The first step in addressing the specter of international parental kidnapping is to avoid it as an initial proposition, and there are a lot of ways to do that. The first is to recognize that in any case in which the parties have risks for travel back and forth between certain countries where the disputes that have arisen involving the parenting of the child whether they are cultural, religious or otherwise, may create safe havens, either legally or emotionally for taking unilateral action that could be classified as parental child abduction.

A couple of ways that can be dealt with, first of all, the entry of what we call mirror orders. A mirror order is a wonderful tool, but it requires specific legal understanding of the systems, the legal systems in which you want those orders to be entered. In the United States we have the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act. In 49 of our 50 jurisdictions that act provides a mechanism for the entry of an order that it implies international enforcement. It provides for certain provisions and certain protections which would make it much more difficult for a party to take a unilateral action and have the order of a court disregarded.

On the foreign side in order to have a mirror order entered you have to take, let’s say, a U.S. order, it has to be placed in the context of that foreign law and it has to be done in such a way that it comports with the public policy and the statutory requirements of the law in that country. It is precise legal work, but it has a huge benefit.

When both parents know that the agreement that they’ve reached is going to be enforced by the jurisdictions that are implicated in their history, it means that they can take a sigh of relief when children go back and forth for summer access for example. When there are the inevitable problems that the parties maybe didn’t anticipate they can be sure that the courts in both places are going to know where the dispute is to be resolved, under what circumstances, what is the court of competent jurisdiction and what are the remedies or the punishments, if you will, for a parent who decides to step outside of those predictable issues.

Predictability and security are what every matrimonial agreement is based on. Every matrimonial agreement no matter where it’s done in the world is done with the basis that someone looks at a lawyer and says what do I need to do, what are my responsibilities, and what are my rights. When those responsibilities and rights are laid out, when the parties take their agreement and they’re done in enforceable orders that are entered in both countries then the parties know what their rights and responsibilities are and they can go forth and parent their children with confidence.

It’s where that confidence isn’t as strong when there is ambivalence and room for question or when worse that mirror order has to be sought sort of after the problem has arisen. That’s when you see issues of allegations of parental abduction or you see parents feeling desperate and needing to take steps whether it’s going back to Mom or it’s seeking the protection of a court because they believe they’ll get a better bite of the apple.

Litigation planning, the use of international arbitration agreements for, for determinations in which there are issues that the parties agree they will submit to international arbitration, where the application of religious law, the application of foreign law are all contemplated within an agreement. Are the circumstances in which we find that parental abduction is not sought as a first recourse or even a last resort, but again it takes a mindfulness with respect to the drafting of agreements, the review of those agreements, and the process employed to make sure that the orders in both countries say the same thing and mean the same thing.

My experience with judges around the world is that they do not want to make these decisions. Whether you’re sitting in Abu dhabi or you’re sitting in Alabama what they want is to know without question that what the parents’ intentions were, what they understood at the time, and what they promised to do for one another.

I believe that we bring the opportunity to have those agreements done in such a way that the parties can rely on their international enforceability.