Scotland, but then returning to England when her marriage breaks down; British ex-pat couples living outwith the EU; and parents who have an obligation to pay maintenance for a child within the EU.

The EU Maintenance Regulations provide a simple procedure for enforcing a maintenance award in another EU country (for example a Scottish maintenance order to be enforced in Spain). Although there are other international treaties we can fall back on for the enforcement of maintenance post-Brexit, the reality remains that enforcing maintenance awards in another EU country post-Brexit is going to be more complicated, time consuming and ultimately more expensive for the client.

In addition to providing a framework for jurisdiction and enforcement, the EU Maintenance Regulations also allow a couple to agree in advance, under which country’s laws any future maintenance claim will be heard. Although this might not appear to be that big a thing, the approach of different countries throughout the EU towards maintenance can be quite different. An EU maintenance claim in the right, or wrong court, can make a huge difference to the overall financial package. The ability to nominate which country’s laws a maintenance claim is to be heard under is particularly relevant to those couples entering into a Pre or Post Nuptial Agreement. Will all these maintenance provisions in existing Pre-Nuptial Agreements become void upon Brexit? We do not know.

At some time in the future we may get clarity on the future of family law post-Brexit, but for the time being we have to advise clients whose cases could be impacted by the EU family law regulations that nothing is clear. Once it is we will share that information on our website.

f you have any questions or concerns regarding parental abduction to or from The UK or The EU feel free to contact us 24 / 7.  We are always available at or by calling our offices – +1 (805) CHILD-11 (+18052445311)


Scotland: Campaigners against international child abduction to meet Scottish Government over ‘loophole’ in law


A CAMPAIGN is underway to bring Scotland’s outdated laws on parental child abduction into line with the rest of the UK.

Campaigners want to see the closing of a “loophole” which means a parent who takes a child out of Scotland without the consent of the other parent can not be prosecuted.

If a child is taken overseas from England and Wales it is a criminal offence under the Child Abduction Act 1984 but the law only applies in Scotland if a court order is already in place. Some have described the loophole as a ‘kidnapper’s charter’.

Lawyer Yousif Ahmed, from Glasgow, is leading a campaign to remove the requirement for a court order so that Scotland’s law on child abduction is brought into line with the rest of the UK.

He has already met Cabinet Secretary for Justice Michael Matheson and has now secured a meeting with the minster’s officials to set out his proposals to change the 1984 law.

Scottish Government figures show the number of international child abduction cases has risen over the last ten years, from two cases in 2007 to 20 cases in 2016. Figures released by Foreign Office at the end of last year showed the UK Government department dealt with 449 new cases in 2016/17.

Ahmed, a corporate lawyer who started the campaign after speaking to a parent whose child was taken to the Middle East, said: “With the exception of Scotland, the rest of the United Kingdom rightfully criminalises the wrongful act of international parental child abduction. That is a form of deterrence firmly in place.

“Surprisingly, we do not have that deterrence in Scotland – parental child abduction is not recognised as a criminal offence here unless a court order has been obtained prohibiting removal of a child and that raises various problems and issues. To obtain such a court order, you must have some prior knowledge of a pending or imminent abduction and go through a formal legal process which in most cases is not fit-for-purpose and not effective for preventing parental child abduction from Scotland.”

The campaign has been backed by Scottish parents whose children have been removed from the country, parent support network Reunite International and an MSP who has warned the loophole could mean parents in England and Wales who want to remove a child from the UK could first travel to Scotland to avoid prosecution.

West of Scotland Labour MSP Mary Fee said: “It is unacceptable that a parent and their children can cross the border from England in to Scotland and then be removed from the UK, without breaking the law, as the parent would have if they left from England.

“The apparent legal loophole that exists must also be closed for the safety and protection of children in Scotland. It is worrying that there has been a reported rise over the last 10 years, albeit of very few cases, of one parent taking their child out of Scotland without the other parent’s consent.

“The current law on this is weak and I support my constituent Mr Ahmed’s call for the loophole to be closed and to make it a criminal offence to abduct a child and leave the country.

