GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Briefing Report to the Chairman, 

Committee on Foreign Relations 

U.S. Senate

September 2000 FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Status of U.S. Parental 

Child Abductions to 

Germany, Sweden, and 

Austria

GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Contents

Letter 3

Briefing Section I: U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases

Involving Germany 12

Briefing Section II: U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases

Involving Sweden 26

Briefing Section III: U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases

Involving Austria 36

Appendixes Appendix I: The Hague Convention and the Processing of

Hague Cases 44

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of State 48

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 53

Tables Table 1: U.S. Cases With Germany, Sweden, and Austria

Under the Hague Convention Seeking Return of

Parentally Abducted Children or Visitation, Opened

From January 1995 Through May 15, 2000 4

Figures Figure 1: Process for Filing and Adjudicating an Application for Return or 

Visitation of a Parentally Abducted Child Under the Hague 

Convention 45
Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction
Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-285990 Letr

September 8, 2000

The Honorable Jesse Helms

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The State Department estimates that about 1,000 children are abducted by 

one of their parents from the United States annually.1

 Pursuant to the 1980 

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction,

2

left-behind parents3 can apply for the return of, or access to (that is, 

visitation), their children located in countries that are parties to the 

Convention with the foreign country’s government through the Department 

of State. The Convention governs how these applications are handled and 

adjudicated in the foreign country where the child is located. A May 2000 

congressional resolution4

 cited several countries, including Germany, 

Sweden, and Austria, for not meeting their commitments under this 

Convention.

As agreed with your office and in response to your concerns involving 

German, Swedish, and Austrian handling of U.S. cases, we obtained 

information from State Department files to determine the status and 

outcome of cases initiated by parents left behind in the United States from 

January 1995 through May 15, 2000. We briefed your staff on the results of 

our work on August 29, 2000. This report summarizes the contents of the 

briefing. As you also requested, we plan to meet with your staff to discuss 

additional work on international parental child abduction issues.

1

International parental child abduction occurs when a parent removes a child from the 

United States or retains a child outside the United States, with the intent to obstruct the 

parental rights (including visitation rights) of the left-behind parent. 18 U.S.C. 1204. The 

actual number of cases may be greater because some parents never report the abductions to 

the State Department but instead pursue a remedy directly with foreign authorities.

2

29 ILM 1501 (1980).

3

Throughout this report, we refer to the left-behind parents. However, any person, 

institution, or other body may utilize the Convention.

4

H.Con.Res. 293.
B-285990

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Results in Brief From January 1995 through May 15, 2000, left-behind parents in the United 

States initiated 298 cases under the Hague Convention indicating that the 

child had been taken to, or retained in Germany, Sweden, and Austria by 

the other parent. The State Department closed 227 of these cases, and 71 

cases remain open. In 97 of the closed cases (43 percent), the child was 

returned or the left-behind parent was granted visitation rights. Nearly

90 percent of both opened and closed cases involved abductions to, or 

retentions in, Germany. Table 1 summarizes the status and outcome of 

cases involving each country.

Table 1: U.S. Cases With Germany, Sweden, and Austria Under the Hague Convention Seeking Return of Parentally Abducted 

Children or Visitation, Opened From January 1995 Through May 15, 2000

a

Includes two cases in which the information in State’s files did not indicate whether visitation had been 

granted.

Source: GAO analysis of State Department case files.

Various reasons were cited for the 130 closed cases in which the children 

have not been returned or visitation was not granted. In 49 cases, 

left-behind parents withdrew or did not actively pursue their applications. 

In 16 cases, children were not returned because German courts concluded 

that the left-behind parent did not possess custody rights or subsequently 

acquiesced to the removal. In 17 cases, children were not returned because 

German courts ruled that the child’s mental or physical well-being would be 

at risk. Reasons for the other 48 cases, as well as other information on the 

cases for each country, are included in the briefing sections of this report. 

Status of all cases Outcome of closed cases

Country

Type of 

case Opened Unresolved Closed

Child not

returned or

visitation

denied

Child

returned or

visitation

granted

Percentage of

cases children

were returned or

visitation granted

Germany Return 215 43 172 105 67 39

Visitation 42 16 26 12a 14 54

Sweden Return 27 6 21 7 14 67

Visitation 3 1 2 2 0 0

Austria Return 9 3 6 4 2 33

Visitation 2 2 0 0 0 - -

Total 298 71 227 130 97 43
B-285990

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Background A left-behind parent who believes a child has been wrongfully removed 

from, or retained outside, the United States by the other parent can apply 

under the Hague Convention for either the return or visitation of the child.5

Each of the 60 countries that have agreed to the Convention is required to 

establish a lead agency (called a “central authority”) to serve as a primary 

point of contact. The State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues, Bureau 

of Consular Affairs, is the central authority for the United States. The Office 

is responsible for assisting parents in filing an application under the 

Convention, contacting the central authority and other officials in the 

foreign country on behalf of left-behind parents, and providing information 

on the status of foreign judicial and administrative proceedings as well as 

advising on possible courses of action. In Germany and Austria, the central 

authority is located within the Ministry of Justice. In Sweden, the central 

authority is located within the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. 

Upon receipt of an application by a left-behind parent, the Office of 

Children’s Issues forwards the application and supporting documents to 

the appropriate central authority in the country in which the child is 

believed to be located. The central authority in the foreign country reviews 

the application to ensure that the case falls within the parameters of the 

Convention and that all necessary information has been included. In some 

cases, the central authority will deny the application if it contains 

information showing that the Hague Convention does not apply. Following 

acceptance of the application, a judicial review is conducted, and a case 

determination is made. If an application is denied, the left-behind parent 

can appeal the decision. The State Department considers a Hague case 

closed when (1) the child is returned to the United States or the left-behind 

parent can exercise visitation rights, (2) the left-behind parent has 

withdrawn the application either explicitly or implicitly by not maintaining 

contact with the State Department on the progress of the case and is unable 

to be contacted,6

 (3) the left-behind parent has lost the case at all 

adjudicative levels or has lost the case at one level and decided not to 

appeal, or (4) a settlement was reached between the abducting and 

left-behind parents. Additional information on the Convention and its 

processes is included in appendix I. 

5

This is applicable only when the Hague Convention is in force between the United States 

and the other country.

6

The State Department indicated that there is no standard as to when to close a case under 

these circumstances. 
B-285990

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Germany, Sweden, and Austria, as party states to the Hague Convention, 

have agreed to follow the processes established by the Convention. 

However, each country has its own administrative and judicial processes 

for adjudicating the cases. Although the State Department can attempt to 

influence the processes followed and actions taken by Germany, Sweden, 

and Austria as well as other countries, judicial authorities in each 

respective country make the final case decisions. 

Scope and 

Methodology

We reviewed files that State’s Office of Children’s Issues maintains on cases 

initiated by left-behind parents seeking the return or visitation of their 

children in Germany, Sweden, and Austria under the Hague Convention.7

We reviewed cases opened from January 1, 1995, through May 15, 2000. The 

State Department indicated that files for cases opened before 1995 might 

be unavailable or incomplete. We reviewed cases filed under the Hague 

Convention, including cases in which the foreign authorities subsequently 

determined that the Convention did not apply. 

To determine the status, outcome, and other characteristics of cases, we 

reviewed information maintained in the case files that are State’s official 

records. The files included administrative, judicial, and communicative 

information related to each case. In general, case files included (1) the 

application submitted by the left-behind parent to the foreign country’s 

central authority; (2) State Department correspondence with counterpart 

central authorities and U.S. embassies; (3) correspondence with left-behind 

parents on case status; (4) judicial and other legal documents; and (5) other 

correspondence between left-behind parents, family, lawyers, and foreign 

entities involved in the case. However, not all files had the same types or 

extent of information, and, in some cases important documents, such as an 

application, were not included. 

