A parent left the country with her son while custody was still being litigated and asked the Commission to remove two alerts: one issued to find her, one issued to find the child. She argued the matter was a family dispute, that no investigation had ever been served on her, and that the authorities knew where the boy was. Both notices were maintained, and the reasoning is a short course in how family cases are treated.
Two instruments, two tests
The alert concerning the parent was issued to trace and locate her in connection with an investigation into child abduction. The alert concerning the child was of the kind used for missing persons, and that instrument may only be issued where the whereabouts of the person are unknown to the police. She said the child was plainly not missing: the authorities knew which country he was in and were in contact with her.
The Commission held that knowing the country is not knowing the location. The requesting bureau had information that the boy was somewhere in a particular state but had not established where, and the parent could travel onwards with him. On that basis the missing-person alert retained a valid purpose — it would allow the child to be located if he moved from wherever he was living.
The family-dispute argument, and why it failed twice
Her second point was that a custody disagreement between two parents is a private matter of no interest to international police cooperation, and that protecting a child cannot be an ongoing criminal activity. She described a chain of events at home: a divorce, custody with visitation, a doctor’s report to the child protection authorities, a suspension of visits, an investigation she said was mishandled, and a hearing that restored shared custody without any change in circumstances.
- The prohibition on data arising from private disputes is addressed to notices seeking arrest; the alert she was subject to was not one of those.
- In any event the charge was framed as an offence against the family, and the Commission found the description coherent with the underlying facts supplied.
- The requesting bureau stated that the abuse allegations had been investigated and found unsubstantiated; the Commission does not weigh such conflicting accounts, which is precisely why the argument could not carry the case.
- The description threshold is lower here than for an arrest alert: it is enough that sufficient data about the investigation and the person allow the requested cooperation to work.
Notification defeated by her own conduct
The human-rights argument was that she had never been formally notified of any investigation, so she could not defend herself. The Commission took the principle seriously, recalling that prompt and detailed information about a charge is a precondition of an effective defence and that a prosecuting state must show it tried diligently to reach an accused, particularly where a trial might proceed in absence.
It then applied the limit that decides many such cases. Where the situation complained of is attributable to the accused’s own conduct, they cannot rely on it: she had appeared at the last custody hearing remotely, without telling the court that she had already left the country. No further step could reasonably have been expected of the authorities, and the alerts were aimed at locating her rather than arresting her.
The child’s own position
One argument in the case was made on behalf of the child rather than the parent: that an alert circulated internationally about a boy who was living settled, in school and known to his mother’s authorities was a disproportionate interference with his movement and his privacy. It is a serious point, and the Commission answered it structurally rather than dismissively. The instrument used for missing persons exists to locate, not to restrict, and its test is knowledge: while the police do not know where the child is, the purpose stands.
That leaves a narrow but real path. The alert concerning a child is the one most likely to be exhausted first, because it depends on a fact that can be established by someone other than the parent — an official confirmation of where the child lives, transmitted between bureaux, or a decision of the courts of the country he now lives in determining his residence. Neither existed here. The parent’s assurances, and even her contact with the investigating agencies, did not substitute for either.
What this decision teaches
- A custody fight does not immunise the criminal case that follows it. Once departure is charged as an offence against the family, the file is treated as criminal and the private-dispute ground largely falls away.
- Attack the missing-person alert on knowledge, not on contact. The question is whether the police know where the child is, so an official confirmation of the address by the local bureau is worth more than years of correspondence.
- Do not build a case on unproven allegations of harm. Where the accounts conflict and no body has ruled, the Commission will not choose between them, and the argument is dead weight.
- Silence you caused cannot be your complaint. Concealing a departure from a court that is hearing your case forfeits the notification argument entirely.
This page follows one of our own decisions. Nothing identifying the family appears here: not the countries, the courts, the agencies, the names or the dates, and the child is referred to only as the child.
If you left with your child while proceedings were running, the two alerts have to be attacked separately and in the right order, and the first practical step is usually getting the local bureau to confirm where you both are. Tell us what stage the custody case is at and we will set out the sequence.
Child abduction alerts and custody cases
Is a parental abduction case a private matter for INTERPOL purposes?
It is not treated as one once the departure is charged as a criminal offence. The exclusion for private disputes is written for notices seeking arrest, and a charge framed as an offence against the family is read as criminal.
The authorities know which country my child is in. Can the missing-person notice be deleted?
Only if they know where the child actually is. Knowing the country has been held insufficient, because the alert exists to locate the child if he or she is moved again.
I was never served with anything. Does that violate my rights?
It can, where the state made no diligent effort to reach you. But if the absence of notification results from your own conduct — for example, appearing remotely at a hearing without disclosing that you had already left — you cannot rely on it.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For advice specific to your situation, please consult a qualified lawyer.