inches. The stepfather or his former stepfather went to the car door, wound up that window and closed it on him. This is the sort of viciousness that is visited upon these men.

I also have some film taken on a 100 by 10 by 1 camera. This is an attempt of the father to visit his children. Remember, this order of visitation was given by the State of New York in his absence which allowed him to visit on Sundays from 9 to 5, in his wife's house.

He arrived 3 minutes early, and because we already knew the problems involved, you will notice we had police officers present in order to prevent a breach of the peace. Three minutes early and he is made to wait until precisely 9 o'clock before he can go in.

Senator MATHIAS. I am sorry we do not have the facilities here to project those films. Perhaps if we can make some arrangements with the staff so the committee can view those films, we will talk to you about that at the conclusion of the hearing.

[The pictures referred to above can be found in the appendix.]

Mr. ALEXANDER. If I may make the comments that I wished to make earlier, the Virginia Constitution of 1776, the Bill of Rights, section 14, I realize it is a little old, about 202 or 203 years ago, or 204 years ago, but there was a comment there

Senator MATHIAS. Written by a very modern mind, though.
Mr. ALEXANDER. Yes, sir.

I am amazed, the more I look into the ancient documents of our Nation, the more modern I realize they are. The comment or section 16 provides that the people have a right to uniform government. I believe Senator, section 105 will give us a modern day interpretation of that right which is a sentiment which is still dear to us.

Senator MATHIAS. It is a good Jeffersonian principle.

Mr. Doppler, I was interested by your statement. It would seem to me, however, that a number of your specific concerns are not concerns of this committee or with S. 105. They relate in large measure to State law reform. S. 105 is either silent or neutral on those subjects. It is silent or neutral not because we are indifferent to them, but because it is beyond our constitutional authority to legislate in those areas. These are the areas in which the States must legislate. So, the passage of S. 105 would not prejudice the goals that you seek, and perhaps would advance them. It focuses attention on those areas.

You have all heard the bells ringing. I have let the roll call go until the point of what we call the "jogging point," to get over to the Capitol and vote. So, unfortunately, we will have to stand in recess at this point. We will got to the next witness. I do, however, have several questions for this panel which we will propound to you and ask for your comments in writing, and specifically, Mr. Doppler, on the point I just raised.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Clevenger follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DONALD E. CLEVENGER

In the interests of this hearing and the groups that I represent, I feel it necessary to recount my personal history in regards to the subject bill. While my case is not entirely an everyday happening in a custody struggle, parts of my struggle happen with alarming frequence in the legal jungle that exists. There are cases where a parent must first be found in order to cause him or her to face up to his or her parental obligations of both a financial and supportative nature.

Unfortunately there are many cases where the "best interests of the children" is found by the courts to be only of a fiscal nature. The system appears to be unfairly biased towards mothers and financial interests in altogether too many cases. Where these biases do not exist, the license is there to simply cross a State line and seek a more favorable jurisdiction in the absence of S. 105.

My own children, then aged 5 and 7, were abruptly removed from their school and my care on November 1, 1978, by my then wife and the mother of the children. I have not seen them since, even though I was awarded "first" custody of them under Case No. J705-1 and J706-1 in the Commonwealth of Virginia where we were then living. The State of Washington subsequently chose to award custody to my ex-wife by entering a conflicting order, Equity Number D119731, granting custody to the mother and restraining me from even seeing my children. This conflicting custody order in the State of Washington was accomplished with that court's full knowledge of the Virginia custody order. I had notified the local court in the Seattle, Wash., area of my Virginia custody order because I had reason to believe my ex-wife would go there to commence her shopping for a more favorable jurisdiction. I was notified of the Washington action and proceedings which had already taken place on December 20, 1978, nearly a month after the order was signed granting the mother custody on November 21, 1978. The jurisdiction of the Washington Superior Court was contested before the Washington State Supreme Court through March of 1979. The Washington State Supreme Court found that the mere physical presence of the children warranted jurisdiction in that State.

It was over a month before I was in any way informed of even the general whereabouts of my children, after they were removed from the sanctity of my care and the Commonwealth of Virginia and I still do not have their address or the unlisted telephone number where they are living. Even with a valid custody order awarding me custody of my children and granting me child support, I was unable to use the services of the Federal Parent Locator Service, because I did not have physical possession of my children at that time when I needed their help. I had no help, although it was solicited, from any local, State or Federal agencies, whatsoever in locating my children or checking upon their well-being. Because of a history of child abuse and neglect on the part of my ex-wife I was also concerned for their physical well-being. All agencies choose to not get involved in a so-called domestic dispute. I have been forced to engage the services of a private investigator in an attempt to find my children. To date my efforts to establish contact with my children have been to no avail, other than to line the pockets of numerous attorneys and private investigators with many thousands of dollars representing more than my net annual income. It is somewhat easier for a woman to hide behind unlisted telephone numbers and to keep moving than it is for a man to do so with his frequently demanding professional obligations. This is not to say that this problem is entirely unique and applies to fathers only. The use of children in this demeaning manner to hurt the other parent is wrong regardless of the sex of the parent who perpetuates the act.

Interestingly enough, I have recently, within the last week, been ordered to pay child support. The courts hope, after 13 months of behavior to the contrary, that my ex-wife will have matured sufficiently to allow at least some visitation to occur between my children and myself. The courts are not unmindful that the payments of child support might be sufficient bait for my ex-wife to change her behavior patterns. The dilemma the courts are now faced with is where should I make these payments for child support that my ex-wife has so eagerly sought since she still refuses to provide an address. The Uniform Reciprocal Support Agreement between States have made it simple for this woman to harass me with numerous court engagements, each of which have cost me both emotionally and financially while her interests have been served and protected by the free services of the Commonwealth attorney in my home State. Even should I be so fortunate as to be granted visitation privileges with my children, their having been removed to a place so far away makes any meaningful contact both expensive and difficult, this fact the courts have decreed is my problem and in no way a problem or concern for the person who took them so far away.

I feel S. 105 may relieve some of these conflicting custody orders and will lessen the availability and attractiveness of frontier justice such as my ex-wife accomplished in removing the children and seeking a more favorable jurisdiction after custody proceedings were initiated here in Virginia. This has been very trying and demanding upon my children. I'm sure, and upon myself. I love my children very much.

Basically, this woman whom I married and loved cleaned me out. At the end of the marriage I was left with no home, no automobile, no money, incredible debts and, most important, no children, even though I had legal custody in one State. I am now ordered to pay child support and do not even know where my children are or if they are. Even if my case were uncommon, it should not be allowed to happen. This woman warned me that she would clean me out but I believed in justice and even expected to find some fairness in the system. I know of cases that have dragged on much longer than mine and some that appear to be even more extreme than what happened to me. This is a recount of what has happened to me and what is happening to my children and as I understand this is what S. 105 is intended to prevent. I understand why some States encourage jurisdiction shopping, the child support money will be spent in their State and there is always the possibility of ripping off the Federal Government for aid to dependent children, but it should not be so. Unfortunately some judges feel that mothers are the weaker sex and need the help of the system, which is sometimes true, however, the pendulum has in some cases swung a bit too far. Neither sex and, more importantly, the children should not be abused by the system.

With joint custody being a viable, albeit difficult, option in all 50 States, we question a system which provides so well for the abuse of our children and for jurisdictional shopping. The system seems obsessed with making some loving parents into ex-parents with little or no meaningful contact with the children who are loved. The system is concerned with the rightness and collection of financial obligations above and beyond the best interests of the children.

Our Federal Government provides the services of the Federal Parent Locator Service as a collection agency but it will not locate children who have been absconded with or the other parent who does the absconding and secreting. After a few days, or 13 months, or 7 years or more go by without contact with the children, and in the absence of S. 105, the choice becomes one of accepting monthly child support obligations without visitation or re-snatching. We prefer S. 105. FPLS will not assist with locating parents or children unless one has physical possession, even when a person has a legally defined right to both custody and child support. Perhaps we should consider changing the name of FPLS to call in a Federal collection agency to be used only against ex-parents, and mostly ex-fathers at that. The use of state attorneys to harass a loving father is bad enough in the many URESA cases, but the lack of support from the misnamed agencies within our Federal Government is devastating. This reinforces the unfairness of the existing system. The tremendous financial costs which are incurred by parents, especially men, in a custody struggle make custody struggles a rich man's game which is so often both devastaing and futile. S. 105 will not repair the inequities of the system, but it wil make the mere crossing of a State line less attractive to those who wish to continue the battle in a more favorable jurisdiction.

We are confronted and confounded by a system that we did not create and hopefully will only face once in a lifetime. Our children, as well, must live with the consequences. Many will attest to the unfairness of the present system, and many of us who have confronted the system are appalled by the emotional abuse heaped upon our children who are so frequently mere pawns used for selfish gain. The two groups which I represent are fervently struggling with their emotions as paying ex-parents. We have been instrumental in getting the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act passed into law in both Virginia and Washington in the last year, only to see the extremely sexist favors system prevail in the local courts with a continuing concern for collection and no real concern for the best interests of the children involved. We are also ardently supporting a presumption of joint custody in all States, but find our efforts at protecting parent's and children's rights closely akin to making water flow up a vertical rope. We shall prevail in time.

In the meantime we implore this august body to act favorably upon S. 105 with all haste so our children will have a right to have contact with both parents should their travels take them across State lines. State courts obviously cannot or will not resolve this situational conflict between themselves and in the best interests of the children. When children cross State lines in a custody conflict we desperately need a higher forum to decide the issue of jurisdiction, which States selfishly refuse to resolve between themselves.

In addition, the loss of productivity and the financial obligations incurred by either parent when pursuing visitation, which is often obstructed and

requires still more court appearances, is abhorrent. FPLS should be less of a collection agency and more of a true locator service.

