Why hasn’t Eileen Clark been Extradited back to the United States?

On April 9, 2013, two parents who kidnapped their two boys ages 4 and 2 from Florida to Cuba were arrested. Days later, those parents were returned to the United States for prosecution. They could receive life in prison.

Parental Kidnapper

Parental Kidnapper

Meanwhile, it has been 16 years since Eileen Clark kidnapped her three children from New Mexico to the United States. Eileen Clark was arrested in July 2010, in Oxford, UK but has still not be extradited back to the United States for prosecution. Clark, a U.S. Citizen continues to fight extradition as is being supported by an extremist non-profit group Liberty in the U.K. Their Legal Officer is Emma Norton.

To the Family Abduction Community, the Eileen Clark case represents a landmark case for long-term abductions. With the global increase in parental kidnapping cases, it sends a strong message to custodial-embattled parents that they need to take Judges’ court orders seriously. They can’t flee the jurisdiction to another country, wait to the child turns 18 and escape prosecution.

Emma Norton, Legal Officer, National Council for Civil Liberty

According to BBC News UK, Parental child abductions have increased 88 percent in the last decade. But only 24% of Britons are unaware it is a crime according to separate FCO research. The FCO research in the UK also showed that 74% of people thought that fathers were most likely to abduct their children, but non-profit Reunite International research suggest that 70% of their cases concern mothers taking the child.

Finally, a parental abduction extradition case from Cuba to the United States took several days, is taking almost 3 years in the UK. That’s not an acceptable and efficient judicial legal process. We simply don’t understand why it is taking the UK Courts so long.

References:

Parental child abductions ‘rise by 88% in a decade’ (News UK, 11 December 2012)

Advertisements

5 Responses to Why hasn’t Eileen Clark been Extradited back to the United States?

  1. Alex says:

    Calling Liberty “extremist” pretty much shows that you are not worth taking seriously. For your information, it is a campaigning organisation for civil liberties — essentially the UK equivalent of ACLU. As for this case, (1) the children don’t want to see their father, and (2) Ms Clark alleges abuse by him, which is why she left him.

    • underwatch says:

      “Calling Liberty “extremist” pretty much shows that you are not worth taking seriously. For your information, it is a campaigning organisation for civil liberties — essentially the UK equivalent of ACLU. As for this case, (1) the children don’t want to see their father, and (2) Ms Clark alleges abuse by him, which is why she left him.”

      Alex,

      The ACLU in the United States has never supported an issue like this. You can’t kidnap your children, allege abuse and then claim the children don’t want to see the victim parent. As we’ve seen in Cleveland, Ohio in America in the last several weeks, the plight of the searching parent like Eileen Clark’s former spouse. For 17+ years, he hasn’t yet given up hope that he would see his children again. The case was never adjudicated before the courts because Eileen Clark decided that she was the Judge, Jury and Executioner. Shame on Liberty and shame on you for supporting a kidnapper. Shame on his children for not having the courage or maturity to understand that they were victimized and brainwashed by their parental kidnapper, Eileen Clark. You correctly use the word “allege” but if you’ve read about this case you would see that there is no factual evidence.

      Alex, I’m going to now assume that you are thinking, well at least Eileen Clark’s children were with the biological parent and it can’t be compared to a stranger abduction. What makes Family Abductions just as bad or even worse than Stranger Abductions is that there are family members or other supporters that knew where Eileen Clark and her children were and didn’t say anything. They figured they didn’t want to be involved or it was their right not to be. But what about the rights of the young victim children? Shouldn’t Liberty be standing up for those rights? Meanwhile, this searching father didn’t know where his children were. That’s so cruel as Eileen Clark moves to the UK and remarries! Finally, Liberty and their misguided lawyers (anti-American) have done everything possible to slow the process of returning Eileen Clark to the United States.

      Alex, what if your children and were kidnapped from the UK to the United States and found 17 years later. And my organization, Liberty USA told you that well, your now adult children don’t want to see you and your former spouse alleged abuse — you would certainly be calling my organization “extremist” or something worse. Shame on you, Liberty and the U.K. Government.

      I would think International Family Abduction would be a serious issue in the UK. It is so easy to hop a train to another country. If a parent doesn’t like their custody arrangement, they could simply claim abuse and flee to another country.

      The venue or jurisdiction in this case belongs in the United States of America, not the United Kingdom. This is why Liberty should be considered an extremist group. If I were in the UK, I would ask all UK Citizens to cease any further monetary contributions to Liberty.

      – The Editor

    • Celeste says:

      Are you stupid or something Alex? Chandler and Hayden have already seen their father. That reporter who interviewed Eileen and the children never even bothered to get Mr Clark’s side of the story.
      Rebekah is so obviously brain warped and manipulated by her mother. Chandler and Hayden claimed that the reporter that interviewed them and her mother made it sound like they didn’t want contact with their father and that wasn’t true at all.
      Legally Chandler, Hayden, and Rebekah are old enough to make decisions for themselves.
      Oh and Eileen was on the FBI’s most wanted parental kidnappers. Not on the FBI’s Most Wanted list as she claims.
      If Eileen’s mental and emotional well being was called into question she should have thought about that BEFORE she absconded with the children not after they found her.

    • sandy says:

      Organization is spelled as I wrote it, not as you did… Alleging abuse and fleeing is abusive to your children and all involved. She is wrong. Custody court is called, ”The Women’s Court” and if she alleged abuse it would have been looked into and if she were telling the truth she would have been awarded her children immediately. She had said nothing about abuse until she was in trouble with the law and gone. She manipulated her horrible parents and everyone else helping her that she was a poor abused woman, yet she has not shown any classic signs of being abused. I pray that she not only rots in prison but her parents spend the rest of their twilight years in there with her. This woman has ruined so many lives because of her mental and emotional instability and her radical selfishness.

  2. Freed By Truth says:

    Eileen Clark’s entire existence appears to be based on fabrications and lies. How she can keep track of all her fibs is astounding to me. But then again, it is known in the press and on television that she was a former actress. It appears that she is selfishly putting her talent to good use at the cost of destroying innocent people’s minds and hearts, and relationships that may never have a chance to fully develop. Maybe that was her plan all along.

    I found it interesting when I did a web search on Eileen Clark, (former name was Eileen Sams), that she was married THREE times and not twice as she has claimed in all of the UK media and press. She claims in the press that John Clark was her “first” husband and that Ron Woolsey was her second husband (whom she divorced for unknown reasons). Eileen was in fact married once before John Clark, to her actual “FIRST” husband.on June 4th, 1983; a professional actor who’s name is Jim Knobeloch, (http://www.filmreference.com/film/22/Jim-Knobeloch.html)

    What would be the motivation for hiding that information and then lie about it? Especially lie about it to the UK press and government? Not once has she mentioned the real HUSBAND #1 in any of the articles or representations regarding her infamous back story. I wonder if she is deliberately concealing her former marriage to the actor because he might know something which could adversely affect her furthermore. Sure, people might say that her first marriage to Jim K. has nothing to do with the case, but then why hide it by claiming that John Clark was her first husband? Sounds fishy. What’s not said is sometimes more profound and revealing than what is said.

    I wonder what her “first” husband thinks about what she has done to Mr. John Clark, especially since according to the information on IMDB, Jim K. is now married to Beth Sullivan, a movie producer, and he has two children of his own. To think that it could have been his children who were taken from him must be a horrifying thought.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: