## Facts

- Fazal-Ur-Raheman-Fazal (a physician) and Saihba Ali married in India and later lived in Massachusetts with their two children.
- The marriage deteriorated; Fazal threatened to send the children to India and warned Ali against involving police or courts.
- After Ali moved out with the children, Fazal assured her he would not take them to India, then traveled to India and sought a custody proceeding there.
- Fazal retrieved the children from Ali under the pretense of a visit and took them from the United States to India without Ali’s knowledge or consent.
- At the time of removal, no custody order existed; under Massachusetts law, both parents had equal custodial rights.
- Ali reported the incident and obtained an emergency Massachusetts custody order after the children had already been taken; Fazal later obtained an Indian custody order.
- A federal grand jury indicted Fazal for international parental kidnapping under 18 U.S.C. § 1204 and illegal interception of wire communications under 18 U.S.C. § 2511(1)(a).
- A jury convicted on both counts after a seven-day trial; the district court imposed imprisonment and ordered Fazal to “immediately cooperate” in returning the children from India.

## Issues

1. Whether IPKCA permits federal prosecution for removing children abroad with intent to obstruct the other parent’s “parental rights” even if the conduct was not criminal under the child’s state custody law at the time of removal.
2. Whether a federal sentencing court may order, as part of a criminal sentence, that the defendant “immediately cooperate” in securing the children’s return from a foreign country.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the convictions for IPKCA and illegal interception of wire communications.
- The court held IPKCA liability does not depend on whether state law criminalizes the parent’s conduct; state law is used to define the “parental rights” allegedly obstructed.
- The court concluded the evidence permitted a finding that Fazal removed the children intending to obstruct Ali’s lawful exercise of her parental rights.
- The court vacated the portion of the sentence requiring “immediate cooperation” in returning the children and remanded for resentencing.

## Legal Principles

- Under 18 U.S.C. § 1204, “parental rights” are determined by the law of the child’s habitual residence (by operation of law, court order, or binding agreement), but federal criminal liability does not incorporate state criminal-law requirements.
- A parent’s equal custodial status under state law does not preclude an IPKCA conviction if the parent removes or retains the child outside the United States with intent to obstruct the other parent’s lawful parental rights.
- Sentencing conditions in a federal criminal case must be authorized by statute or fall within permissible sentencing authority; absent such authorization, a court may not order affirmative conduct aimed at resolving an international custody dispute, such as compelling cooperation to return children from abroad.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit upheld federal convictions for international parental kidnapping and wire interception, holding that IPKCA applies even when the removal is not independently criminal under state law, but it vacated a sentencing directive compelling the defendant to cooperate in returning the children because the district court lacked authority to impose that order as part of the criminal sentence.


United States v. Fazal-Ur-Raheman-Fazal, 355 F.3d 40 (1st Cir. 2004)