Newborn and Infant Abductions

September 2014 National:

The following list includes all USA cases documented by NCMEC, IAHSS and FBI-NCAVC concerning the Abductions by Non-Family Members from healthcare facilities, homes, and "other places" of Newborns/Infants (birth to 6 months).

Defini-tion: Non-Family members = not parents nor legal guardians. Comparison data: approxi-mately 4 million births in USA yearly at more than 3,500 birthing facilities. ..Continued.. by NCMEC and significantly more from NCMEC. See also background on child abductions from winipedia.

---

---

---

--- Related News Articles ---

---

---

---

First baby of 2015? It's a secret in many places

Bye, bye Baby New Year. The crowning of the year's first baby is being kept secret in many communities as hospitals say safety concerns trump tradition.

Community Health Systems - one of the country's largest health care operators - recently ordered its 207 facilities to stop publicizing the first baby of the year, citing the potential for abductions and identity theft. Other U.S. hospitals have either removed themselves from the new year's tradition altogether or limited the amount of information provided to the media.

"We know the birth of the new year baby is a joyous and exciting event, but protecting patient safety and privacy is our most important responsibility," said Tomi Galin, a spokeswoman for the Franklin, Tennessee-based company.

She pointed to guidance from the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, which has suggested health care providers obtain parental consent and eliminate home addresses and other identifying information from birth announcements or stop providing them to media.

Still, the head of the center's missing children division said, the tradition of publicizing a hospital's first birth of the year is relatively low-risk.

"We've never given direction to hospitals that they shouldn't do it," said the center's Robert Lowery, stressing caution, not overreaction.

Community Health's decision to opt-out of the New Year's baby business made front-page headlines this week in many states after local journalists learned they would need to look elsewhere for news on the usually slow holiday.

The company's Pennsylvania spokeswoman, Renita Fennick, said doctors will still let parents know if their baby arrived first and that new moms and dads could still contact the media on their own - so long as reporters and photographers stayed away from the maternity ward.

The Geisinger Health System, which competes with Community Health in Pennsylvania, said it would eliminate hometowns from its 2015 New Year's birth announcements.

Galin said Community Health's policy change came after several of the company's hospitals stopped publicizing New Year's births on their own. She described it as a preventative measure and that it was not a reaction to threats or abduction attempts.

The Joint Commission, a health care accreditation organization, suggested hospitals stop providing birth notices to local newspapers more than a decade ago after a rash of hospital abductions, but it has not required that they be eliminated.

Commission spokeswoman Elizabeth Zhani says hospitals decide whether to stop providing birth notices based on a risk assessment.

Other hospitals continue to highlight the first baby of the year, same as ever, with parents' permission.

The New York Health and Hospitals Corporation, which runs the city's 11 public hospitals, gets written permission before releasing the mother and baby's names, measurements and borough of residence. They also send out a photo.

"If there is hesitation from the family, we will only release the information they are comfortable with," city hospitals spokeswoman Jen Bender said. "We've only had positive experiences promoting the first baby of the new year." ..Source.. by MICHAEL R. SISAK

CASE MANAGEMENT FOR MISSING CHILDREN HOMICIDE INVESTIGATION

May 1997 National:

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Most children who are not where parents expect them to be, are “missing” for a very short period of time and reappear on their own, with no evidence of foul play. However, some children are missing against their will. The great majority of those children, even though they have undergone a traumatic experience, are not harmed seriously and are returned home alive. Many of them are taken by estranged parents or other family members. A small group is victimized by more predatory abductors, who want to make money by ransoming the child, to sexually molest the victim, and/or to kill the child.

The list of children who are abducted and killed each year by someone who is not a family member is relatively small, compared to the number of missing children or to other types of child murder. Because of their rarity among criminal homicides their complexity, emotion and high profile nature, they are extremely difficult to investigate. This research was undertaken in an effort to better understand these types of murders, and to identify investigative techniques and strategies that will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the criminal investigations and the apprehension rate of the murderers who abduct children. The focus is on cases of child murder in which the victims were abducted or, at the time of the initial report to the police, were suspected to have been abducted.

