John Clark Speaks Out – Father of Eileen Clark Children

John Clark

For the Family Abduction Community of Missing Children’s Organizations, Law Enforcement & the Legal Community, Searching Parents, Recovering Parents and their Friends and Family that are following the John Clark Case — below is the link to the interview he gave to David Usborne of the Independent in the UK.

Click to Read Article

First of all, we applaud John Clark for giving this interview to David Usborne of the UK. John Clark is breaking new ground in his quest to be reunified with his adult-children. After he was slandered by Eileen Clark, her attorneys, the UK Human Rights Organization Liberty and their attorney Emma Norton — Eileen Clark’s guilty plea is an admission that she made up the allegations of abuse as well as a fabricated mental health condition. She robbed her former spouse and his family of a relationship with his children and further alienated his children against him.

What remains is will Eileen Clark step up and apologize to her former spouse during her sentencing hearing? Will Liberty apologize to John Clark and remove all content from their website on this case? Will the Clark children find the courage to reunify with their father?


Clark interview: Transatlantic kidnap saga that put extradition treaty on trial by David Usborne (The Independent, 26 October 2014)


25 Responses to John Clark Speaks Out – Father of Eileen Clark Children

  1. Neha says:

    Eileen Clark’s guilty plea is NOT an admission that she made up the allegations of abuse and does NOT mean that she fabricated mental health condition!!! And she sould not pay that abusive bastard any money!! He saved a lot of money by not paying child support for 3!! kids for over a decade!! I doubt he will ever get a chance to have a relationship with his children. Hi sdaughter certainly does not want to see him!!

    • underwatch says:

      Eileen Clark’s guilty plea is NOT an admission that she made up the allegations of abuse and does NOT mean that she fabricated mental health condition!!! And she sould not pay that abusive bastard any money!! He saved a lot of money by not paying child support for 3!! kids for over a decade!! I doubt he will ever get a chance to have a relationship with his children. Hi sdaughter certainly does not want to see him!!

      In these cases, there is no legal defense parental kidnappers. And like most criminals you will find in prison, most will claim to be innocent. She is pleading guilty because she is. If she had evidence should would have stayed in New Mexico and gone to Family Court. She’s a parental kidnapper and will spend the rest of her life paying back her former spouse. She’s a pathetic liar and is no role model for her adult children or the rest of society. If you think that she fabricated the mental health condition, and then claimed she has never had a mental health condition — you can figure that one out. Neha, you are just as pathetic as she is.

      Neha, why is it that you can’t believe that Eileen Clark fabricated the abuse allegations against her former spouse as an excuse for kidnapping her children?

      Someday individuals like you will have a family member, friend or loved one that is the victim of a parental kidnapping. When that occurs, you will feel much differently about this crime.

      Neha, you have some really distorted views. With that type of thinking, maybe someday you will join Eileen Clark in both spending time in jail and a Felony Conviction. For the rest of Eileen Clark’s pathetic life, when answering the question, “Have you ever been convicted of a crime?” Eileen Clark will have to answer that question Yes. Felony Parental Kidnapping.

      The Editor

      – The Editor

    • forthelost says:

      Yes, he’s clearly thinking about how lucky he was to not pay child support.

      Are men just walking child support machines to you, or do you think they might actually care about their children at times?

    • Dontbelieveit says:

      You know what – I know her. She WAS abused for many years and he was an abusive alcoholic. She did what she had to do to not go to jail. You would have too.

      • No she didn’t. Did she exhaust all of her leagal options before she absconded with Chandler, Hayden, and Rebekah? No she didn’t.
        Could she have coparented with John Clarke and done what was best for her children. Yes she could have but she chose not to simply because she didn’t get what she wanted. Which was custody of the kids.
        John is just waiting for his poor brainwashed daughter to make the first move.

  2. Neha I don’t understand just how you could support a woman who was told by the courts to turn the children over to their father by a certain date and then fled with them.
    This man shouldn’t be forced to pay child support to the woman who knowingly broke the law and robbed their father of 19 years of Christmases and birthdays with his children.

  3. mputman2 says:

    So when is sentencing?