The immediate passage of this bill is urged before another 25,000 to 100,000 children are caused to suffer from being snatched or secreted in the next year. If this legislation is allowed to drag out for another 5 years there will be upwards to 500,000 or more children who suffer from our inaction. Please care for our children.

Senator MATHIAS [continuing]. Thank you very much. We will stand in recess until the end of this roll call vote.

[A short recess was taken.]

Senator MATHIAS [acting chairman, presiding]. The hearing will come to order.

Our next panel will include Ms. Sarah Keegan, former coordinator, single parent family program, of the Department of Community Affairs, Providence, R.I.; Dr. Jeannette I. Minkoff, probation-family services coordinator, of Monroe County, N.Y. and Prof. Michael W. Agopian, director, Child Stealing Research Center, Los Angeles, Calif.

PANEL ON EFFECTS OF CHILD STEALING:

STATEMENTS OF SARAH KEEGAN, FORMER COORDINATOR, SINGLE PARENT FAMILY PROGRAM, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, PROVIDENCE, R.I.; DR. JEANNETTE I. MINKOFF, PROBATION-FAMILY SERVICES COORDINATOR, MONROE COUNTY, N.Y.; AND DR. MICHAEL W. AGOPIAN, PROFESSOR-DIRECTOR, CHILD STEALING RESEARCH CENTER, LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Ms. KEEGAN. Honorable Chairman and members of the subcommittees, I am going to make this as short as possible and I also do not want to be repetitive.

Senator MATHIAS. Your full statement, and I say this to all three of you, will appear in the record at the conclusion of your oral testimony.

If you can summarize it, it will speed the work of the committee. I would appreciate it.

Ms. KEEGAN. There are a few comments that I wanted to make. I agree with the amendments as proposed earlier by Senator Wallop. In addition, I would like to see the following definition of parental kidnaping: That is, any parent who conceals a child or children from the other parent, thus, denying the child or children access to one parent. I think the custody situation is important, but I also think that by denying to that child or children access to the parent is a very serious situation. Very negative, also.

Basically, the points that I want to make are that for whatever reason a parent kidnaps a child, they are not good enough to justify uprooting the whole life of the child. I strongly believe that information, education, encouragement, and support related to custody decisions given close to the time of separation and divorce in family courts throughout the country would discourage some parents from kidnaping their children. However, I also strongly believe that we need S. 105. It was quoted in Time Magazine about 12 years ago, a Dr. Philip Weeks is quoted as saying, "Child stealing is one of the most subtle and brutal forms of child abuse," and I agree. Now I basically too believe that every child has a right to access to both parents, un

less there is a criminal situation or a drug addiction situation, especially after a separation or divorce. I think we are all aware that feelings are very heavy at the time of the separation or divorce. There is a lot of anger. There is a lot of guilt. This causes some parents to kidnap their children.

If this does happen, I feel that there should be a process that should exist to rectify this situation as soon as possible, thus minimizing the trauma to the child. I have really agonized over watching parents, talking to them, listening to them tell me their stories about the suffering that they have gone through, the trauma that their children have gone through and as a counsellor, as a coordinator of the program, I was very frustrated in not being able to refer them to any resource. It really seems an atrocity to me that for the most serious problem a single parent can have, there is no resource. If a single parent needs food, I can refer them to food stamps. If they need housing, I can refer them to section 8 housing. There is a waiting list, but still, I can refer them. Yet, if there is a kidnaping, there is nowhere I can refer the parent. We need S. 105 as a resource. I see it as a really good beginning. I know there are a few problems with the bill. I still think that it is a very good beginning.

I think we also need a clearing house of information: A place to go or a place to call where parents can find out what resources exist in their own State. This has been one of the biggest problems in that there is so much out there now. There is such a bureaucracy of agencies and programs all trying to help people with different concerns related to divorce. If one person would have one place to call, this could be an 800 high line, and be referred to the proper agency in their own State, I think this would be of great help. I know everyone is tired. I am going to say that's it and thank you very much for having me come.

Senator MATHIAS. Thank you very much.

Dr. MINKOFF. I am Jeannette Minkoff. I hold a doctorate in clinical psychology. I am a practicing family therapist. I have been employed for the past 12 years by the Monroe County Probation Department in Rochester, N.Y., as a family counsellor.

My present title is probation family services coordinator. In addition to performing family counseling services and staff training, I supervise the special investigations unit with the probation department. This unit receives referrals from the supreme court and the family court of the departments in the Seventh Judicial District, State of New York, which order investigations, evaluations and family counseling regarding child custody and visitation matters before the court. The matters involving custody come to us before decision and disposition. The visitation matters are generally referred after a custody decision has been made.

My testimony is based on my contacts with more than 100 cases where parental kidnaping has taken place prior to referral. In only four cases did kidnaping take place after court ordered counseling and investigation. When matters are referred regarding visitation, the parties have generally been through a long and tiring adversary proceeding with extended litigation. The principals are so hostile and angry with each other that they have forgotten about their parenting