More on Parental Abductions

Yesterday, my partner, Apple Sulit-Perelejo wrote about the case of Maria Jose Carrascosa, who  was found guilty of eight counts of interference with custody and one count of contempt of court. Carrascosa had taken her daughter, Victoria, to Spain in 2005 while involved in a custody dispute with her ex-husband. A family court judge in August 2006 then granted sole custody of the girl to Innes and ordered Carrascosa to bring her back to New Jersey within 10 days. She failed to comply though and was arrested in November 2006 for contempt of court. She has remained in jail since then and has since been charged with the more serious, criminal offence of interference of custody. She can receive a sentence of up to ten years.   Yet, as Apple pointed out, the child’s father does not have custody due to a jurisdictional dispute between the United States and Spain, and the child is with neither parent.

This case brings to mind what was truly one of the most upsetting times in my career as a family lawyer.  While I have been involved in several international parental kidnapping cases, approximately ten years ago, I represented a father of a teen age son whose mother absconded with the child to South America, to a country which is not a signatory to the Hague Convention, the international treaty which deals with these types of situations.  The parents had shared parenting time, and during a period during which the mother had the child, they left the country and fled to the jungles of South America. Many, many months later, after Herculean efforts by investigators,  the United States and the consulates of several countries through which the mother had passed, the pair was located and returned to my client. Sadly, while in South America, the child had been mistreated by the mother, sent to the jungles to work and returned with various emotional issues. Fast forward several years later, and luckily, the teenager had completed therapy, was in college and had reunited with his family. His mother was sentenced to a prison term for her actions.

 

While these types of extreme actions are rare, they are real, and children are injured both emotionally, and in some cases physically.  It is always difficult when faced with a situation in which your client believes that a child may be of risk to be kidnapped by the other parent.  Angry parents often say things in the context of custody dispute in order to disparage the other parent. Yet in some cases, the fear is warranted, and appropriate steps must be taken in order to protect the child in question. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (www.missingkids.com), has resources for parents. Additionally, there are steps that parents can takew ith the assistance of their counsel in the context of their divorce or custody proceedings in order to prevent a parental abduction, or at least be prepared in the event it happens.

 

The biggest concern, of course, is the effect on the children are the victims of these situations. Parental abductions represent parental alienation at its worst, and the victim is always the child.  

Jail Time for Mom found Guilty in Criminal Intereference with Custody Case

After serving almost three years in jail for failing to comply with a Family Judge’s Court Order, a Bergen County, New Jersey jury found Maria Jose Carrascosa guilty of eight counts of interference with custody and one count of contempt of Court. The guilty verdict could result in another ten years of jail time for Carrascosa.

In early 1999, Carrascosa married Peter Inness in her native country of Spain. Carrascosa had resided and worked in the United States since 1992. Inness was an American citizen. After their marriage, they returned to the United States and resided in North Jersey. On April 17, 2000, the parties’ daughter, Victoria, was born. 

 

By early 2004, the parties had separated and shortly thereafter, Carrascosa filed for a religious annulment with the Ecclesiastic Tribunal of the Archdiocese of Valencia Spain. 

 

In October 2004, the parties entered into a written agreement, through counsel, indicating that Inness would have parenting time with Victoria and prohibiting Victoria’s removal from the country. 

 

In December 2004, Inness filed a divorce complaint in the State of New Jersey seeking among other things, custody of Victoria. The Complaint was served upon Carrascosa in early January 2005 and within seven days of being served, Carrascosa left for Spain with Victoria snowballing into two years of litigation in the New Jersey Family Court, New Jersey Appellate Division, Spain and the Appeals Courts of Spain.

 

In the New Jersey Family Court proceedings, Carrascosa was ordered on a number of occasions to return Victoria to New Jersey and at no point did she comply. Carrascosa argued that New Jersey did not have jurisdiction to handle the matter and that pursuant to an Order of the Court in Spain, Victoria was prohibited from leaving Spain until her eighteenth birthday. However, the New Jersey Court and the New Jersey Appellate Division rejected Carrascosa’s arguments.  After a trial, the New Jersey Court entered one last Order requiring return of Victoria to New Jersey and granted Inness sole and residential custody of Victoria. Carrascosa appealed the Order but the Appellate Division affirmed the rulings of the Trial Court. The Order further directed that should Carrascosa fail to comply with the Order, she would be incarcerated until such time as compliance was met. Victoria was not returned to New Jersey and Carrascosa was arrested on November 13, 2006 pursuant to the Family Court Order.

Additionally, Carrascosa was charged criminally with interference of custody and indicted. As a result of her continuing refusal to return Victoria to New Jersey, Carrascosa remained in jail until commencement of the criminal trial in Bergen County on November 5, 2009. After only two hours of deliberation, the jury returned guilty verdicts on November 12, 2009 on eight counts of interference with custody and one count of contempt of Court. Carrascosa may be subject to ten years of incarceration.

Sadly, throughout this entire ordeal, Victoria has been with neither parent. Since her mother took her to Spain in January 2005 through the present time, she is being cared for by her maternal grandparents. Even more sad is that there is still no indication as to whether or when Victoria will ever be returned to her father. The motivation for Carrascosa to continue to block Victoria’s access to her father is unclear since she never testified in the Family Court custody case having plead the Fifth Amendment. Carrascosa did complete a phone interview from jail last year with a reporter from The Record. Carrascosa told the reporter that “If God chooses me to die in jail to protect my child, then I will have to do that”    

What is clear from this case is that New Jersey courts do not take lightly continued defiance of Family Court Custody Orders and will prosecute statutory criminal offenses of interference of custody when warranted. What is also clear from this case is that no one ever "wins" in these types of cases - - Carrascosa will be sitting in jail, Inness is still awaiting the return of his daughter and Victoria will be with neither parent.