Is it "Amber Alert!", or just "Amber Divorced Couples Arguing?"

Last night I was driving on Route 128 when I noticed the "Amber Alert" signal informing me of a white vehicle containing a 'kidnapper' and a child. The "Alert," however, left out a few details.

First: the kidnapped child was with his mother. Second: the 'kidnapper' was the child's own mother.

Third, and most importantly: the 'alert forgot to mention that the "Amber Alert" system in Massachusetts was being employed - just as it was the very first time it was used in the Commonwealth - by a divorced or divorcing couple who'd been arguing about child custody and visitation.

The 'emergency' nature of the situation - according to the television and radio news - was based on the fact that the child had an unnamed illness that 'required medication.'

Once again, the "Amber Alert" system was, in my opinion, being abused by squabbling couples tearing each other to pieces in divorce court. But now, as in some earlier Massachusetts "Amber" cases, one spouse was able to sic the state police and the entire public on the mother because of the existence of the system.

A few months ago the state got lighted up with an "Amber Alert" because fellow wanted to get his stolen car back right away. So, what did he do?

Clever fellow...he told the cops there was a 'child' in the car when it was stolen. Well - there never was a child - the car was retrieved, and he was arrested.

A few weeks ago, a baby-sitter failed to show up on time to deliver a child to its home. In the car with the baby-sitter [who, according to published reports, had had no difficulty with the child's parents and had been an exemplary baby-sitter] was the baby-sitter, the baby-sitter's own child, and the child who was being 'sat.'

With no proof whatsoever of a crime, the "Amber Alert" system was set off, the radio and television people were alerted and a few hours later the baby-sitter was located. Her child and the customer's baby were fine. So was the 'sitter.' No one was held hostage. No diaper-fire was exchanged between the police and the 'napper.

There was never an explanation published of the result of that child 'snatching.' As a matter of fact, the vicious baby-sitting 'kidnapper' was both arrested and released the same night. The bail was a token amount.

My guess? There was probably a misunderstanding about when the children were to come home, or if the baby-sitter was supposed to have the children sleep at her house - or some such misunderstanding.

After all, even in Massachusetts, vicious and mendacious kidnappers are not usually released on a few dollars bail about an hour after they are nabbed.

And what of last night's report? Why am I so cynical about it?

Well, whenever the t.v. folks get in a dither about simlar events, they invariably tell us the reason the child needs 'medication.' We all know the drill: "Seven year old Tommy Jones was last seen outside his family home. He is diabetic. He may appear disoriented or in a coma from lack of insulin...etc." or...."Young Tommy is mentally disabled and prone to seizures for which he takes medication.....etc."

But last night? Last night we were just told that the child had an illness and needed medication.

I suspect the illness was omitted from the report because it may have been something like an ear infection that required penicillin.

Also...if the child in last night's incident has a serious chronic disease or disability that required medication, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out that the mother would know that as well.

As mentioned above, the very first time "Amber Alert" was used in this state it was used by a warring couple to fight over their child. This was just the type of abuse of the system that pundits and legislators feared might happen.

Now its use appears to have been augmented to include errant baby-sitters.

Stuff like this drives me nuts.

The whole idea of the "Amber Alert" system was to deal with children snatched by strangers. In reality -- though seldom mentioned -- most children are about as likely to be hit by lightning as they are to be snatched by a stranger.

So, what's an "Amber Alert" system to do? Well, in this state, apparently, it is a tool to be used by husbands and wives to clobber each other on child custody issues and to get us all in on the act.

The result - at least at this desk - is exactly what some feared would happen if "Amber Alerts" were used as a proxy weapon by divorcing couples: Now when I see or hear of the "Amber Alert" going off, I figure it's just the result of warring parents who are wallowing in their anger.

The fact is that on average, per year, there are only about fifty such kidnappings by strangers in the United States. Yet, when the cultural terrorists who want us to live in fear start throwing numbers around, we here that over a half a million children are "kidnapped" each year.

These 'kidnappings' are usually situations where one parent takes the child for visitation and fails to return him or her.

I'm not discounting the seriousness of such situations. But I also do not believe in elevating the seriousness of such situations to a crisis-plane that is higher than their worth.

The idea of the "Amber Alert" was to nail the rare anonymous kidnapper before he could put more than a few miles between himself and the site of the kidnapping.

Parents, on the other hand, who are determined to take flight with their own child, are generally going to plan such an 'escape' to give them time to put a lot of distance between themselves and the other parent before the 'kidnapping' is discovered. In doing so, such parents render moot the effectiveness of the "Amber" systems.

I tend to get 'jaded' about some new protective program very shortly after I learn of its abuse. But, I'm sure that if the "Amber Alerts" continue to be used to score points in divorce and custody battles, I won't be the only one who starts to ignore the flashing signs over the highway.

If there are many more abuses of the system, we will all probably live to see the day the "Amber Alert" flashes the words: "Please pay attention! This is a real kidnapping! This isn't a case of a custody dispute! Really! Please? Please pay attention - this is for real - please?!"