Child abduction scare of 2002
child safety scare in the United States
During the summer of 2002 there were a number of high-profile child abductions in the United States. Despite the statistical decrease of non-custodial child abductions since 1999, extensive media coverage of selected cases created a nationwide sense of panic. The focus on child abductions led governmental entities to take action. Many states instituted Amber alerts systems and a national Amber alert was included as part of a package of federal legislation known as the PROTECT Act of 2003.
The kidnappings
The intensified media scrutiny began with the abduction and murder of seven-year-old Danielle van Dam earlier that year. She was taken from her bedroom in San Diego on February 1, 2002. A suspect, David Alan Westerfield, was arrested on February 22 and van Dam's body discovered on the 27th. Westerfield's trial began on June 1, 2002 and lasted into August. The trial received intense media scrutiny. San Diego County District Attorney Paul Pfingst stated that “The media's appetite for information in this case was insatiable.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Child abduction scare of 2002” as child safety scare in the United States. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as child safety scare in the United States. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
Vocabulary and entity names are the principal evidence signals here, because they determine the precision of every later search. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 17, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q122199593. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2002, 1999 and 2003.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Child abduction scare of 2002”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Child abduction scare of 2002 primary sources, Child abduction scare of 2002 archive and Child research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Child abduction scare of 2002”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Child abduction scare of 2002” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.