“I hope our meeting with the Scottish Government will ensure that we can protect the rights of children in Scotland.”

A spokeswoman for charity Reunite International said there is currently “very little” police in Scotland can do to prevent children being abducted from the country, which makes children in Scotland “more vulnerable”.

She added: “We are pleased to support Yousif Ahmed in his campaign for the Scottish government to redress this anomaly so that children in Scotland are granted the same protection as children in the rest of the UK.”

Ahmed added: “International parental child abduction is widely recognised as a form of child abuse. It has no place in a modern society. The Scottish Government must take action.”

A Scottish Government spokesman said: “Depending on the circumstances of the case, someone suspected of child abduction can be charged with an offence under section 6 of the Child Abduction Act 1984 or the common law offences of Abduction or Plagium.

“Scottish Government officials will meet campaigners in the near future to discuss their proposals for change to the 1984 Act offence.”


One of the most high-profile international child abduction cases in recent years was Alison Shalaby, whose daughter was taken to Egypt by Shalaby’s ex-partner when the child was 7-years-old. It took three months for the girl to be returned but some parents don’t see their children again for years.

Clinical psychologist Dr Mairead Tagg, who also worked with Women’s Aid, said: “There is certainly an issue with parents removing children, especially abusive fathers removing the children as the ultimate punishment for their partners, and it is often very difficult to get the children returned.

“Where the abducting parent is returning to their home country with the child or children, the child’s relationship with the absent parent is effectively severed which can be extremely problematic for children, especially when the abducting parent often tells the child or children that the absent parent doesn’t love them or want them anymore.”

One Scots parent, who asked not to be named, lost his baby after his wife took the child to her native Greece for a “two-month holiday” when the child was a toddler.

He said: “Return flights were booked, but about a month into their holiday she told me that they would not return to Scotland…it took 17 months – ten times the usual duration – for my day in court.

“During that time, I couldn’t be seen to acquiesce in any way to them being in Greece, so I couldn’t send money, gifts, visit them or verbally even hint that I was okay with them being in Greece. It was a very long year and a half.

“The Greek court ruled against me, stating that it was in my daughter’s best interests that she stay in Greece as she had already been there for so long.”

Another Scottish father’s ex-partner took their son to her native Australia. “There was very little help for the 372 days he was away, other than from the charity Reunite International,” said the man, who asked not to be identified. “The Scottish government offered no help at all. They often couldn’t answer questions I had and said they had to stay impartial.”

Alison Shalaby now runs Reunite International. She said: “International parental child abduction can cause great distress to a child who is removed from their home country and taken away from one parent, their extended family and friends, and everything that is familiar to them. This can cause long lasting harm to a child’s wellbeing and is something that may continue to affect them well into adulthood.”

Mairead Tagg added: “We really need to act much more effectively to protect vulnerable children and adolescents in Scotland from this highly traumatising and damaging kind of behaviour. I hope that the Scottish government will act swiftly to remedy the situation and to protect the rights of children from all backgrounds.”

f you have any questions or concerns regarding parental abduction to or from Scotlandfeel free to contact us 24 / 7.  We are always available at or by calling our offices – +1 (805) CHILD-11 (+18052445311)



UK / Morocco: Alex Batty case: Mum and grandfather wanted over ‘abduction’


A 12-year-old boy thought to have been abducted by members of his own family during a holiday in Spain may have been taken to a commune, police believe.

Alex Batty, of Oldham, Greater Manchester, is thought to be with his grandfather and mother, who does not have parental guardianship.

Melanie Batty, 37, and David Batty, 58, are wanted over the alleged abduction.

Alex’s grandmother said her daughter and ex-husband had previously taken the boy to a commune in Morocco.

Susan Caruana, Alex’s legal guardian, said she believes a disagreement about how the boy should be cared for is at the root of his disappearance.

She said Alex was taken to Morocco in 2014 as part of his mother’s pursuit of an “alternative lifestyle”.

One line of police inquiry is that the boy may have been taken to the country again.

Greater Manchester Police have issued a fresh appeal for information on Alex’s 12th birthday.

Susan CaruanaImage copyrightNEWSQUEST
Image captionAlex’s grandmother Susan Caruana has appealed for his safe return

Melanie and David Batty left with Alex for Marbella in Spain on 30 September 2017. Alex was last seen at the Port of Malaga on 8 October, the day they were expected to return.

Police now suspect the three may have travelled to Melilla, a Spanish city which borders northern Morocco.

But extensive police inquiries, an international appeal and assistance from Spanish authorities have failed to trace them.

Mrs Caruana said she had received a video message from the three family members on Facebook, in which Melanie Batty “said the reasons why they had done what they’d done”.

“The reason I believe they have done this is because basically my lifestyle, my belief systems, are not what they agree with. They didn’t want him to go to school, they don’t believe in mainstream school,” she said.

‘Alternative beliefs’

“I love him so much. I’m beginning to think I may never see him again. I just hope this appeal helps to find him.”

Det Sgt Pete Morley said: “We’re really concerned because of some of the alternative beliefs held by Melanie.

“Alex may not be staying in conditions that are suitable for a child of his age. He could be living in a commune or sleeping on the floor.

“[There are] really key things Alex may not be receiving such as health care, basic check-ups from a GP, vaccinations, dental care.

“He’s obviously been withdrawn from education now since the start of October and we’re getting to a stage where we’re really concerned for this absence from education. It’s going to start having a very long-term impact on Alex’s development.”

f you have any questions or concerns regarding parental abduction to or from The UK or Morocco feel free to contact us 24 / 7.  We are always available at or by calling our offices – +1 (805) CHILD-11 (+18052445311)


USA: Arkansas State Police release revised version of AMBER Alert


The Arkansas State Police released a revised version of the Morgan Nick AMBER Alert, now called the Arkansas AMBER Alert Plan, Feb. 1.

The Arkansas AMBER Alert Plan is a statewide initiative between law enforcement, news media and the public, with the shared objectives of using a dependable information delivery system to help quickly locate abducted children and bring them home safely, according to a news release.

“The Arkansas State Police have made changes to the AMBER Alert protocol and plan to use social media and improved technology to help safely recover abducted children across the state,” the release stated.

According to the ASP, the AMBER Alert is not just used for missing children but is a tool to be utilized when a child is abducted as well.

The Arkansas AMBER Alert Plan will only be activated if the situation meets the minimum criteria recommended by the U.S. Department of Justice.

“It will be used only for child abduction cases, and it will not be used for an incident involving a runaway or for most parental abduction cases, unless the circumstances are determined to be life-threatening to the child,” a spokesman said.

Below is a list of the minimum reporting criteria that must be met by a local law enforcement agency before an AMBER Alert will be issued:

• There is reasonable belief by law enforcement that an actual abduction has occurred.

• Law enforcement believes that the child is in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death.

• There is enough descriptive information about the victim and the abduction for law enforcement to issue an AMBER Alert to assist in the recovery of the child.

• The abducted child is under 18 years of age.

• The child’s name and other critical data elements, including the child abduction flag, have been entered into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) system.

If the circumstances of the disappearance of a child do not meet the Arkansas AMBER Alert Plan criteria, a Missing/Endangered Child Media Advisory may be issued, which takes the place of the Level II Alert.

The ASP public information officer will then take the available information and forward it on to media outlets from the agency’s current media contact list, as well as social media outlets.

The telephone number for the law enforcement agency making the request for a Missing/Endangered Child Media Advisory will be listed for the public to contact.

A Missing/Endangered Child Media Advisory may be upgraded at any time to an AMBER Alert if the facts of the case warrant.

ASP spokesman said there are no more levels of AMBER Alerts, only AMBER Alerts and Missing/Endangered Child Advisories.

If you have any questions or concerns regarding parental abduction to or from The United States feel free to contact us 24 / 7.  We are always available at or by calling our offices – +1 (805) CHILD-11 (+18052445311)