Parental Child Abduction
International Parental Child Abduction (IPCA) represents one of the most challenging areas of cross-border family law. When a child is wrongfully removed to or retained in another jurisdiction without the other parent’s consent, and informal or diplomatic efforts fail, the situation becomes legally complex and difficult to resolve. The paramount consideration must always be the child’s best interests, including their physical, emotional, and psychological well-being. This highlights the need for a coherent, predictable, and effective international legal framework.
Interpol’s Framework
INTERPOL’s legal architecture, and in particular Article 83 of the Rules on the Processing of Data, draws a clear boundary excluding matters of a purely private or familial nature from the Organisation’s scope. Child custody disputes fall within this exclusion unless they form an element of a serious criminal offence or organised criminal activity. This limitation exists to prevent the instrumentalisation of INTERPOL mechanisms for advantage in domestic disputes. Yet, notwithstanding this explicit prohibition, instances persist in which INTERPOL has taken a markedly different approach.
Inconsistency
A notable example concerns the pseudonyms “XX” (the mother) and “YY” (the child). The United States National Central Bureau sought the publication of Blue and Yellow Notices. Before the Commission for the Control of INTERPOL’s Files (CCF), the mother submitted that no custody order existed in favour of the father; that she had lawfully exited the United States; that domestic authorities had failed to protect the child from alleged abuse; and that the child was now safe, settled, and supported in the receiving State. Despite these representations, the CCF upheld the Notices, characterising the case as a criminal matter warranting international police cooperation.
Concerns
First concern: a lack of consistency and fidelity to INTERPOL’s governing rules. The RPD expressly excludes private and family disputes from INTERPOL’s systems unless they are linked to serious criminality. Upholding the Notices in circumstances that fall squarely within a custody dispute calls into question whether the Organisation is applying its legal framework coherently and predictably.
Second concern: a failure to distinguish between different categories of conduct: INTERPOL has conflated parental relocation motivated by legitimate welfare considerations with genuine criminal acts such as kidnapping by third parties or trafficking. Crucially, many IPCA cases involve a parent leaving the jurisdiction to escape a violent spouse, acting to protect themselves and the child from a credible and immediate risk of harm. Treating these situations as equivalent is incompatible with INTERPOL’s mandate and inconsistent with international standards on child protection and fundamental rights.
Recommendations
These concerns require clear and enforceable reforms. INTERPOL should prohibit the use of any notice in custody disputes and parental child abduction unless supported by a final custody order and credible evidence of serious criminality. A mandatory risk and welfare assessment must exclude cases where a parent has fled domestic violence, ensuring they are not treated as offenders. The General Secretariat and the CCF must implement stricter screening, informed by specialised child-protection expertise, to prevent parental welfare relocations from being mischaracterised as criminal abduction or trafficking.
