contacted the State's attorney to inquire what could be done. He suggested that she contact her local State Senator regarding State legislation. She was then advised by an attorney of a South Dakota law which had been passed on July 1, 1979 regarding child snatching. She was subsequently advised that the law did not apply to her since it was passed on July 1, 1979 and her son was taken on May 25, 1979. In addition, because the law was applicable only in situations involving noncustodial parents who take or entice away their unmarried minor children from the custodial parent without prior consent, she was advised that it would not apply to her case because her ex-husband merely failed to return the child after prior consent.

On August 17, the distraught mother, on her own, contacted the schools in the area in the belief that they might have received requests for her son's school records from other schools. She contacted her son's doctor in the event that his health records had been requested. She contacted the register of deeds in Rapid City and Pierre in the event they received requests for her son's birth certificate, believing that these might be required if her son were enrolled in a new school. On August 21, 1979, again on her own, she completed and mailed 483 "reward posters" offering $1,000.00 reward for information regarding her son. She sent these to people involved in her ex-husband's usual occupation, elementary schools, unions, State departments of education, sheriff's offices and police departments in all areas where her ex-husband had relatives.

On August 28, 1979, the Las Vegas Police Department contacted the Rapid City, South Dakota Police Department and the Pennington County sheriff's office to determine if there was a warrant issued for the ex-husband. They had received a poster from a school and were investigating. When they were informed by the sheriff that there was not a warrant issued, they advised that there was nothing they could do. Her local State's attorney told her he would "continue checking into the matter".

On August 29, she received a telephone call from a woman who worked in Las Vegas with her ex-husband, and who was interested in the reward. The mother once again contacted the sheriff's office and the State's attorney's office for help. She was informed that nothing could be done and it was up to her to "steal" her son back. The following morning the mother and her brother flew to Las Vegas only to learn that her ex-husband had seen a poster that day and had left the area, possibly for California.

On September 4, 1979 she contacted a judge in South Dakota and asked that a warrant be issued for her ex-husband for contempt of court on the basis that her ex-husband had been enjoined prior to the May 25th visitation from removing the child from the State of South Dakota. The judge advised her that because her ex-husband was out of the State that he could only issue an "immediate custody order".

On September 5, 1979 the mother prepared and nailed an additional 250 posters to California. On September 18, 1979 a call was received from a woman in California who advised the mother that her ex-husband had been staying with her, was carrying a gun and using hard drugs. She was advised that her son was "emotionally disturbed and neglected, totally withdrawn, would not play with other children and sits and stares as though he is hollow". The mother again contacted all of the authorities, the State's attorney, the sheriff, the police department, the Department of Social Services and the Federal Bureau of Investigation as well as the local Judge. Again, she received the same answers, "sorry, there is nothing we can do".

I quote for you the last paragraph of that mother's letter:

*** [t]he anger and frustration from being bounced around and told SORRY, over and over again are nothing compared to the very real pain, anguish and torment that I feel without my son. It is an agony that is tearing me to pieces. I have obtained another 500 posters and I will start again. Someday, somewhere I am going to find my son and have him home again. I will never quit. I have had to work two jobs for the past three months to pay for attorney's fees, posters, and wasted trips out of state. Perhaps by keeping so completely busy I might just keep from going insane. Thanks for listening to my story. I cannot truly understand that any human being should have to go through such a nightmare when proper legislation could serve to curb and correct child snatching."

She concludes by asking for help and seeking legislation so that all children everywhere in single parent households may live normal, decent lives without these traumatizing experiences.

The facts in this case are not atypical, but represent cases which are occurring daily in our country. For myself, for Parents Without Partners, the organization I represent, and for all parents and children who have been subjected to the brutalizing and degrading act of child snatching, I earnestly request your most serious consideration and support for the passage of this important legislation. As Senator Wallop so aptly stated, "The price of waiting is too high in human terms for our legislators not to take the initiative in finding a solution to the child snatching problem". I believe that Senate bill 105 represents that solution. It is inconceivable that anyone who has been witness to the terrible trauma inflicted upon our children by child snatching could fail to actively support the enactment of Senate bill 105 and attempt to bring a halt to this practice. Without the passage of Senate bill 105, there sitmply is no effective deterrent, as either the State or Federal level to prevent parents pursuing custody by child snatching without fear of punishment.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HAROLD H. MILTSCH

I welcome this opportunity to testify today before the Criminal Justice and the Child and Human Development Subcommittees regarding the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1979.

Unfortunately, my wife and I know firsthand how badly such legislation is needed. In 1977, my wife and I, and even more especially, our 7-year-old son, became victims of parental kidnaping when he was stolen by his natural father. There was absolutely no reason why we should have been prepared for such an eventuality. There had been no domestic quarrels. And the court had granted visitation privileges that had seemed to be satisfactory to all parties.