  4. says:

    A guilty plea is NOT an admission that she made up the allegations of abuse and does NOT mean that she fabricated a mental health condition. That being said, I also don’t believe that you just pack up, leave the country and not resolve the issue. I also don’t believe that any marital issues are totally one sided – it takes two to build/destroy a marriage. John Clark does not have to face abuse charges as a result of this plea deal so is it safe to assume that that is also an admission of guilt on his part oand that he did indeed abuse his ex wife???? No, so you shouldn’t put your own twist on a plea deal unless you were part of the plea deal discussions. Seems to me they both get final resolution, they agree to disagree and can now move forward… no winners here!

    • underwatch says:


      — Edritsas you wrote this —

      John Clark does not have to face abuse charges as a result of this plea deal so is it safe to assume that that is also an admission of guilt on his part oand that he did indeed abuse his ex wife????

      Edritas, you have a serious mental issue if you actually believe what you just wrote. John Clark was not on trial here, Eileen Clark was. Do you actually think that during Eileen’s criminal trial that any evidence would have surfaced against Mr. Clark. And after 20 years that was ever an issue. That’s simply not the facts and circumstances of this situation.

      I’ve heard before that professional psychologists will tell you can that you will eventually find out who is telling the truth as time passes. Let’s look at John Clark’s life and that of the felon Eileen Clark. It’s Eileen Clark that spent time in jail. It’s Eileen Clark that has a permanent felony record.

      There is an issue that one can ever elect to agree to disagree. Eileen Clark was found guilty of her crime. In the end, it’s her turn to re-gain the trust of our criminal justice system, the public and her most importantly her kids.

      I would also challenge the Clark Children to get to know their father. He sounds like a good many in a good marriage with a supportive family. There is no reason why any young adult would NOT want to be part of that family.

      • Dontbelieveit says:

        “He sounds”. I know the woman. He made a second go with a new family, good for him. That does not mean he was not the abusive alcoholic that he was. She did what she had to do to not be jailed, you would have done the same.

        What John then did was make his life public, called his children onto Dr. Phil to air his dirty laundry and try to win public favor, and the kids, rightfully, resent the hell out of him for it. Think about that.

        So do you really want to demean a woman who was battered by her alcoholic ex? Don’t believe what you read, the man’s been doing double-time trying to repair his image. He took ALL her family money and left her bankrupt.

      • underwatch says:

        Hi Susan,

        1. I think the adult children have Stockholm Syndrome. Eileen Clark was the abuser.

        2. Eileen pathetically kidnapped these kids and there is no excuse for that.

        3. Why couldn’t have Elieen just stayed in the United States and coparented her children. All three of the kids didn’t deserve the life she gave them.

        4. So Eileen was jailed and bankrupt. It sounds like she did this all on her own the day she decided to break the law and kidnap her the children.

        5. Many parental kidnappers after they are jailed never seem to reenter society as functioning individuals. When they come back and discover that the left-behind victim parent has moved along with their life, remarried, possibly had other children or step children — they have a difficult time dealing with this.

        Finally, there are some of us that have not spent a single day in jail or prison ever. So those of us law abiding citizens never have to worry about having “to do what he or she had to not to be jailed”. But for Eileen Clark and the other jailed protective moms, every minute they spend in jail eating prison food helps deter other from committing this horrible crime against children.

  5. Dontbelieveit says:

    After reading some responses, it becomes very clear to me that this website is merely a vehicle for its creator’s personal axe to grind. Too bad if women are abused and flee, only listen to the man. What she did was wrong of course. But that doesn’t make all the crap spewing from this blowhard guy any truer.

    • underwatch says:

      I do not know of any protective parent cases where there is any proven evidence of domestic violence. If any individual wants to accuse the other of domestic violence, the proper venue is criminal court not family court. You automatically assume that the woman is abused and flees rather than she runs out of “anger and revenge” as the research indicates.

      If the protective mom truly had a case for sole custody, then why wouldn’t she hire an attorney to fight for custody. All of these mothers left with a significant of money or access to it. The funds should have gone to her attorney rather than to a hideaway spot always always near a beach. Many of these protective moms received bank loans and charged up credit cards before they went into hiding. Do you think these debts were ever paid back? Do you think they filed a tax return and then boarded their plane? And isn’t this the real reason they are bankrupt today?

      Is there a reason why you posted on this site?

    • forthelost says:

      You do understand Eileen Clark lost in court because she didn’t show up, right?

    • Adela says:

      Dear Dontbelieveit, there’s a very good reason to have blogs like this. A huge movement of protective moms are trying to fight back their right to be the sole and only custodian for their children, and disregard completely the right of the children to have a father.
      Moreover, running away does nothing to help real victims of abuse, on the contrary. Searching for a person implies severe expenses on the part of the government that could easily go to help real victims. False accusations make the job harder for investigators to determine who’s a victim and who’s not and ultimately, mothers in general lose credibility in the cases in which they actually need it. Organizations like SKI are totally biased and one-sided, and therefore, sexist. Protective moms are completely unapologetic and selfish, I’ve seen and read their point of view, it only makes sense if you live in a parallel universe in which they are the law of the land.
      It is only natural that affected fathers reach out trying to understand, get help, cope and realize that their situation is not only not unique, but quite epidemic.
      I don’t agree with everything the Editor writes, I admire him for still having faith in the justice system despite the fact that most people hurt by it are left behind fathers, but I support his mission for creating awareness and for getting all these fathers and mothers that are wondering if their children are alive, a place to coincide.

      • Dear Adelia,

        I agree with you completely. Whether or not John Clark was abusive towards his ex-wife is irrelevant to the fact that she was the one who was on trial for kidnapping her now adult kids and taking them to England.
        She even tried to plead with the English athorities not to send her back because of supposed “mental illness.” I’m sure she made that up to avoid being sent back to the US for trial.
        Once more the U.K. media made it sound like Hayden and his siblings didn’t want anything to do with their father when in fact they did want to know their father. Hayden and Chandler more so than Rebekah.
        I’ve been told in another post by the children’s paternal aunt that John only recieved two letters from his daughter and he hasn’t heard from her since.
        It’s a shame that Rebekah doesn’t want to get to know her father and yet this is where the problem lies. Rebekah is so used to being around her mother that she doesn’t really want to know anybody else as her “parent!”
        It’s up to Rebekah if she wants to make the next move like Chandler and Hayden have.

  6. Teresa Hildreth says:

    This is so incredibly sad. Could you even imagine being in John’s shoes. There is no proof that he DID abuse his ex-wife. There is not proof of anything other than the fact his ex-wife kidnapped their children and obviously turned them against him. I plead with his children to at least talk to their father. They only have half the story, and they could have so much more love and family in their lives. If what their mother said is true, they can cut ties with John at any time. I can not imagine my life without my father, and I can not imagine anyone taking my children from me and not being a part of their lives at all. This situation is just heart breaking. I never ever want to see a child or anyone in harms way, but I also never want to see someone lie and steal a parents rights away from them. Now that the children are adults, I pray they can come to their own conclusions. If they have their own children now, please imagine being in your fathers shoes.

    • You’re right Teresa nobody can feel the pain that John Clark feels unless they’ve been in the same boat that he’s been in.
      John lost 15.5 years of birthdays and christmases with his children because of the acts of one selfish mother.

  7. Underwatch,

    Do you think you could tell those who haven’t been following this case closely what some of Eileen Clark’s options would be if she was really as abused as she says she was?

    • underwatch says:


      You are correct. Eileen Clark had so many legal options such as: 1) Child Protective Services; 2) Domestic Violence Shelters – There were so many at funded by the VAWA that existed when Eileen fled. She could have simply gone to a shelter, informed the District Attorney and kept her case in the court system.

      The motive in the Clark case has always been “anger and revenge” against her former spouse and not love for her children. She has to look at her life now and compare it to her remarried spouse and want further revenge. A very sad story. In many cases the adult-children relationship with their biological father, because that is the parent that has moved forward with their life after this horrible crime. I hope that would be the case with the Clark children.

  8. Lisa says:

    Why didn’t John Clarks’ daughter meet him when the brothers went to meet him? And has she met him yet?

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: