Saturday, January 29, 2005

The Use of Child-Abduction as a Tool to Terrorize Mothers and Their Children

The Tennessee Department of Safety issued an Amber Alert Monday for the 6-year-old girl, who was allegedly taken from her home in Lexington, Ky., at gunpoint Monday by her father, Lance Franklin Spurlock, 29. Police suspected that Spurlock might be headed for Rhea County where he has family.

Dayton Police officers Jeff Hill and Rocky Hill and Rhea County Deputy Davin Payne went to the home shortly after 1 a.m. Tuesday where they took Spurlock into custody without incident.

Spurlock was arraigned in Rhea County General Sessions Court Tuesday morning. He was released from the Rhea County Jail on a $25,000 bond shortly thereafter.

Spurlock’s daughter was released into the custody of family members Tuesday, according to Jeff Hill.

The most important part of this newsclip was left out, which was that AFTER this 6 year old girl was found, she was NOT returned to her mother but instead handed over to her father's relatives, her paternal grandparents, who probably aided and abetted him with this stunt. So the father who abducted this little girl at gunpoint was then probably allowed to visit her at his leisure since she was with his parents; while her mother was threatened with arrest by Tennessee if she tried to even go over there.

These are the 'happy endings' that are frequently left out of the stories when mothers lose their children through an abduction by the way...We rarely if ever hear these stories behind the story...

This is by no means an isolated event either as many mothers lose their children through abductions. It appears that many court systems in the US and OVERSEAS as well (remember that) do NOT consider it a crime for a father to take a child for a visit and just refuse to return said child.

Actually a number of fathers get custody this way, through abduction. I personally know a number of mothers now who have lost permanent custody of their children through fathers taking the child for a visit and just refusing to return said child.

Mr Jelicich, 39, disappeared with baby Caitlin on an access visit last week.

He and his wife had been staying in Auckland while visiting his family on an extended holiday when their marriage broke down before Christmas.

"I never imagined that Stephen would take Caitlin away from me like that - never," Mrs Jelicich told BBC Wales before Caitlin was found. "Because I know how much he loved my little girl".

But she said she thought her husband, whom she had met over the internet, had not wanted to live in Wales. "Stephen has never liked living in Wales and basically I think he just saw his chance to stay in New Zealand."

Both Caitlin and Mrs Jelicich's 11-year-old daughter from a previous relationship had been with the couple on their holiday.

Mrs Jelicich had been planning to fly home on 10 January.

Stephen Jelicich took baby Caitlin a day before she was due to leave for Wales with her mother last week.

A court had ruled Diane Jelicich, 41, should have custody of Caitlin and said British courts should decide on her long-term care arrangements.

However on Wednesday New Zealand's High Court will look again at the custody decision taken by the lower courts.

Mrs Jelicich told GMTV she was glad Caitlin was safe but "appalled" her estranged husband had not been arrested. "I was absolutely devastated because I had planned to go to New Zealand to fetch Caitlin home very, very soon," she said.

"Now they've put an appeal in to the courts in New Zealand, I really don't know what's going to happen until the court case tomorrow."

This was a VACATION mothers...This couple had met over the internet, married and had a child in Wales and gone to New Zealand to bring the baby to visit his family... then he decides he doesn't want to return to what does he do...he ups and kidnaps their baby and refuses to return the child...

What do the police far nothing...They know where this man is and have done nothing. The baby remains separated from her mother and older sister by the way (11) so her sister, of course, will be emotionally devasted by this stunt as well having her baby sister kidnapped while on a freakin holiday...

AND to top it all off, he could get permanent custody now...New Zealand actually rewarded him for this stunt by agreeing to give him a custody hearing, instead of putting his butt in jail where it belongs and sending that infant home to Wales where her mother, sister and SHE belong, as that is her permanent home where she was born...She was in New Zealand on a holiday.... so who know when if ever this mother will see her baby again...

Who knows...

This is just to point out that these are NOT isolated cases as 350,000 parental abductions take place every year in the US alone. Many of the abductors in these cases are fathers who take the child for a visitation and just NEVER return said child.

I just recently saw a post on a message board where a young women's two week old infant was abducted by the father in this manner...he was home on leave from Iraq and just decided to up and disappear with the infant for two weeks...She had no idea where her child was, none. AND his name was NOT even on the birth certificate as this couple was never married and he was in Iraq when infant was born.

She went to the local police, to 1-800-MISSING, to the FBI and guess what, even though she had said birth certificate showing that she was the only LEGAL PARENT, she was turned away from every one of those places. Eventually her infant was returned to her after two weeks of hell not knowing where her infant was and she's now a lot sadder but wiser regarding the limits of the state in keeping her baby safe.