Our first realization that our child had been kidnaped came when he was not returned by the agreed-upon time. Subsequently, a note left behind proclaimed the harsh reality that we were quite possibly never to see our son again. I assure you, your worst imaginings cannot conjure up our feelings at that moment.

We moved swiftly-but just as swiftly learned the crushing truism that the avenues for interstate law cooperation were very limited. In desperation, we pursued the only apparent course open to us-the hiring of private investigators. $10,000 later, we were virtually where we had started. Actually, we were luckier than most parents who find themselves victims of a parental kidnaping.

For one thing, our local district attorney and his staff, as well as our local police, were determined to locate our child. For another, I was able to apply my marketing communications expertise in the form of a mailing to schools in the areas we now suspected our son was being kept. Ultimately, the doggedness of all concerned resulted in the return of our son.

One fact loomed crystal clear as details on the kidnaping plot became available. Our son's natural father was strongly influenced by the belief that the police would not investigate. I realize that my son's return was only achieved through a combination of luck and dedication beyond the call of duty on the part of some local law enforcement officials.

And that many or most other parents going through the same ordeal are unlikely to have their child returned under the conditions that prevail today. I resolved to do something about the situation. And, after much research and discussion with law enforcement officials, private investigators, victimized parents and other concerned parties, STOP PARENTAL KIDNAPING was organized.

The purpose of the organization is to provide positive assistance to victims of parental kidnaping. We are attempting to devise techniques that represent practical alternatives. Communiques from and conversations with Federal law enforcement officials, psychologists, local law enforcement personnel and, of course, victimized parents, leave no doubt that parental kidnapings are today running rampant in our country.

The anguish of the parents and irreparable emotional destruction of the kidnaped children is pitiful and unacceptable. Everybody agrees with the situation, but seemingly no one can help!

The efforts of our organization to find kidnaped children through the Return Our Children newsletter represents a very small drop in a very large bucket (Although, at least it represents hope something desperately needed by victimized parents who have exhausted their financial and emotional resources

in vain efforts to locate and get their children back.) It is S. 105, the Parental Kidnaping Prevention Act of 1979, that offers the kind of help and hope that is of a size and dimension to be meaningful.

Perhaps the greatest asset that this bill provides is: It makes parental kidnaping a violation of a Federal criminal statute. This, in itself, will undoubtedly serve as a deterant. Lawyers will no longer be tempted to advise clients to involve themselves in kidnapings. Parents who are considering such a crime may be awed by the fact that Federal mechanisms such as the FBI will be moving against them. Although Federal legislation and intervention through Federal agencies such as the FBI provides an immediate solution, still other techniques can be implemented on a long-range basis, thereby alleviating total "big brother" reliance on federal laws.

Victimized parents who have been fortunate enough to be reunited with their kidnaped child undoubtedly find themselves awakened many nights by their child, deep in a nightmare, screening: "Don't take me; please don't take me." The horror of a kidnaping remains with that child for the rest of his life. These horrors and trauma must be explicitly detailed so that everyone who is involved in a parental kidnaping can come to a clearer understanding of how devastating the crime really is.

Our organization, STOP PARENTAL KIDNAPING, intends to launch an educational program via our newsletter, news releases, magazine articles, television appearances, and other media. But passage of S. 105 is a giant step forward that must become law in order to put teeth in our efforts. And in the efforts of all others who would seek to stop or at least slow-the hideous and lasting emotional damage perpetrated every time another child is kidnaped from his home and loved ones.

[Whereupon, at 1:01 p.m., the hearing recessed to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator MATHIAS [acting chairman]. The subcommittee will come to order.

For the benefit of those in the room who are not residents of the Washington metropolitan area and who may not be familiar with the customs of the natives here, the delay in our resumption, which is supposed to have been at 2 o'clock, does not result from the fact that three martini lunches are served in the Senate but from the fact that at precisely 2 o'clock we had a rollcall vote followed by another one at about 2:20. So these were unavoidable delays. I apologize for them, but they were beyond the competence of the Chair to avoid.

Now our next panel will include Mr. Donald E. Clevenger, of Fathers United for Equal Rights and U.S. Divorce Reform; Mr. Tom Alexander, Jr., national president, Men's Equality Now of the USA, and executive director of Male Parents for Equal Rights and Mr. George F. Doppler, national coordinator, National Council of Marriage and Divorce Law Reform and Justice Organizations.

PANEL OF MALE RIGHTS OFFICIALS:

STATEMENTS OF DONALD E. CLEVENGER, FATHERS UNITED FOR EQUAL RIGHTS AND U.S. DIVORCE REFORM; THOMAS ALEXANDER, JR., NATIONAL PRESIDENT, MEN'S EQUALITY NOW OF THE U.S.A., AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MALE PARENTS FOR EQUAL RIGHTS, AND GEORGE F. DOPPLER, NATIONAL COORDINATOR, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE LAW REFORM AND JUSTICE ORGANIZATIONS

Mr. ALEXANDER. My name is Tom Alexander. Since people often ask why I have the accent I have, so as not to confuse anybody, I will

explain it very quickly. I was born in California, but I was raised in England, and I now make my home in the State of Delaware.