The murder of a child who is abducted by a stranger is a rare event. There are estimated to be about 100 such incidents in the United States each year, less than one-half of one percent of the murders committed. There is approximately one child abduction murder for every 10,000 reports of a missing child.

The victims of these cases are “average” children, leading normal lives, and living with normal families, typical low-risk victims. The vast majority of them are girls (76%), with the average age being slightly over 11 years of age. In 80% of cases, the initial contact between the victim and killer is within 1/4 mile of the victim’s residence.

Child Abduction Myths

NCMEC Host: What is the biggest myth about child abductions?

Nancy McBride; The biggest myth surrounding the issue of child safety is that the danger to children is greater from a stranger than from some body they know and this is an issue that we really need to retire, that whole stranger danger message.

It is not effective because kids do not get it, adults do not practice it and if the child is in a situation where they need help, they are surrounded by a sea of strangers, none of whom can help them, if they have been taught never talk to strangers.

The fourth reason why this is a myth is because the danger to children is far greater from somebody they or you as the parent or guardian know than from a random individual. So, we really need to take this safety message and put it in a museum and realize that it is not an effective way to teach kids about safety.

..Source.. by NCMEC

Child Abductions: the Hype vs. the Reality

11-15-2009 National:

Are children more likely to be abducted today than they were in past generations?

It's a question every parent contemplates, especially in the age of 24-hour news, when sensationalized reports of missing children -- such as 7-year-old Somer Thompson's abduction and slaying -- seem to be a permanent fixture on television and computer screens. A look at the statistics, however, shows that America has become a safer place for kids over the past decade.

"More missing children come home today than at any time in our nation's history," said Ernie Allen, president of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. "And the total number of missing children has been on the decline over the past 10 years."

According to the U.S. Department of Justice, 980,712 people under the age of 18 were reported missing in 1997, compared to 643,744 in 2008.

Further distinguishing why and how children go missing is also very telling. A 2000 Justice Department study found that of the 800,000 kids who were reported missing that year, half turned out to be runaways.

And most abductions turned out to involve family members. Only 115 of all the cases reported were a version of the nightmare scenario that most troubles parents: abduction by a stranger.

"Most who prey upon children are known to the child," Allen said. "It's a matter of seduction, not abduction."

Investigating Potential Child Abduction Cases

April 2001 National:

A Developmental Perspective

The concern that people share for the welfare of their own children, as well as for the children of others, illustrates the fundamental value children hold in society. Few relationships are as powerful or emotional as those between adults and children. Parents, families, neighborhoods, and communities strive continually to create programs and practices that provide their children with healthy, secure environments where they can thrive and grow.

Due to their physical, emotional, and cognitive dependence on adults, however, children remain uniquely susceptible to abuse, neglect, and exploitation, which make them vulnerable as victims for a variety of differing offenders who abuse and exploit them for such reasons as sex, revenge, and profit. Occasionally, this maltreatment results in missing children.

The value people place on children makes missing child incidents among the most widely publicized cases encountered by law enforcement. The reported abduction or mysterious disappearance of a child captivates families, neighborhoods, communities, and entire nations.

In the 1980s, several highly publicized stranger-perpetrated child abduction cases heightened public and parental concerns and fears and led to the widespread belief that stranger abductions had become increasingly common. This awareness caused parental groups, civic organizations, political representatives, and government agencies to support programs focusing on missing children.

PREVIOUS RESEARCH

While public fears and perceptions focused on stereotypical stranger abduction, in which an older adult male from outside the community preyed randomly upon an unsuspecting child for sexual gratification, initial research findings painted a different picture. Studies found that abductions by family members represented the most prevalent child abduction type, ranging from 163,200 to 354,100 cases annually. [1] In contrast, the national incidence of child abductions perpetrated by nonfamily members ranged from 3,200 to 4,600 cases annually, with only 62 percent of these cases committed by strangers. [2] Additionally, long-term stranger abductions, where serious risk of victim mortality existed, only accounted for between 200 to 300 cases annually.

