The definition of abduction is defined in CA family code 6420 section (c) which defines abduction as follows:
"Abduct" means take, entice away, keep, withhold, or conceal.
So imagine a scenario where a parent repeatedly screams from the rooftops that the other parent is a foreigner. Said foreigner has not left the country in 14 years, has never purchased flight tickets, has never withheld or concealed the children or traveled with the children out of state, has expired passports and is a PERMANENT legal resident. However, the other parent with his family who are US citizens have left the state with the children, refused to inform the foreigner parent where they were, have repeatedly concealed the children from their foreigner mother and have repeatedly withheld the children at length, delighting in the fact that they are U.S. citizens and above the law and that the trial court protects them.
At an exparte filed by the parent who screams foreigner at every proceeding Judge Dale Wells had the following to say regarding the “evidence” presented by the father as to the alleged abduction risk:
There are a few unpublished decisions that have dealt with the flight risk allegations. In a writ proceeding in GAS v. Superior Court of San Diego County, Cal: Court of Appeal, 4th Appellate Dist., 1st Div. 2007 the 4th district specifically commented on the fact that the court used an illegal exparte procedure which violated all due process and reversed the trial court order on an expedited basis as SOME courts do act in an expeditious manner so that the parent/child relationship is preserved, rather than torturing a parent and children for years.
The Fourth District court specifically commented as follows:
The trial court did not follow proper ex parte procedure. Rule 5.3.14 applies to ex parte requests to change a minor’s vacation, or change the holiday visitation schedule or the school the minor attends. Strictly speaking, the rule does not apply to this case because, on the record before us, there is no “change” of the vacation, holiday visitation schedule or school. Even if we assume it arguably applies, rule 5.3.14 “disfavor[s]” ex parte requests in such situations and directs that these matters be heard on the regular motion calendar on shortened time.
The application of rule 5.3.13 is even more perplexing. The rule provides in part: “Pursuant to Family Code section 3064, other than stipulated orders, ex parte orders regarding child custody and visitation will be granted only upon a clear showing of immediate harm to the child or immediate risk that the child will be removed from the State of California.” Family Code section 3064 prohibits the court from making any order “granting or modifying a custody order on an ex parte basis unless there has been a showing of immediate harm to the child or immediate risk that the child will be removed from the State of California.” Facially, the statute and rule do not apply because it was mother who had sole legal and physical custody of S. under the court’s June 18 order, and it was father who was seeking a modification of custody and attempting to remove S. from the state.
We conclude the court violated mother’s procedural rights by allowing S. to travel to Jordan and requiring mother to relinquish S.’s passport to father’s counsel. Because the relevant facts are not in dispute, the law is clear, and the matter is urgent requiring acceleration of resolution, we conclude a peremptory writ in the first instance is proper. (Code of Civ. Proc., § 1088; Alexander v. Superior Court (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1218, 1222-1223, disapproved on another ground in Hassan v. Mercy American River Hosp. (2003) 31 Cal.4th 709, 724, fn. 4; Ng v. Superior Court (1992) 4 Cal.4th 29, 35.)
In another case, Di Napoli v. Di Napoli, Cal: Court of Appeal, 2nd Appellate Dist., 6th Div. 2012, the court specifically allowed the mother, a Taiwan and US citizen, to move to Taiwan, a country that is not part of the Hague convention. The court specifically refrained from referring to the mother as a flight risk and merely ordered that she post a $ 10,000 bond as a condition for her move to Taiwan with the child.