We identified key pieces of information for each case. For closed cases, we 

identified (1) when the application was submitted to the Office of 

Children’s Issues, (2) when the application was forwarded to the central 

7

In addition to filing cases through the State Department under the Hague Convention, a

left-behind parent has the option of filing cases directly with the central authority or the 

court system in the relevant foreign country. Because the State Department does not have 

data on these cases, we did not include these cases in our review. We also did not include in 

our review cases in which a left-behind parent requested State Department assistance (such 

as in locating and verifying the welfare of the child) that is outside the scope of the Hague 

Convention.
B-285990

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

authority counterpart in the foreign country, (3) what type of application 

was submitted (that is, return or visitation), (4) when the case was closed, 

(5) how long the case was open−from the time the application was 

submitted to State until State closed the case, and (6) what was the case 

outcome and what factors were cited as having affected the outcome. For 

cases that remained open, we identified the status of the case and what 

factors were affecting resolution, such as appeals. We did not 

independently assess the rationale underlying decisions of foreign courts 

or administrative bodies. State’s files contained limited information on the 

enforcement of relevant court orders; therefore, we did not attempt to 

determine whether decisions of foreign courts or administrative bodies 

were actually enforced.

Where multiple reasons were cited for denying left-behind parents’ request 

for return or visitation of their child, we made a judgment based on 

documentation in the case file as to which was the primary reason. When 

information in the case file was not clear, we interviewed the U.S. 

caseworker and other State Department officials involved in the case to 

obtain clarification. We also reviewed data in the Office of Children’s 

Issues’ case-tracking system. However, where data on cases in the files and 

the tracking system differed, we relied on the case files. We did so because 

of data problems in State’s system described in our March 2000 report.8

 In 

two closed visitation cases, we could not determine whether visitation had 

been granted; therefore, in the absence of documentation that visitation 

had been granted, we assumed that it had not. 

Our analysis adopted the State Department’s practice of maintaining an 

individual case for each child, even when siblings were involved. However, 

we did not adopt State’s practice of maintaining a single case when a leftbehind parent sought both the return and visitation of the child. This 

situation could occur when the left-behind parent’s request for return of the 

child was denied and the left-behind parent requested visitation rights. To 

simplify our analyses and to ensure that we captured information for these 

situations, we established two cases with separate records for the return 

and visitation requests. Consequently, our data on the number of cases may 

be slightly higher than State’s data. 

8

 See Foreign Affairs: Specific Action Plan Needed to Improve Responses to Parental Child 

Abductions (GAO/NSIAD-00-10, Mar. 29, 2000).
B-285990

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

We recorded the results of our analysis of State’s files in a database. We 

subsequently performed independent checks to ensure that data for each 

case were accurate and that the judgment we made regarding the case 

outcome was supported by information in the case file.

We conducted our work from May through September 2000 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Agency Comments and 

Our Response

The State Department provided written comments on a draft of this report 

(see app. II). State also provided technical comments that we incorporated 

as appropriate. In its written comments, State described a number of 

actions that it is taking to deal with the problem of international parental 

child abduction, such as increasing staffing in the Office of Children’s 

Issues. Although State did not comment on its agreement with our report, it 

did comment on aspects of the report’s scope and methodology.

State noted that our report would have been more useful if we had included 

information on cases filed by left-behind parents in Germany, Sweden, and 

Austria for return, or access to, children abducted to, or wrongfully 

retained in, the United States. Although such cases were not in our work 

scope, we agree that information on U.S. handling of cases filed by persons 

in other countries would provide a useful benchmark that may help State 

address Convention implementation problems with other countries. The 

State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues oversees handling of cases 

filed by left-behind parents from other countries and could develop this 

information. 

