A Parent's Guide To Preventing International Child Abduction in Russia

Every year, countless children are taken illegally from the United States to countries that do not have an extradition agreement with the United States. Typically, these abductions occur during or after divorce proceedings by a parent who holds citizenship in the country of destination. International abductions pose a unique challenge to U.S. immigration law, which does not enforce border control at its points of exit. As such, a parent under the restriction of a court order from leaving the country with their child can effectively travel using their non-American passport without being stopped by law enforcement.

These restrictions hold different legal implications for those with dual citizenship versus those without dual citizenship. A solely American citizen (i.e. one without dual citizenship) may have their passport canceled by court order, but a dual citizen may still leave the country because their second passport is not affected by American court orders.

In the case that follows, the petitioner-father asked me to write a letter of support for his request to have sole custody of his child due to the clear and imminent danger posed by the mother, who has exhibited a history of abusing the privileges of dual citizenship in this regard.

The child is a dual citizen of the Russian Federation and the United States. According to Article 12, Part 1, Subpart C of Russian Law № 62-FZ dated May 31, 2002 (updated December 28, 2022), a child may automatically gain Russian citizenship if at least one parent has Russian citizenship and the child’s birthplace is in the Russian Federation.

Multiple/dual citizenship/nationality is a legal status in which a person is concurrently regarded as a citizen of more than one country under the laws of those countries. As a citizen of the Russian Federation, the child is qualified to obtain a Russian passport at the request of a parent who is a citizen of the Russian Federation. Even if Parent A (in this case, the father who is not a Russian citizen) possesses the child’s U.S. passport or Russian passport, no one can prevent Parent B (in this case, the mother who is a Russian citizen) from obtaining a new Russian passport for the child. Russian law goes so far as to stipulate that in these cases, the father’s permission is not required for the mother to enact these measures. Under these conditions, the mother and child can freely leave the United States. Additionally, the Constitution of the Russian Federation guarantees any Russian citizen the right to freely return to the Russian Federation (Article 27, Part 2 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation).

Moreover, Russian law allows Russian citizens to change a child's name (including first name, last name, and/or middle name) without the other parent’s consent. Article 59 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation prescribes the procedure for name changes filed on behalf of children under age 14. Part 2 of this law establishes that if both parents live separately and the parent with whom the child lives wants to file a different name, the Child Protection Authority may resolve the dispute based on the interests of the child, with or without the consent of another parent.

Upon arrival to the Russian Federation, the traveling party can immediately impose a travel ban on their child. Unlike the United States, which lacks border control at its points of exit, the Russian Federation has an active Border Security Force. Russian law provides the procedure for a parent to impose a ban on their child’s travel outside of Russia at any point in time. The Resolution Order relies on Article 21 of the Federal Act ‘On the Procedure for Departure from the Russian Federation and Admission into the Russian Federation’ № 114-FZ, issued August 15, 1996 (see Exhibit G), to substantiate these rights. If such a travel ban were to be imposed, the non-traveling party would not be permitted to cross through Russian border control with the child.

There is no extradition treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States regarding this oversight, nor is there any reciprocity concerning the return of abducted children from one country to another. According to a January 2017 letter from the U.S. Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues: “Russia is not partnered with the United States under the Hague Abduction Convention. Thus, the Hague Abduction Convention cannot facilitate the return of [names of children anonymized].” In keeping with this principle, Russian jurisprudence has established that Russian courts are not liable to enforce the return of Russian children to the United States. For example, the Russian Federation Supreme Court Judge T.N. Nazarenko stated in an April 2018 decision that the Hague Abduction Convention “is not applicable because the United States has not recognized Russia as having joined the Convention” (№ 67-KF18-135).

As such, the Russian Supreme Court denies access to recourse for child abduction under the Hague Abduction Convention to both U.S. nationals and residents of Russian territory. Rising geopolitical tensions between the two countries have further strained the possibility of Russia reversing this precedent.

The father-petitioner in this case wants the court to recognize the best interests of his child. In making determinations of ‘best interest’, the Court has historically considered factors such as each parent’s quality of home life; the length of time of the existing custodial arrangement; each parent’s past performance and relative fitness to parent the child; each parent’s ability to nurture a child’s intellectual and emotional development and maintain the child’s stability; the willingness of each parent to foster a relationship with the other parent; and the wishes of the child.

While reviewing the case file, I learned that the respondent-mother has demonstrated a track record of abusing her parental rights. In 2018, she kidnapped her older daughter in violation of her ex-husband’s parental rights. These historical facts are relevant in considering the fate of the parties’ child and duly inform how any court should proceed to secure the child’s ‘best interests.’ Moreover, even if the court orders that the mother must notify the Russian Consulate before travel, such orders have consistently proven to be ineffective and unenforceable.

Given my professional knowledge and experience, I can presume that the above circumstances indicate a high risk of the mother abducting the child, relying on legal channels of the child’s Russian citizenship to obtain a new Russian passport and potentially change their name. Such gross abuse of parental privilege would impose multiple grave consequences for the child, the petitioner, and the judicial process itself– disrupting the child’s education and treatment for his developmental disorder, depriving the father of his custodial rights to the child, and disrespecting the authority of court orders.

Accordingly, I believe the father is the parent who will best promote the child’s health and welfare while continuing to foster a relationship between the child and the mother. He has shown his commitment to ensuring that the child receives the highest quality of educational and medical services in the United States. Based upon the consideration of all of the above factors, I argue that the following custodial arrangement and parenting schedule for these parties will serve the best interests of the child:

• The father shall have sole legal and physical custody of the minor child.
• The mother’s parenting time should be hereby supervised.
• The mother shall immediately return the child to the father’s custody in the United States. Alternatively, the father or his designee should be authorized to retrieve the child from the mother’s care with the assistance of law enforcement.

This is not an isolated incident. Even though, in this case, the father had taken preemptive measures in order to prevent the abduction of his child, the same cannot be said about many other cases. Countless children have been illegally removed from the United States and this could be prevented if the Federal Government imposes border checks at points of exit from the country. Taking preemptive measures such as this case is important, but a long-term solution is necessary to address this issue, and the Federal Government is the only one that can solve this issue.