Showing posts with label Parental Kidnapping. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Parental Kidnapping. Show all posts

Monday, November 11, 2013

Parental Child Kidnapping – Already a Common Occurrence by 1856


The following article is noteworthy for offering evidence, in its comment on the case of a Mr. Thompson, “which has all too many parallels in California,” suggesting that parental kidnapping was already, by the 1850s quite a common ocurrance in the United States

***

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 2): We would call attention to an advertisement in another column, under the caption of “Information Wanted.”  Mr. Thompson has called on us, and told us his story. It is one which has all too many parallels in California, yet he is entitled to heartfelt sympathy. It seems that about five months ago, he sailed for China, leaving his wife and two children in San Francisco. Before leaving he gave his wife $375, with which to pay her passage by the steamer to New York, he expecting to return to China by Cape Horn. The vessel, however, and took passengers to this port. On arriving, Mr. Thompson first learned that his wife had not returned to New York, but was living at Vallejo with a man named John Forman, as his mistress.

Thither Thompson went, but found the parties had come to this city, some two weeks previous. He followed here, learned their arrival about that time, but could obtain no further certain clue to them. Partial information leads him to the belief that they went from here to Sonora. Mr. Thompson merely desires to recover the possession of his two children (girls), respectively six and eight years of age. John Forman, the despoiler of his happiness, is represented as being a ship caulker by trade; is a stout built man, about five feet six inches in height, with red whiskers.
The eldest child, Eliza, is of light complexion, blue eyes and has lost two of the lower front teeth. The youngest is of dark complexion and has a scar on the forehead. Any information of the parties will be thankfully received by Ananias Thompson (who appears to be as highly respectable man) at the Globe Hotel, corner of Davis and Chambers street, San Francisco.

NOTE: The comment “all too many parallels” indicates that parental kidnapping was already recognized as a “social problem” by 1856 in California.

[“A Recreant Wife,” Weekly San Juan Republican (Stockton, Ca.), Jul. 5, 1856, p. 3]

Paragraph breaks not in original

***

FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 2): We published the other day a case of seduction and desertion, the aggravated party being Mr. Ananias Thompson. In the account we published, it was stated that the seducer was a person named John Forman. From the Bay papers it would seem that the recreant parties had separated, Mrs. Thompson, alias Mrs. Forman, having left her last paramour, a married man at San Francisco named Dougherty. Mr. Thompson learned the fact, applied at the police office for a warrant for her arrest for the purpose of recovering possession of his two little girls, but the papers state, [sic] he was informed that he could not testify against his wife, except in a case of assault and battery. He then obtained a friend, cognizant of the facts, to make the complaint, and the warrant was issued.

[“Charge Of Bigamy,” Weekly San Juan Republican (Stockton, Ca.), Jul. 12, 1856, p. 2]

***
[508-4/9/21]
***

Monday, September 19, 2011

“Schools for Kidnappers?” – Parental Kidnapping Recognized as a Serious Social Problem in 1907


NOTE: This article (along with hundreds of others) showing that by 1907 parental kidnapping was considered a serious social problem blatantly contradicts the historical account of parental kidnapping as presented in the 1997 book, Kidnapped: Child Abduction in America, by Paula S. Fass (Oxford University Press), a wildly inaccurate and poorly researched piece of academic scholarship.

FULL TEXT: New York.— Are the courts of the country turning into schools for kipnapers?

There is this newest case, for example, of Mrs. Maude C. Clarke, of No. 20 West Eighty-fourth street. Mother hunger proved too much for her – she kidnaped her little boy, though he was in the custody of another, by order of the court.

When the learned judge hands down his decision in the case of Smith vs Smith, does it mean that at once the divorced father or the divorced mother of the little children roost turn kidnaper? Nobody consults the children, of course.

The wise verdict has been rendered. Mrs. Smith is free to resume her maiden name of Miss Jones and gets the custody of the two little Smiths, boy and girl. There is alimony, a decree permitting Miss Jones to marry again, and formal permission for the father to see the children once in so often. And the very first time he does see them he steals them away – he is a kidnaper in the eyes of the law.

Or it may be the other way. The decree is Mr. Smith’s. The court says some unkind things about Mrs. Smith, and the children go to the father for education and support.


~ Mother-Love Triumphant. ~

But mere legal verbiage can’t destroy or root out mother-love. Despite her failings, Mrs. Smith loves the little ones she brought into the world. She is hungry for them; she wants to take them to her heart again and hear them whisper “Mother.”

But the court has made its decree. She must not see them. Under the law she is not regarded as a fit person to bring them up. But she finds them somehow, and off she runs with them – she has learned from the court to be a kidnaper.