I kind of feel that I am in much the position of many of the parents of whom we are speaking today, inasmuch as the factors that I would be required to do something of value was thrust upon me at 2:30 yesterday afternoon. This is about the situation that most of our parents find themselves at any time. The expectation of having one's children torn from one's bosom is not there in the average individual as they make their home within the United States.

The problem as I have been able to observe it as the executive director of the local organization and as the national president of some 230 affiliate organizations across this United States is that where as we believe that we are living in a society which truly recognizes our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, we find we are not because all the things that are of value to us, our home, our employment and our children, are subject to be suddenly snatched from us and too often by that very person in whose bosom and trust we have resided for many a year.

The difficulty that I have, of course, is to try and bring to life to you the problems that I have seen on a day-to-day occurrence. While there are many opportunities to pick at the precise specifics of the bill, it is the heart and essence behind it as a natural fact people who are being abused on a day-to-day basis. Now those people that are being abused are not merely the children, but also the parents, many of whom who are Vietnam veterans who have come to me and said, "What was I fighting for?" I question what they were fighting for if their very soul has been torn away from them. A person who steals my purse steals nothing but money. A person who slanders me steals my honor. But they who steal my children steal my very soul, my future, my inheritance,

or my progeny.

I don't wish to take too much time, but let me quickly recite a few facts with respect to the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.

I am delighted to see that 39 States have adopted the act, but you would be amazed at the number of letters that I received in my office weekly, and the telephone calls that I receive weekly from lawyers and others who ask what to do when a child has been snatched, whether it is the client, or their own child or their grandchild or their niece or whatever it is. The simple fact of the matter in the one landmark case that finally made it into the Federal court, the case of Olivia Ann Katage versus Davian S. Katage, with reference to the child, Bitter Katage, age 3, the U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York, finally recognized that there might be a problem that they should be addressing.

The only reason that it became a case for the U.S. district court was the simple fact that the child had been taken from New York over to Yugoslavia. But what is more interesting is that upon research of the record, we found that the child had in actual fact lived all its life in the State of New York, and on July 1, 1977, been taken to the State of California. Now remember that both the State of California and the State of New York had adopted and had at that time adopted the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.

The simple fact of the matter was that within 45 days Mrs. Bitter had filed a petition for custody in the State of California and in less than 212 months, the date is September 26, 1977, the State of California had awarded custody to the mother, Mrs. Olivia Ann Katage. Now this is an example of how States do not follow the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act.

On the other hand, I do have a situation where the State of California does follow it. It depends who is down there to enforce the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act. This one happened to be the case of a fellow by the name of Ken Taylor who had received custody in the State of Delaware. The child had been taken to the State of California. We took the custody order of the State of Delaware to California, registered it in the County of Los Angeles. We took it over to the sheriff's department and showed them the order, gave them our indication and best judgment as to where the child was and by 4 o'clock we had that child back.

Now, I would like to make a comment with respect to that child. The child was 5 years of age. As of 5 minutes of leaving the sheriff's substation, that child said, "You know something, Daddy? This means I get to choose who I shall live with." These children are not insensitive. They have a better concept of justice, it appears to me, than the FBI, or HEW has, from the remarks that they made earlier today.

But what is even more interesting is that by the time we took the child back to the State of Delaware, 10 days after we had recovered the child, the State of California filed a reciprocal enforcement of support act against the father. It was 2 months later that he finally had to go to court to say to the court, "Look. I have my child. Why is the State of California asking for support?"

The reason I tell that story is because there is one thing that is being overlooked along the way. The subsidizing of child snatching is actually occurring through the welfare departments, because if a parent realizes they can snatch a child, go to a foreign State and go on welfare as this woman did, and as in so many cases that I have been involved with, Jim Mullican, from Maryland to the State of Florida. We were down there within the day of the child arriving there. The State of Florida enforced the order in the County of Broward. I forget the town name there now. But we found out that when we picked the child up, the child was in the care of a distant person and the mother was actually out at that time applying for welfare.

In the case of a young fellow by the name of Tom Mullins, there was actually a custody petition that had been filed in the State of Delaware. The father had responded and was contesting custody. Before the hearing was heard, Mrs. Mullins took the child to Oklahoma-Colgate, Okla. In that State the judge said, "Well, since the father went out there to take interest and to see how his child was, the judge said they would have a custody hearing as they were both there and promptly awarded custody to the mother." In addition to that, he ordered $300 in support. That mother also was on welfare by the time he got out there to pick the child up.

Now the simple fact of the matter is that the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act by itself is not sufficient. We do need Federal help. We must have Federal help, Senator. I hope you can convince the