• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

If you have issues viewing or accessing this file contact us at NCJRS.gov. Introduction • Overview of Current Missing Child Problem Reunification Reunification Project • Team issues of • Purpose of Training Manual Missing Children Non-Family Abduction • Case Study G Research Training Manual Parental Abduction • Case Study • Research Runaways Center for the Study of Trauma • Case Study Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute • Research University of California 9! San Francisco Child Trauma Review f (0<] Treatment of Child Trauma 11.1 Reunification of Missing Children Research Results 177' , ~ ._ .. _,._ > •• _~ __• ___• _, • __.i .~ References AVERY ~~/~~ PROGRAM GOALS Each year in the United States, more than 4,500 children disappear as a result of stranger and • non-family abduction, more than 350,000 disappear as aresultoffamily abduction, and more than 750,000 disappear as a result of a runaway event (NISMART, 1990). While the majority of these children are recovered, the process of return and reunification has often been difficult and frustrating. Less than 10% of these children and their families receive any kind of assistance and guidance in the reunification process (Hatcher, Barton, and Brooks, 1989). Further, the average length of time between the parents' appearance to pick up their recovered child and their departure to go home is only 15 minutes (Hatcher, Barton, and Brooks, ibid.). Professionals involved with these families, including investigating law enforcement officers, mental health/social service professionals, and victim/witness personnel, have all recognized the need for: (1) a knowledge base about missing children and their families, (2) a clearer understanding of the missing! abduction event and its consequences to chHd and family, and (3) guidelines and training to develop a coordinated multi-agency approach to assisting these child victims and theirfamilies. The Reunification of Missing Children Training Program is designed to provide such a knowledge base about missing children and their families, and to assist interested communities in developing a coordinated multi-agency approach to assisting these children in their recovery and reunification with their familie3. This Program is the result of the combined experience of local and federal law enforcement officers, criminal justice researchers, district attorneys, U.S. attorneys, mental health/social service professionals, victim/witness personnel, and recovered children and their families. The research base of the Program inc1udes two national studies conducted over a three year period and covering more than 4,250 missing child cases. • The Reunification of Missing Children Training Program is designed for law enforcement officers, criminal justice system staff, mental health/social service professionals, victim/witness personnel who will be involved in the recovery and reunification of missing children with their families. As a result of this Training Program, attendees will: • Understand the incidence of stranger and non-family abduction, family abduction, and runaways in the United States. • Understand the characteristics of the child victim and abductor/exploiter experience in each of three missing child categories. • Understand the characteristic of the recovery and reunification experience for the child victim and the family in each of the three missing child categories. • Understand the specialized investigative and trial issues for cases where a crime is involved. • Understand. the specialized emotional and social adjustment issues facing recovered • children and their families. • Know how to effectively assist in the recovery and reunification process of missing child and family. • Be able to begin development of a coordinated, mUlti-agency community approach '. to the recovery and reunification process of missing child and fami! y. The Reunification of Missing Children Training Program is supported by Cooperative Agreement Number 88-MC-CX-KOO2 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice. The Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs coordinates the activities of the follo'Ying program offices and bureaus: the Bureau of Justice Statistics, National Institute of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Points of view or opinions are those of the presenters and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Department of Justice .. 147250 U.S. Department of Justice National Institute of Justice I document has been reproduced exactly as received from the ~~r!on or organization originating it, Points of view or oplnl~lns stated I~ this document are those of the authors and do not necessar Y r~presen the official position or policies of the Nationallnstitule of Justice. Permission to reproduce this ' 'nl material has been • gran~~~lic DomainjOJP jOJJDP U.S. Department of Just~ce to the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), Further reproduction outside of the NCJRS system requires permission of the""'" owner. • INTRODUCTION On a warm summer's day in Germantown, Pennsylvania, five-year-old Charlie Ross is • playing with his six-year-old brother in the fenced front yard of his family's house. The date is July 3, and Charlie is looking forward with great anticipation to the fireworks displays ofJuly 4. Two men drive by, and engage the boys in conversation. Promising to take the boys to the store to buy fireworks, the two men manage to get the boys to ride away with them. The two men and the two boys drove around in the northern section of GG1lJlIDltown for approximately two hours. At this point, without explanation, the six-year-old brother was released, and the two men disappeared with Charlie Ross. The year is 1874 and America's frrst documented child kidnap­ ping has just occurred. The first media report of the case appeared on the front page of the New York Times on July , 5, 1874, stating that Christian K. Ross, the boy's father, had offered a reward of $300 for the recovery, or information leading to the recovery of his son. Omitted from this first news report was the fact that Mr. Ross had received a letter the day after his son's disappearance demanding $20,000 ransom or his son would be killed. The Times continued to carry reports of the case day after day. O~ July 9, the editorial page contained a commentary on the case which questioned whether such an event could have actually happened here in the United States, as it seemed to more closely resemble an historical novel of Greek thieves. On July 14, a Times editorial reflected the mood of the country: "The Philadelphia • kidnapping still remains an unresolved dreadful fact--one suggestive of exceedingly unpleasant reflections, which, from their very unpleasantness, should receive thoughtful consideration. A boy is taken away in open day by two men, who are keeping him from his family for the purpose of extorting money. The child is probably in no danger of life of limb, for his kidnappers have offered to restore him for twenty thousand dollars, and he must be in their eyes too valuable a piece of property to be put in any needless peril. There seems to be no new clue to the detection of the kidnappers ... The father is said to be prepared to pay the ransom demand-and anybody who calls this an act of weakness had better try to imagine what he would do himself if his own child were in the hands of these unknown scoundrels. Must it, then, be accepted as true that any of us are liable to have our children stolen from the public streets, and in open day? It is extremely unlikely that the child of any Philadelphia business shows that any of us is liable to such a loss; for what may be done in one instance, and in one place, may be dOlle in another place. It seems that the crime can be committed with a considerable chance of impunity, and there are creatures ready and able to commit it upon sufficient inducement-that is prospect of gain. And the prospect of gain is, it must be confessed, very fair. In case of a stolen child, whose restoration is offered for a sum of money, how few parents, if the sum were within theirreach would hesitate to pay it? How few men would have the firmness--say rather than the stoicism-to resist the pleadings of their own hearts, enforced by the cry ofa frantic mother bereaved of her child? The history of brigandage from the remotest ages tells us how few ... Kidnapping is sometimes resorted to in Europe. [sic] but of course it is one of the rarest means adopted; and as money is.the only object of the kidnappers ... none but the wealthy • . 1 r <_ are exposed to such attempts at extortions; and they are they who can most easily protect their children against all chance of such exposure ... Ofperils by night we are careful enough with our combination locks, burglar-alarms, and private watchmen; but that there are perils by day which also demand our serious attention this Philadelphia business is striking evidence." (New York Times, July 14, 1874, p. 4) • On July 21, eighteen days after the kidnapping, the New York City Police Department received a tip that William Mosher and Joseph Douglas were the abductors. Mosher and Douglas had long criminal records for robbery and burglary in New York and New Jersey. At the time of the kidnapping, both men had escaped from jail. Charlie's father agreed to pay the expenses of the investigation outside New York City, and New York City police detectives were then assigned to search for Mosher and Douglas, wherever the leads might take them. The next day, th,~ mayor and city fathers of Philadelphia pledged a $20,000 reward. As days passed with little new news on the case, the Times continued to cover the issue with general articles on child kidnapping, citing historical material and reported sightings of Charlie in New York, Massachusetts, Pennsylvani~, Missouri, and Louisiana.

Load more

  191

Copy Link