These statistics included children ranging in age from birth to 18 years and, therefore, displayed diverse victim characteristics and vulnerabilities. Stranger abductions, although a serious and potentially lethal problem, did not appear as widespread as experts believed originally. More recent child abduction and child homicide research generally supports these findings. ..Continued.. by Dr. Lord serves with the FBI's Critical Incident Response Group at the FBI Academy. Dr. Boudreaux is a postdoctoral fellow in the Department of Psychology at the University of California in Los Angeles. Mr. Lanning recently retired from the FBI's Critical Incident Response Group at the FBI Academy.

An Examination of Media Accounts of Child Abductions in the United States

Fall 2011 National:

Abstract
The media tends to portray a distorted image of crime to the public, and child abduction incidents are no exception. Though abduction incidents perpetrated by nonfamily members (nonfamily abductions) and strangers (stereotypical kidnappings) are the rarest type of abduction offenses, they receive the most media attention.

Consequently, a moral panic has resulted in which society believes that children are routinely abducted by individuals unrelated or unknown to them. Lawmakers have responded to this fear by enacting legislation that addresses these types of incidents, but they have largely ignored the most common type of abduction: the family abduction.

The current study seeks to examine disparities between media depictions and actual incidences of child abductions by conducting a content analysis of newspaper articles drawn from LexisNexis Academic (N= 66). These accounts are then compared to data from the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART-2).

The results revealed that the media was more likely to report on incidents in which children were abducted by nonfamily members (nonfamily abductions) and strangers (stereotypical kidnappings) than would be expected given their actual frequency of occurrence. Policy implications of these findings are discussed. ..Source.. by Justine Taylor, Danielle Boisvert, Barbara Sims & Carl Garver

Domestic Custodial-Motivated Child Abductions

August 2013 National:

Unmarried or divorced individuals with children usually seek a custody order. As a result, one parent obtains custody, and the other has limited access to the child. In turn, this can increase the likelihood of noncustodial parents becoming motivated to abduct the children and threaten to inflict harm on or murder them. Custodial-motivated abductions augment the threat to children because the kidnapers continually threaten to hurt or kill to gain custody of the child or to retaliate against the custodial parent. FBI analysis has indicated that 3-year-old or younger children of unwed or divorced parents face the highest risk of harm by their noncustodial parent.[1]

The prompt reporting of the kidnaping by the custodial parent to officers and the timeliness of law enforcement personnel in responding to a child abducted by a noncustodial parent prove crucial in increasing the likelihood of recovering the child unharmed and apprehending the offender.[2] When a custodial-motivated child abduction is reported to law enforcement, the child should be considered in danger, especially in cases involving noncustodial parents who previously have threatened to abduct or harm their child or have a mental illness or disability.

An analysis of FBI child-abduction investigations in the past 3 fiscal years (FY) indicated that custodial-motivated abductions have increased from 9 percent in FY 2010 to 50 percent in FY 2012.[3] During these abductions, the children were taken against the custodial parents’ will by the noncustodial parents to retaliate against their ex-companions; in such cases, the perpetrators may threaten to harm the children to convince the custodial parents to maintain the relationship, rather than proceed with a divorce or custody court proceeding. The timely response of law enforcement, rarely the willingness of the parent to return the child, results in the recovery of the children.