So mothers do NOT think that if this happens to you, that you can just expect help from the police or any other legal entity. You are strictly on your own in many of these situation unless you have a LOT OF MONEY for an attorney to fight this with and sometimes, even then, you can lose. It is NOT a given that your child will be returned to you, not a given at all.

Actually, as noted above, many police departments will refuse to help mothers in these situations no matter what the birth certificate saids, they won't even LOOK at it. So unless you are unusually physically capable for a woman and can go kick some serious butt, you will NOT be able to get your child back. It's not happening, even if said child is located right up the street from you.

Now many states have passed laws automatically giving single mothers custody to try to head these abduction attempts off at the pass, sadly, however a number of mothers located in those states have told me that this is not working either, as police officers, in the field, pay no attention to these laws, birth certificates or any other documentation you might wish to show them...

Sadly, they're just not too interested.

So abduction as a tool for fathers to get custody (many of them attempting to avoid paying child support) is alive and well, still kicking and still encouraged by law enforcement that refuses to get involved and a judicial system that continues sanctioning these abductions after the fact, by awarding these monsters a custody hearing AFTER they've kidnapped your baby.


Caution_All said...

nymom, thank you, as always for this post. how truly heart wrenching. my heart breaks for all our sisters suffering at the hands of these animals.

the saddest part is that in general, women have more rights over our children now than at any time within our mysogynistic history. with the exception, perhaps, of the earlier to mid part of the 20th century when custody was almost always given to mothers.

as long as males have been writing history, we have stripped of our birthright and womanhood and reduced to being wombs for males' children.

in a sane world, children would be the province of women and males would be here to support us in the venture. i dont mean that just financially, but in all ways. they would understand their roles is to support the propagation of the species not by throwing their seeds around but by tending to the mother and child.

throughout history women often had no rights to our very children at all and we still see this today in the more patriachal and mysogynistic societies. children (especially boys, since girls arent considered important) could be ripped from their mother for absolutely no reason.

additionally, wives and chldren (whether male or female) were often horribly abused and this was legal as we were all considered property of our husbands. the thought sickens me.

the fear males had and have of us runs deep. in the early 4th century, at some church council (it may have been the council of nimes ..please dear readers respond if you have specific knowledge of this), women were almost voted as being non-human.

males have always feared our sexuality and our power and have done whatever possible throughout history to intimidate us and break our spirit. but our spirit cannot be blotted out and now as males are coming to realize that our need for them is minimal, their fear of us is growing.

the world we live in now is becoming better suited for the temperence of women rather than males, and males are scrambling to find a way to hold onto their dwindling stolen power.

NYMOM said...


I have to think about all you said before I respond.

It's truly powerfull stuff...

NYMOM said...

"the saddest part is that in general, women have more rights over our children now than at any time within our mysogynistic history. with the exception, perhaps, of the earlier to mid part of the 20th century when custody was almost always given to mothers."

The problem with this statement is that it overlooks the fact that divorces were exceeding RARE in the early to middle of the 20th centuries. It wasn't really until the latter part of the 20th century, actually the 70s, that the divorce rate began to skyrocket and then finally level off in the 80s-90s to the 50% divorce rate we experience today...

Thus the early to middle of the 20th century is NOT really a good indicator of how courts will treat women on the issues of divorce and child custody/support. It actually tells us nothing.

Today looking at the data from the census figures, women, especially mothers, appear to be gettting steadily worse treatment each successive decade since about the late 80s or so.

So that can't be good.

It appears as more time passes women can expect our treatment by the court to get worse each year, slowly regressing until we end up right back where we started from...IF we allow this to continue unchecked, which, of course, we won't...

I do fear there is much jealousy on the part of men vis-a-vis the mother/child bond, that I agree with you on. However men and women DO exist on this planet together, so we must come to some level of understanding as to what role each will play in the raising of children.

I don't believe most women will put up with having a lesser role as their childrens' mother, that I'm sure of. Nor should women have to. So men will have to accept more limitations then they are used to having in other areas, as raising children is one area they won't be able to physically intimate someone, so they can be the 'boss' of everything again...

But they must be given a role...albeit a lesser one then mothers role.

Caution_All said...

"I don't believe most women will put up with having a lesser role as their childrens' mother, that I'm sure of. Nor should women have to. So men will have to accept more limitations then they are used to having in other areas, as raising children is one area they won't be able to physically intimate someone, so they can be the 'boss' of everything again...