She knows her lesson well.

Judges may sit and sit, and expound the law to its last letter, but fathers and mothers have a different code. They are learning to kidnap now. Railway train, automobile, horses, yachts—all have been used to kidnap children. It is anything to get the little ones out of the state where the divorce is granted, for then it means delay – more law and more court decisions. Meanwhile the kidnaper has the children.

And there has never been a conviction for this kind of kidnaping. Wrong as they be, no father or mother who has stolen back a child—and hundreds have done so—has ever gone to prison.

More children are kidnaped in the United States every year by father or mother than by all those criminals who steal children for ransoms or revenge. And the lesson is learned in the divorce court.


~ After a Runaway Marriage. ~

Mrs. Clarke is the divorced wife of Capt. Forrest C. Clarke, a civil engineer employed by the Metropolitan Steamship company. Capt Clarke’s father is a Boston millionaire, and his wife was Miss Maude Buchanan, of Dorchester, a suburb of Boston. They ran away and were married seven years ago.

A little boy, George, was born, and the mother’s heart rejoiced. Then there came rumors of this thing and that and It ended la a divorce. Capt Clarke had known and liked Dr. Carleton C. Kremer while both were students at Harvard and husband and wife would be just the people to take care Of little George. So Dr. and Mrs. Kremer adopted little George, then a boy of four, and Surrogate Fitzgerald. signed the formal order.

Dr. Kremer allowed the mother to see her little boy once a week, and for a time Mrs. Clarke obeyed strictly the orders of the court.

Meanwhile Dr. and Mrs. Kremer had become greatly attached to the boy. One day when Mrs. Clarke was with him they caught her stealing out of the house with the child.

“I can’t live without him,” she wept; “so please don’t blame me.”

Dr. Kremer explained as gently as he could that she must be more circumspect, even if she did love him, for the court had formally given the little fellow into his possession. In fact he bad been rechristened and was then – and is now – Carleton Clarke Kremer.


~ Regained Her Boy. ~

Mrs. Clarke went away, greatly agitated. The following Sunday she called again to see the boy and found that he was with the physician’s sister at the home of Dr. Kremer’s mother, No. 134 West One Hundred and Twelfth street. She went there in a carriage and waited outside. Then Dr. Kremer’s sister came out with the boy and took a Lexington avenue car down to Sixty-fifth street, where Dr. Kremer lives. Mrs. Clarke had a carriage up the block.

As the boy got off the car with his adopted aunt Mrs. Clarke rushed forward and literally tore the child from the astonished woman. In a jiffy she had him in the carriage and away she whisked. There was a woman friend with her, who promptly seized Miss Kremer and gave Mrs. Clarke plenty of time to escape with her boy.

A few hours later and Mrs. Clarke was safe on her way to Boston aboard the steamer Harvard, oddly enough a vessel belonging to the company in which her divorced husband is employed. Mother-love had won the victory— Mrs. Clarke had her boy despite all the forms of law. Mrs. Clarke had teamed her kidnaping lesson from the divorce court

~ Mrs. Hanna’s Victory. ~

Then there was the famous case of the Hannas. Mrs. Dan R. Hanna, wife of the son of the late Senator Mark Hanna, was forbidden by the courts of Ohio to take the children out of their jurisdiction. For an answer she promptly took the three boys straight to New York, hid herself in the Holland home, escaped from a little host of deputy sheriffs and process servers, and calmly Bailed for Europe, despite ail the decrees of the court

She had learned her lesson. Mother-love rose above the mandates of the law. And she has won, too. She has the three boys back in this country now and she can take them where she pleases, says a writer in the Sunday World. Mother-love proved too much for the courts and for Mr. Haana, whom she had divorced and who has married twice since.

Both father-love and mother-love figured in the disappearance of little Freddie Krieger, of Chicago. He was kidnaped twice, once by his father and once by his mother, after two courts had made formal orders in the case.

The boy was the son of Flora and Bert Krieger. His father got the first divorce, and though his mother was supposed to see her son at stated intervals the father took him away to Germany, where he placed the lad, who was then 12, with friends in Hamburg to be educated.

Mrs. Krieger married again and became Mrs. McDonald. Then, with plenty of money at her command, she resolved to hunt for the boy to the end of the earth, despite all the orders of the American courts giving him into her former husband’s custody. The trail led to Hanover, and there detectives in her employ kidnaped the boy for a second time.

~ Learned Lesson Well. ~

She hurried the lad to Hamburg, and there she disappeared — though she was divorced, she had obtained the custody of her son, no matter what the court ordered. She had learned her lesson in the divorce court, and she did business another way.

