Parental Abduction

*This is a lengthy post, and it is not my intention to bash anyone. I have provided links, feel free to click on them!*

I know some of you are under the impression that law enforcement has explicitly said that an abduction did not occur. That's simply not true; Stephen McCausland has said:

"Abduction is no longer a part of this investigation. We have grave doubts that an abduction took place and there is no evidence to support it," Stephen McCausland, spokesman for Maine Department of Public Safety, told Newscenter 5.

 “We’ve followed every conceivable piece of evidence that would follow their version of events, and we have found not one piece of evidence that supports an abduction,’’ he said.

 “There were three adults in the home, and their version of events is not backed up by any forensic evidence that we have located,” McCausland said Saturday afternoon. “That someone slipped into the home in the middle of the night, while three adults are there ... that someone went into the bedroom where Ayla was sleeping alone, removed her and vanished into the night – and that the three adults did not see or hear anything – doesn’t pass the straight-face test.”

As you all know by now, I'm free to speculate as I please. In this post I want to talk about the very abduction that did not pass the official "straight-face" test. More specifically, I'm going to address the profiles of parents who abduct their children. All of the profiles can be viewed at the link, for issues of time and space, I will only discuss the most pertinent ones here.

Profile 1: When There Has Been a Prior Threat of or Actual Abduction

When a parent has made credible threats to abduct a child or has a history of hiding the child, withholding visitation, or snatching the child from the other parent, there is great distrust between the parents and a heightened risk of further custody violation.

When other risk factors are present, one or more of the following are general indicators of an imminent threat of flight with the child:

• The parent is unemployed, homeless, and without emotional or financial ties to the area.
• The parent has divulged plans to abduct the child and hasthe resources or the support of extended family and/or friends and underground dissident networks needed to survive in hiding.
• The parent has liquidated assets, made maximum withdrawals of funds against credit cards, or borrowed money from other sources. 

Two things about this profile. Trista did not let Justin know that Ayla was his until she was 7 months old, and she did so only AFTER her fiance was sent to jail on arson charges. She even had her fiance, not Justin DiPietro, pick out Ayla's name and Ayla's umbilical cord was cut by her grandmother. One can only guess whether or not she would have let Justin know that Ayla was his if her fiance didn't end up in legal trouble. She has given conflicting accounts as to why Justin was not involved: he wanted her to have an abortion, she didn't tell him so that he wouldn't force her to have an abortion, etc. I consider this withholding visitation; you don't have to agree. 

Also the text messages. 

Speaking to the Daily News, Reynolds said DiPietro sent her a text message days before Ayla disappeared stating that he was worried someone might take her. She said he had made similar statements in the past.

“He always thought that I would be the one to take her,” Reynolds said. “I always wondered why he was so scared about that … I never went to get her because I thought she was okay and well cared for.”

Why would Justin have that in his head? Remember, we are only getting one side of the story. We also know that Trista is outright lying when she says she thought Ayla was okay and well cared for. She herself also talked about how Ayla would return from every visit with Justin, and something or another would be wrong with her. Instead of wondering why Justin thought that, why didn't Trista just ASK?

Profile 2: When a Parent Suspects or Believes Abuse Has Occurred and Friends and Family Members Support These Concerns

Many parents abduct their child because they believe that the other parent is abusing, molesting, or neglecting the child. These abducting parents feel that the authorities have not taken them seriously or properly investigated the allegations. Repeated allegations increase the hostility and distrust between the parents. Parents who have the fixed belief that abuse has occurred—and will continue to occur—then “rescue” the child, often with the help of supporters who concur with their beliefs, justify their actions, and often help with the abduction and concealment. In a large number of cases, the child has been previously exposed to neglectful, endangering, or violent environments (e.g., domestic violence or substance abuse). In these cases, the courts and child protective services may have failed to protect the child and the concerned parent or family member. 

This doesn't even require that much added detail. You can read about abuse allegations, and Trista's threat to sue DHHS, here, here, here, here, and here. A video of Trista's 'Today Show' interview also reveals that Ayla was only placed with Justin because DHHS "violated" Trista's rights.

Profiles 3-5

Probably not applicable to this case, but check them out at the aforementioned link.

Profile 6: When Parents Feel Alienated From the Legal System and Have Family/Social Support in Another Community

Many subgroups of potential abductors feel alienated from the judicial system. Listed below are five such subgroups.

Subgroup 1. Parents who are indigent and poorly educated lack knowledge about custody and abduction laws and cannot afford the legal representation or psychological counseling that would help them resolve their disputes. Those parents who have extended family or other social, emotional, and economic support in another geographical community may be at risk for abducting their children.

Subgroup 2. Many parents cannot afford and are unaware of the need to access the court system. In addition, those who have had  prior negative experiences with civil or criminal courts do not expect family courts to be responsive to their values or their plight.

Subgroup 3. Parents who belong to certain ethnic, religious, or cultural groups may hold views about childrearing that are contrary to the prevailing custody laws that emphasize gender neutrality and the rights of both parents. 

Subgroup 4. A mother who has a transient, unmarried relationship with her child’s father often views the child as her property, and her extended family supports this belief. Many of the women in this subgroup assume they have sole custody of their child and are genuinely surprised when they are informed that the father—by law in California and most other States—has joint rights to the child.

Subgroup 5. Parents who are victims of domestic violence are at risk of abducting their child, especially when the courts and community have failed to take the necessary steps to protect them from abuse or to hold the abuser accountable.

In this video, Trista talks about knowing Ayla was hers and that she didn't have to share her with anybody if she didn't want to. 

Common to all profiles: (1) Parent dismisses value of other parent for child, (2) child is very young or vulnerable to influence, and (3) abductor has family and social support.

Other things I found interesting about parents who abduct their children:

• Records from the Documentary Study showed that about one-fourth of the abductors did not operate alone in the act of abducting. Many abductors relied on a network of family and social support to carry out and maintain the abduction. The Interview Study found that a significant proportion of abductors (almost three-fifths of women and two-fifths of men) received moral support for their actions and practical help in planning the abduction. The network of supporters provided money, food, and lodging and was willing to conceal the whereabouts of the child.

• In the Interview Study, abducting parents frequently alleged that child protective services and family courts did not take their complaints seriously or failed to conduct a thorough investigation. (Makes me think of Trista talking about how DHHS failed to perform background checks)

This is all my own opinion as applied to a study carried out by the US Department of Justice. Please keep the comments fairly decent?!

UPDATE: NO, I do not necessarily think Trista is holding her somewhere. The purpose of this is to look at it from ALL sides, different perspectives, outside the box. I haven't ruled anything out in my own personal theories, and have said before that there's an 80% chance something happened to her in the home, BUT there's still room for other possibilities. Thanks.