But they must be given a role...albeit a lesser one then mothers role"

i have read and reread your comment with much interest as i always do. you always write with such thought and insight. however, i was continually drawn to this last paragraph. you state that "they must be given a role". i do so like the idea of women delegating to males the role they must play in the upbringing of our children. it is a lofty achievement for which we must strive.

if we stand steadfast in our resolve, we will prevail.

NYMOM said...

" state that "they must be given a role". i do so like the idea of women delegating to males the role they must play in the upbringing of our children. it is a lofty achievement for which we must strive.>>"

But who else but a child's mother should delegate a father's role? I wouldn't trust anyone else TO do it but us...

tttwtanbtt said...


About the Jelicich case...

The media tells you nothing. I know the case reasonably intimately. There's far more to it than you know.

When in NZ on holiday, Diane Jelicich told Stephen the relationship was over and she was going to take the baby back to Wales and he would never see her again.

Then she attacked him and gave him a burst eardrum. She was charged with assault by the Police and appeared in Court. She was remanded to appear later.

As a result of that attack, Stephen Jelicich applied for custody. The NZ Laws have provisions for the children of violent parents to be protected.

An Order was issued to keep the child in the country.

But then, things got really weird. A crooked judge told her to breach the Remand and leave the country (with the baby.)

When it became clear that the NZ "Justice System" was not going to obey NZ law, Stephen decided if it was good enough for them, it was good enough for him, so he took his own baby and went off on a little impromptu holiday.

As far as I know, he didn't actually break the law, because the child is his as much as hers.

Mothers such as Julitte Gilbert do FAR worse.

NYMOM said...

He broke the law since BOTH parents have the right to keep the child BEFORE a legal custody order is in place. A legal temporary custody order was in place and this father took child on a visitation. This is a loophole many fathers use to abduct children actually, as most people aren't aware of this loophole and assume that a mother is automatically the custodial parent after birth, particularly if she is single.

This is not the case.

Thus because a custody order was in place, this father was guilty of kidnapping. Of course he won't be charged with anything since this is the standard procedure today and how many fathers worldwide get custody of children by just taking of the jungle so to speak...

Anonymous said...

I'm in the middle here because I'm a single mother and also a grandmother who has not seen my grandson in almost 7 months. We have got to remember that there is alot of women out there using children as weapons to get back at their father's.

My son is fighting hard to get joint phsycal custody of his son. Meanwhile the child who is only a year old is forgetting who his father is.

I believe these are the men who are upsetting you. We need to think that they maybe have been dumped on. Do we as women have the right to say because of our gender that we love are children more? I do not believe that. There are thousands of men who want to be a parent and are refused!

Who can say that a women who abuses the system is a the better parent. In that case I think the father is. She will talk bad about the father, allege child abuse, allege the child will be kidnapped, allege the father is on drugs, ect.

This happens everyday and men are finally speaking out about it. Our children need more than an everyother weekend father.

We all no that there are fathers and mothers out there who do not deserve their children. But it is a crime when good parents are subject to this.

I really do support single mother and do not support kidnapping in anyway. It is a selfish act, but mothers are doing it legally. That is just as much of a crime in my book.

Men are not allowed to show hurt and compassion. So, they do try to control sistuations.

You should not delegate a fathers role in your childrens life. At who's expense, your childrens!

We have very resentful children, who feel life has not been fair. We all need to realize that it is about the children not us.

NYMOM said...

Well sadly when parents are not married and/or living in the same household one or the other is going to HAVE to be the default caretaker and usually that MUST be the mother...

Maybe some men are better parents, maybe grandparents would be, maybe the rich neighbors down the street...Unfortunately I am not willing to have every single mother have to fight to defend herself in court to what should be hers by right...her own children...because she's not perfect or as good as someone else...if she's good enough, that's fine...

If this nonsense continues women won't HAVE children, they'll be too afraid that someone is going to take them at some point in the future, it's happening already....

Then what????

Can men bring forth children...right now what you and your son are putting that mother through will proably ensure she has no more you've already caused damage to the next generation.

It's a heck of a lot harder to convince someone to be a mother with all that entails from the inconvenience, pain and just sheer bloody mess of the whole thing, then it is to convince a man to contribute to being a father since the investment men make is little...

AND I'm not going to support disrespecting mothers to appease the parties who contribute little or nothing just doesn't make any sense...

Mothers invest more, risk more, just simply DO more in the whole process
of bringing forth life and THEY are the ones who need to be considered here, not men...

Sorry...I really am...but there's nothing that can be done to change biology...

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
NYMOM said...

This is not a blog about injustice to men but one about mothers.

I'm sick to death of men trying to monopolize every single discussion about mothers and children by trying to insert something about themselves into it.

Go to another site to do this...I don't want to hear anymore bull about men...this is a site about mothers.