Theodore Wood, policeman, and his wife long ago agreed to disagree. They lived at No. 1717 Gates avenue, Brooklyn, and their child, Florence, who was not consulted in the matter at all, stayed on there with the father.

One day when Policeman Wood was on post Mrs. Wood stole into the house and took little Florence away. Fearful of being followed, she hurried the girl to Middletown, N. Y. Wood heard where she had gone and had a warrant issued. A detective arrested Mrs. Wood there and brought her back to Brooklyn.

The case was taken to court. Mrs. Wood was weeping, after a sleepless night in her cell. She couldn’t see why a mother should be locked up for taking her own child.

“She stole her!” declared the husband.

But, as always happens, Mrs. Wood went free. There isn’t a law yet that will send a parent kidnaper to prison.

~ Madden Defied Court. ~

John E. Madden, the turfman, long separated from his wife, boldly kidnapped his two boys, ten and four years old, rather than let the mother take them to Europe. They were at school in Madison, N. J. Madden learned that the mother intended taking the boys to Europe, and he made up his mind that she shouldn’t.

So he went out to Madison and visited the boys. It was a snowy day and the ground was white.

“Let us take a sleigh ride,” he said to the boys.

They were only too glad. A sleigh was ordered, the boys climbed in and off they hurried into the snow. But Madden drove direct to the railway station, bought tickets for New York and took the boys with him. They left that night for Lexington, Ky., where Madden has a stock farm, and before Mrs. Madden knew the truth the children were out of the jurisdiction of the courts of New York. But nobody arrested the boys’ father, even though he did defy the court.

Mrs. Katherine Cadiex used an automobile to kidnap her son. There had been the usual family jars and eventually the nine-year-old boy, son of George Cadiex, was committed to the German Odd Fellows’ home In Union-port, the Bronx.

One fine afternoon an automobile stopped outside the grounds of the institution and from it stepped a tall, handsomely dressed woman of 40 with  prematurely gray hair. It was Mrs. Cadiex, and she had learned in advance the routine of the home. She knew that the children would be playing outside at that hour.

~ Off In the Automobile. ~

At the ring of the bell the little fellows fell in line to march to the refectory for supper. When the moment came Mrs. Cadiex jumped from the car while the chauffeur kept his hand on the wheel. She seized the child and before his astonished playmates could raise an alarm she had him in her auto and was off In a cloud of dust

She was followed to New York and arrested at her home. No. 123 West Thirty-ninth. street. But the boy was to be found.

“I’m going to keep him,” she declared, as she was taken to a cell, “no matter what you do with me. He’s safe now – far away in the south. Nobody shall have him but me.”

And Mrs. Cadiex went free and she kept her boy, too, thanks to the automobile.

The three Ward children have been kidnaped twice by their father and two of them rekidnaped by their mother— quite a family record!

John E. Ward and his wife have been separated for nine years. The three little girls, Marion, Vera and Cecilia, lived with their mother at No. 673 East One Hundred and Seventy-fourth street. One night Mr. Ward went there, demanded to see his child was a heated argument, and the upshot of it was that the father took the three little daughters away from their mother and placed them at once in the convent of the Holy Cross.


~ Stole Children from Convent. ~ 

After three days’ search Mrs. Ward found the girls. Several times she tried to get at them but failed. For days she haunted the neighborhood of the convent until the long vigil made her desperate.

She saw two of her little ones, Vera and Cecilia, playing in the yard. In she ran and the next moment the two were in her arms. Marion wasn’t there and the distracted mother was afraid to wait. So off she ran with the two, hatless and coatless.

At once the sisters notified Mr. Ward, but he couldn’t find them — they were not at their mother’s home. The husband got a warrant, but he couldn’t find the children — and the mother has them still.

The records tell of  countless other cases – of how Mrs. James Cook kidnaped her boy in a carriage from right in front of his father’s hotel in Jamaica; how Anton Head Richards, grandson of Eugene L. Richards, professor of mathematics at Yale, was kidnaped in Chicago by three men whom Mrs. Richards declared were emissaries of his father; how Mrs. Montague Rolls, of Detroit, paid $10,000 to get her boy back after his father had kidnaped him – there are many more cases.

Love causes more kidnaping than money. And the lesson is learned in the divorce court first.

[“Love Proves Superior To Law’s Decrees – ‘This One Shall Have the Child,’ Says the Court, and the Other One Proceeds to Capture the Offspring of the Broken Partnership and Run Away With It.” Nationally syndicated article (from an unidentified New York, N.Y. news service), Marble Rock Journal (Io.), Dec. 12, 1907, p. 3]

{Note: the original spelling, “kidnaping,” has been retained. It is equally correct to the “pp” spelling.}
 
***
[1177-11/30/22]
***

Three Early Parental Kidnapping Cases, 1792-1815: Peirson, Bonnell, Tuthell

Such debt disclaimer ads as this one constitute the earliest public reports of parental kidnapping. This example contains the earliest known illustration connected with a parental kidnapping case.

FULL TEXT: Whereas RUTH, my Wife, eloped from my bed and board on the twenty ninth of instant January, with one child: -- This is therefore to forbid all persons trusting them on my account, as I will not pay any debt of their contracting after this date.

WILLIAM PEIRSON, Shelburn, Jan. 30, 1792.

[Adversisement “William Pierson.” The Vermont Journal and the Universal Advertiser (Windsor, Vt.), Mar. 13, 1792, p. 4]

***

The Tuthell case is the earliest fully documented parental kidnapping case to be reported in a United States newspaper.

FULL TEXT (Article 1 of 3): Some time since a person who calls himself John Creston, but from circumstances it is supposed his real name is Charles D. Walsingham, and it is more than probable he has a number of names, came to the (publick) house of Howard B. Tuthell, in the character of a gentleman; he appears to be about 35 years of age, about 5 feet 8 inches high, thick set, and clumsy appearance, dark complexion and dark hair, cut short behind but long on the top of the head, dark eyes; his hands tanned very black, with two scars, one across the back of his left hand, and a scar on one of his legs near the ancle; a good set of teeth which appears to be a little indented; from his conversation he appears to be a captain of a vessel or a British officer; he wears a dirk and pocket pistols; he drove a bay horse about 16 hands high, stout made, about 8 years old, with bushy main and tail; his legs and feet very large, has a small white spot on his back, occasioned by the saddle; he rode in a calash top chair, of a light jean color; the body a dark green, with a red lion on each side; the carriage and wheels a green, with small yellow spots; the left side of the box a little injured; the harness very plain; he had a yellow canvass case which he sometimes wore on his chair box, with a spread eagle behind, and a small new one on before; he has a two barrel gun which he generally carries with him; he has several thousand dollars in specie with him, most of it in doubloons –

The unprincipled wretch, on the third of July, inst. absconded with the wife and child of Edward B. Tuthell. She is a slender, delicate made woman, about 20 years of age, about 5 feet 5 inches high, fair complexion, and a little freckled; light brown hair; dark grey eyes, short face and prominent cheek bones; her teeth fair and good and shows them much when she laughs; her name is Frances.

The child a female, about 7 months old; the hair brown and dark eyes; her name is Susan, but they changed it the second day to Mary. She may change their clothes as they took but very few with them. They started with an intention (as they said) of visiting Mrs. Tuthell’s friends, about 8 miles off, but took the direct road to Naston, in Pennsylvania, where they were seen on the 4th July, and from there they took a south west direction.

The disconsolate husband offers a reward of 200 dollars to have the villain detected, and will give 100 dollars and all reasonable charges to recover the lost infant. The distressed parents of the deluded woman would be glad to receive any information concerning her, and will at any time be happy to receive their humble and penitent child to their distressed dwelling. All humane people are desired to give all information they may get of either of them, to Edward B. Tuthell, post master, in the town of Monroe, Orange County, and state of New York.

The printers of newspapers in the southern states, are requested to give the above a few insertions in their papers, and they will much oblige the distressed connexions, and assist to detect a monster running at large.

[ “300 Dollars Reward. The Public is earnestly requested to apprehend a finished villain,” Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser (Philadelphia, Pa.), Jul. 16, 1810, p. 4]

 
~ The Resolution of the Tuthell case (2 articles):

FULL TEXT (Article 2 of 3): The press is stopt to state, that by a gentleman last night from Fincastle, we are just informed that Creston, alias Walsingham, who carried off Edward B. Tuthell’s wife and child, on the 3rd July last, from the town of Monroe, Orange County , New York, as particularized in the advertisement on the last page of this paper, was a few days ago arrested in Fincastle, and committed to jail. A very considerable sum of money was found in his possession, which from disclosures made by him to the lady, has been unrighteously obtained. It is stated that he was the captain of a vessel which her cargo he sold on his own account, and decamped with the plunder; and disliking solitude as most men do, he embraced the first opportunity as was very natural of engaging a companion, &c. to soothe his solitude, and smoothe the tedium of travelling in foreign parts.

Mr. Walsingham on being first apprehended delivered his keys to the lady with the direction to take what money she wanted – She took 3 or 4 hundred dollars with which she engaged professional men to prosecute her betrayer. His trial is set for to-day and the lady recognized to appear as a witness. Further particulars soon.

[Untitled, Charleston Courier (South Carolina), reprinted from Lynchburg (Vir.) Star, Aug. 24, 1810, p. 3]

***

FULL TEXT (Article 3 of 3): Gentlemen, The following is an extract of a letter received this day, dated Fincastle, the 14th August, 1810. The circumstances mentioned are so extraordinary that I conceived it material to publish the information. Should you be of the same opinion you will be willing to give it a place in your Mercantile Advertiser. -- August 25 – A subscriber.

The town of Fincastle has been in a great uproar in consequence of a suicide committed on Friday last in the jail. You may remember an advertisement inserted some time ago in the New-York papers, relative of the elopement of a Mr. Walsingham, with the wife and child of a Post-Master in Orange county. It appears that Walsingham was an assumed name; and that during his progress to this place he at various times went by several different ones; when he was taken here he called himself Smith. A civil action being commenced against him, and he being unable to find bail to the amount ordered by the magistrates, he was committed to prison; and after a few days confinement executed that justice upon himself which the laws could not have inflicted. But the only thing which induced me to mention his fate, was the mystery which it involves. Before the magistrates, nod after committed, he steadily persisted in refusing to reveal his name, and after his death, it was found that he had not only buried every article of his clothing that could lead to a discovery of his family, but had also burnt a large sum in bank notes, from an apprehension that they might afford some clue to that object – He has left a paper, on the subject of his conduct, which is not written in his common hand, but in round letters. His very boots were cut in small pieces, lest they should betray him; and his face and body so mangled as to bear no resemblance to their original appearance. This circumstance has given rise to a variety of conjectures, and will probably afford an exclusive topic of conversation here for a month at least.

[Untitled, New York Evening Post (N.Y.), (reprinted from the Mercantile Advertiser), Aug. 24, 1810, p. 3]

FULL TEXT:

PUBLIC NOTICE.

On Thursday afternoon last two ruffians, by name Jonathan and Ephriam Simpson, employed by my wife Catherine, seized and took by force of arms, my daughter Caroline, nearly 4 years of age, and at the same time presented their pistols and threatened my life, if I attempted to interfere. The conduct of my said wife had been before so base and wicked, that I had publicly forbid all persons harboring or or trusting her on my account; and her recent and still more aggravated conduct has been such as to induce me to give  this public notice, and again forbid, and I do hereby forbid all persons harboring her, or either of my children, or trusting her in any manner on my account, as I am determined not to pay any debts of her contracting from the date of my former notice.

ELIAS BONNELL. Waverliet, May 8, 1815

NOTE: Any person that will safely convey my children to me shall be handsomely rewarded.

[Elias Bonnell, Public Notice, New-Jersey Journal (Elizabeth-Town, N.J.), May 30, 1815]

Sunday, September 18, 2011

Parental Kidnapping: Civil War Vet, John McCray, Devoted His Life to Searching for His Children

FULL TEXT: How many minor tragedies there are of which the world has no knowledge. Less than a week ago there was sounded the last note in a long drawn minor strain to which one man’s life had been attuned for nearly thirty years. An unknown man was knocked down by a horse that ran away in a Pittsburgh street. Two or three hours later he died, but before the end came he said his name was John McGray and that he had served with the Ninth Illinois Cavalry during the war.

In 1862 John McGray, then a prosperous Chicago merchant, enlisted in the Union army and went to the front, leaving behind him a wife and two children. After three years of faithful effort on behalf of the flag he returned home only to discover that his wife had abandoned him and had taken the little ones with her. Those two children were very dear to John McGray. In camp, on the march, and amid the roar of conflict their images were often before his eyes. He would not give them up. Disposing of his remnants of property he started out to seek his own.

Patiently and with fidelity that knew no wavering he continued his quest but without any appearance of encouragement. Then his money gave out and the search moved less rapidly but without diminution in its persistence. With but one object in life the soldier worked at whatever occupation he could find, scorning charity, until funds enough had been saved to make another movement possible. From state to state he wandered, occasionally believing he had a clue, but more frequently groping in the dark.

He was looking for employment in Pittsburgh when that runaway horse came along, and then, perhaps, John McCray found his children.

[“Perhaps He Found the Children – Sad Life Romance, Beginning with the War and Ending Last Week,” Chicago Tribune (Il.), May 19, 1893, p. 18]