Case Examples

On August 21, 2012, in Forestville, Maryland, a noncustodial father abducted a 1-year-old boy. The dad sent the child’s mother a text message insinuating that he killed the child. Because of the quick response of law enforcement personnel and despite the abductor’s intentions, officers recovered the child the following day.[4]

In Detroit, Michigan, on March 7, 2012, a 1-year-old boy was abducted from his grandmother’s home by his noncustodial father. Subsequent investigation revealed that the father threatened the child’s mother: “I’ll kill me and the baby.” Due to law enforcement officers’ rapid intervention, authorities recovered the boy and arrested the father.[5]

On January 11, 2012, in Detroit, Michigan, a 4-month-old girl was abducted from her mother’s residence by her armed noncustodial father. The infant later was returned to the mother as a result of officers’ efforts to locate and apprehend the subject.[6]

On December 27, 2009, in San Antonio, Texas, a noncustodial mother abducted her 8-month-old son from his custodial father. She told the dad that she killed the boy to prevent the father from employing his custodial rights and to retaliate for his alleged involvement with other women. The infant has not yet been recovered, and on October 19, 2012, the noncustodial mother was charged with custodial interference and conspiracy to commit the act.

Although FY 2013 is not yet complete, the FBI assesses that this trend will continue to increase. Since the beginning of the FY, 25 instances of custodial-motivated child abductions were reported through intakes and Amber Alerts from NCMEC, as well as local law enforcement agencies.[7]

In Toledo, Ohio, on November 13, 2012, three grandchildren—ages 5, 7, and 10—were abducted by their grandmother and uncle. Subsequent investigation revealed that the grandmother and uncle planned to commit suicide and murder the children due to a custodial disagreement with and in retaliation to their mother (the grandmother’s daughter). On November 14, 2012, authorities found the children, their grandmother, and uncle dead from carbon monoxide poisoning.[8]

On November 1, 2012, in Monroe, Louisiana, a noncustodial father abducted a 4-year-old boy after murdering the child’s mother. Officers later identified the dad during a routine traffic stop, at which point the suspect led law enforcement personnel on a high-speed chase. When the vehicle stopped, officers noticed the child in the backseat and that the father held a gun on his lap and another near the child. Officers broke the windows of the vehicle and recovered the boy safely.[9]

Some instances involve noncustodial parents who take immediate action in harming their child, intending to enact revenge on the other parent. In these cases, the abduction of the child occurs so rapidly that officers have minimal-to-no time to respond, thus, illustrating the risk to the life of the child when abducted by a noncustodial parent.

In West Valley City, Utah, on February 7, 2012, a noncustodial father killed his 7- and 5-year-old boys and, subsequently, committed suicide. The childrens’ maternal grandmother and custodial guardian allowed a supervised custody visit with the dad. However, when the boys arrived at their father’s home, he immediately prohibited the supervising social worker from entering, pulled the boys by force into the house, and then lit the residence on fire. As later revealed, the dad murdered the boys because he was angry about not receiving sole custody of his children.[10]

Conclusion

Recent research shows that 40 to 50 percent of marriages in the United States end in divorce and that there has been a 46 percent increase in children born to unwed parents.[11] While the majority of coparents work toward a positive arrangement for custody of their children, this increase may lead to a corresponding increase in custodial-motivated abductions. As noncustodial parents continue to make threats against their children or murder them, youth will remain at risk. FBI analysis indicates that children from birth to 3 years old are most at risk given their vulnerability and due to the fact that they easily can be transported.[12] ..Source.. by FBI

National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART) Reports

Do you know the difference between the various NISMART reports? Those produced under NISMART-1 and those produced under NISMART-2. Many folks do not know the differences. What follows is a primer to explain the differences and should be read so that there is no confusion when citing reports and statistics. All reports are below each separated by a line of "*****."

All together the reports below are: PRIMER, HIGHLIGHTS, OVERVIEW, FAMILY ABDUCTIONS, NONFAMILY ABDUCTIONS then RUNAWAYS/THROWAWAYS each represents a report of NISMART-2

************************************************

PRIMER: Second Comprehensive Study of Missing Children
April 2000

The Missing Children’s Assistance Act (Title IV of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended) requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to periodically conduct studies of the scope of the problem of missing children in the United States. The purpose of the studies is to determine, for a given year, the actual number of children reported missing, including the number of children who are victims of abduction by strangers, the number of children who are the victims of parental kidnapings, and the number of children who are recovered (Sec. 404(b)(3)).

The first study, originally known by the acronym NISMART (hereafter NISMART 1), was conducted in 1988 with results published in 1990. Thus, what were the best and most comprehensive data available on the incidence of missing children are now 10 years old.

NISMART-1 (1990): National Incidence Study of Missing, Abducted, Runaway and Thrownaway Children in America, by David Finkelhor, Gerald Hotaling, & Andrea Sedlak (Caution: 407 pages 2MB PDF File)

The current National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART 2) is the second national study to measure the incidence of each category of missing children.

In NISMART 2, currently (2002) underway, researchers are: ..Bulletin explaining all about NISMART 1 and 2.. by Louise Hanson

************************************************

HIGHLIGHTS: Highlights From the NISMART Bulletins
October 2002

The National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART) consist of several complementary studies designed to estimate the size and nature of the Nation’s missing children problem. NISMART–2, the second such set of studies (the first, NISMART–1, was conducted in 1988), provides national estimates of missing children based on surveys of households, juvenile residential facilities, and law enforcement agencies.1 The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) is disseminating a series of Bulletins that summarize findings from NISMART–2. This Fact Sheet highlights key findings presented in the first four NISMART Bulletins: National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview (NCJ 196465), Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics (NCJ 196467), Children Abducted by Family Members: National Estimates and Characteristics (NCJ 196466), and Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and Characteristics (NCJ 196469).

Note: Actually if one just wants a few stats to quote, these highlights do a pretty good job. ..more..

************************************************

OVERVIEW: National Estimates of Missing Children: An Overview (NCJ 196465)
October 2002

The words “missing child” call to mind tragic and frightening kidnappings reported in the national news. But a child can be missing for many reasons, and the problem of missing children is far more complex than the headlines suggest. Getting a clear picture of how many children become missing—and why—is an important step in addressing the problem. This series of Bulletins provides that clear picture by summarizing findings from the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2). The series offers national estimates of missing children based on surveys of households, juvenile residential facilities, and law enforcement agencies. It also presents statistical profiles of these children, including their demographic characteristics and the circumstances of their disappearance.

The National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART) were undertaken in response to the mandate of the 1984 Missing Children’s Assistance Act (Pub. L. 98–473) that requires the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) to conduct periodic national incidence studies to determine the actual number of children reported missing and the number of missing children who are recovered for a given year.


NISMART–2 Study DescriptionsNational Household Surveys of Adult Caretakers and Youth

The Household Surveys were conducted during 1999, using computerassisted telephone interviewing methodology to collect information on missing child episodes from both adults and youth in a national probability sample of households. A total of 16,111 interviews were completed with an adult primary caretaker, resulting in an 80-percent cooperation rate among eligible households with children, and a 61-percent response rate. The total number of children identified by adult caretakers in the Household Survey sample was 31,787; these data were weighted to reflect the Census-based U.S. population of children age 18 years and younger. Each primary caretaker who completed an interview was asked for permission to interview one randomly selected youth in the household between the ages of 10 and 18. Permission
was granted to interview 60 percent of the selected youth, yielding 5,015 youth interviews and a 95-percent response rate among the youth for whom permission was granted. These youth data were weighted to reflect the Census-based U.S. population of children ages 10–18. All of the adult caretakers and sampled youth in the Household Surveys were screened with a set of 17 questions to determine their eligibility for an indepth followup interview designed to collect detailed information about each type of episode.

One obvious limitation of the Household Surveys is that they may have undercounted children who experienced episodes but were living in households without telephones or were not living in households during the study period, including street children and homeless families. Although these are not large populations in comparison to the overall child population, they may be at risk for episodes.

Law Enforcement Study
The Law Enforcement Study (LES) sample consisted of all law enforcement agencies serving a nationally representative sample of 400 counties, including the 400 county sheriff departments and 3,765 municipal law enforcement agencies. The selection of counties took into account the size of their child populations.

Data were collected in two phases. In the first phase, a mail survey was sent to all law enforcement agencies in the sample. This questionnaire asked whether the agency had any stereotypical kidnappings (see definition on page 4) open for investigation during 1997. The response rate for the mail survey was 91 percent. Agencies that reported any stereotypical kidnapping cases were then contacted by telephone for an extensive followup interview with the key investigating officer in each case. Data collection was completed for 99 percent of the cases targeted for followup interviews.

Incorporating both phases of the LES, the combined response rate for the study was 91 percent. LES case weights were developed to reflect the probability of the agency and case having been included in the sample and to adjust for nonresponse and refusals.

Juvenile Facilities Study
The Juvenile Facilities Study was developed to estimate the number of runaways from juvenile residential facilities. Respondents were facility staff in a nationally representative sample of 74 facilities, including juvenile detention centers, group homes, residential treatment centers, and runaway and homeless youth shelters. Telephone interviews were conducted to determine the number of children who ran away from each facility in 1997, and details were obtained for the five most recent runaway episodes. All of the selected facilities that were operational participated; the response rate for episode-level interviews was 93 percent. Runaways were assigned weights to reflect the probability of having included the facility and episode in the sample and to adjust for nonresponse. ..more.. by Andrea J. Sedlak, David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Dana J. Schultz

************************************************

FAMILY ABDUCTIONS: Children Abducted by Family Members: National Estimates and Characteristics (NCJ 196466)
Octobr 2002

The words “missing child” call to mind tragic and frightening kidnappings reported in the national news. But a child can be missing for many reasons, and the problem of missing children is far more complex than the headlines suggest. Getting a clear picture of how many children become missing—and why—is an important step in addressing the problem. This series of Bulletins provides that clear picture by summarizing findings from the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2).

The series offers national estimates of missing children based on surveys of households, juvenile residential facilities, and law enforcement agencies. It also presents statistical profiles of these children, including their demographic characteristics and the circumstances of their disappearance.

This Bulletin presents results from the initial analysis of family abduction data collected by the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2), National Household Surveys of Adult Caretakers and Youth. These surveys were conducted during 1999 and reflect a 12-month period. Because the vast majority of cases were concentrated in 1999, the annual period referred to in the Bulletin is 1999.

Defining Family Abduction
For the purposes of NISMART–2, family abduction was defined as the taking or keeping of a child by a family member in violation of a custody order, a decree, or other legitimate custodial rights, where the taking or keeping involved some element of concealment, flight, or intent to deprive a lawful custodian indefinitely of custodial privileges.

Some of the specific definitional elements are as follows:
• Taking: Child was taken by a family member in violation of a custody order or decree or other legitimate custodial right.

• Keeping: Child was not returned or given over by a family member in violation of a custody order or decree or other legitimate custodial right.

• Concealment: Family member attempted to conceal the taking or whereabouts of the child with the intent to prevent return, contact, or visitation.

• Flight: Family member transported or had the intent to transport the child from the State for the purpose of making recovery more difficult.

• Intent to deprive indefinitely: Family member indicated an intent to prevent contact with the child on an indefinite basis or to affect custodial privileges indefinitely.

• Child: Person under 18 years of age. For a child 15 or older, there needed to be evidence that the family member used some kind of force or threat to take or to detain the child, unless the child was mentally disabled.

• Family member: A biological, adoptive, or foster family member; someone acting on behalf of such a family member; or the romantic partner of a family member. ..more.. by Heather Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak

************************************************

NONFAMILY ABDUCTIONS: Nonfamily Abducted Children: National Estimates and Characteristics (NCJ 196467)
October 2002

The words “missing child” call to mind tragic and frightening kidnappings reported in the national news. But a child can be missing for many reasons, and the problem of missing children is far more complex than the headlines suggest. Getting a clear picture of how many children become missing—and why—is an important step in addressing the problem. This series of Bulletins provides that clear picture by summarizing findings from the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2). The series offers national estimates of missing children based on surveys of households, juvenile residential facilities, and law enforcement agencies. It also presents statistical profiles of these children, including their demographic characteristics and the circumstances of their disappearance.

This Bulletin presents results from the initial analysis of nonfamily abduction data collected by the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2). The NISMART–2 studies spanned the years 1997 to 1999.1 All data in the individual component studies were collected to reflect a 12-month period. Because the vast majority of cases were from the studies concentrated in 1999, the annual period referred to in this Bulletin is 1999.


Defining Nonfamily Abduction and Related Terms

• Nonfamily abduction: (1) An episode in which a nonfamily perpetrator takes a child by the use of physical force or threat of bodily harm or detains the child for a substantial period of time (at least 1 hour) in an isolated place by the use of physical force or threat of bodily harm without lawful authority or parental permission, or (2) an episode in which a child younger than 15 or mentally incompetent, and without lawful authority or parental permission, is taken or detained or voluntarily accompanies a nonfamily perpetrator who conceals the child’s whereabouts, demands ransom, or expresses the intention to keep the child permanently.

• Stereotypical kidnapping: A nonfamily abduction perpetrated by a slight acquaintance or stranger in which a child is detained overnight, transported at least 50 miles, held for ransom or abducted with intent to keep the child permanently, or killed.

• Stranger: A perpetrator whom the child or family do not know, or a perpetrator of unknown identity.

• Slight acquaintance: A nonfamily perpetrator whose name is unknown to the child or family prior to the abduction and whom the child or family did not know well enough to speak to, or a recent acquaintance who the child or family have known for less than 6 months, or someone the family or child have known for longer than 6 months but seen less than once a month. ..more.. by David Finkelhor, Heather Hammer, and Andrea J. Sedlak

************************************************

RUNAWAY/THROWAWAYS: Runaway/Thrownaway Children: National Estimates and Characteristics NCJ 196469)
October 2002

The words “missing child” call to mind tragic and frightening kidnappings reported in the national news. But a child can be missing for many reasons, and the problem of missing children is far more complex than the headlines suggest. Getting a clear picture of how many children become missing—and why—is an important step in addressing the problem. This series of Bulletins provides that clear picture by summarizing findings from the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2). The series offers national estimates of missing children based on surveys of households, juvenile residential facilities, and law enforcement agencies. It also presents statistical profiles of these children, including their demographic characteristics and the circumstances of their disappearance.

This Bulletin provides information on the number and characteristics of children who are gone from their homes either because they have run away or because they have been thrown out by their caretakers. The estimates presented in this Bulletin are derived from three components of the Second National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children (NISMART–2): the National Household Survey of Adult Caretakers, the National Household Survey of Youth, and the Juvenile Facilities Study. The NISMART–2 studies spanned the years 1997 to 1999.1 All data in the individual component studies were collected to reflect a 12-month period. Because the vast majority of cases were from the studies conducted in 1999, the annual period being referred to in these Bulletins is 1999.

Defining Runaways/Thrownaways
A runaway episode is one that meets any one of the following criteria:

• A child leaves home without permission and stays away overnight.

• A child 14 years old or younger (or older and mentally incompetent) who is away from home chooses not to come home when expected to and stays away overnight.

• A child 15 years old or older who is away from home chooses not to come home and stays away two nights.

A thrownaway episode is one that meets either of the following criteria:

• A child is asked or told to leave home by a parent or other household adult, no adequate alternative care is arranged for the child by a household adult, and the child is out of the household overnight.

• A child who is away from home is prevented from returning home by a parent or other household adult, no adequate alternative care is arranged for the child by a household adult, and the child is out of the household overnight. ..more.. by Heather Hammer, David Finkelhor, and Andrea J. Sedlak