The State Department noted that in cases where foreign courts ruled that 

the child had not been habitually resident in the United States or the leftbehind parent did not have custody rights, the U.S. left-behind parents had 

not established that an abduction or wrongful retention had occurred 

under the Hague Convention. There were 22 such cases out of the 199 

return cases closed by State; 17 involving Germany, 3 involving Sweden, 

and 2 involving Austria. State believed that including these cases in our 

calculations of the number of cases in which a child was not returned is 

misleading. Our report accurately shows the outcomes of cases that were 

filed under the Hague Convention, including the outcome of the 22 cases 

where U.S. left-behind parents did not establish that an abduction or 

retention had occurred under the Convention. We did not independently 

assess the rationale underlying rejections of applications. We modified the 

scope and methodology to clarify that our analysis included cases in which 
B-285990

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

an application was filed under the Hague Convention, regardless of 

whether it was subsequently determined by foreign authorities that the 

Convention did not apply. 

State indicated that it often forwards an application to a central authority in 

another country even if the application is incomplete (for example, when 

the application has not been translated into the language of the foreign 

country). State believed that our calculation of the duration of cases was 

not an accurate measurement of other countries’ case processing time 

because the foreign country is not required to take action until it receives a 

complete application. We calculated case duration beginning with the day a 

left-behind parent submitted an application to the State Department. We 

chose this start time to measure the total number of days that a left-behind 

parent had to wait until the case was closed. Although actions on some 

cases were delayed because submitted applications were incomplete, 

foreign authority processing and decision-making accounted for most of 

the time taken to resolve most cases. We modified our scope and 

methodology to describe how we computed case duration. 

State also indicated that its files have limited information on cases and do 

not indicate what may have occurred after cases were closed. It suggested 

that in some instances an abducting parent may agree to return a child or 

permit visitation without State being informed. As described in our scope 

and methodology, we based our review on information in State’s files, and, 

therefore, events that are not documented in the files such as those 

occurring after a case was closed or without State’s knowledge are not 

reflected in our report. 

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees. We are also sending copies to the Honorable Madeleine K. 

Albright, Secretary of State. We will also make copies available to others 

upon request.
B-285990

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Please contact me at (202) 512-4128 if you or your staff have any questions 

about this report. Additional GAO contact and staff acknowledgments are 

listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours, 

Jess T. Ford, Associate Director

International Relations and Trade Issues
Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction
Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Briefing Section I

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases Involving 

Germany BrenifgSecotinI

Source: GAO analysis of State Department case files.

From January 1995 through May 15, 2000,

215 return cases were opened

 172 cases have been closed

 67 children returned and 105 not returned

 43 cases remain open

42 visitation cases were opened

 26 cases have been closed

 14 visitations granted and 12 visitations denied

 16 cases remain open
Briefing Section I

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Germany

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Left-behind parents filed 257 cases from January 1995 through May 15, 

2000, through the State Department with the German central authority. Of 

these, 215 cases were filed in which the left-behind parent was seeking the 

return of the child to the United States. Of the 215 return cases, 172 have 

been closed, of which 67 resulted in the return of the child. In 105 cases, the 

child was not returned. Forty-three cases remain open. 

There were 42 cases in which the left-behind parent was seeking visitation. 

Twenty-six of these cases have been closed, of which visitation was granted 

in 14 cases. In 12 cases, visitation was denied. There are 16 cases that 

remain open. 

For the 5-year period ending 1999, left-behind parents have filed an average 

of 47 cases annually with the State Department for the return or visitation 

of a child in Germany.
Briefing Section I

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Germany

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

a

Article 13a allows a Hague Convention party state to refuse to return the child if the left-behind parent 

did not have custody at the time of removal, or subsequently acquiesced to the removal or retention. 

b

Nonjudicial actions include determinations by the central authority that Hague conditions had not 

been met or that a settlement was reached between the parents.

c

Judicial actions include determinations by legal authorities that the application for return was filed 

more than a year after the abduction occurred or that the left-behind parent did not have custody 

rights. 

d

Article 13b allows a Hague Convention party state to refuse to return the child if the return would pose 

a grave risk to the child’s mental or physical well-being.

Source: GAO analysis of State Department case files. 

Child returned in 67 cases

Child not returned in 105 cases

Outcome in 172 closed cases

Reasons 105 children not returned

Left-behind parent withdrew 34 cases

Article 13a 16 cases

Other nonjudicial actions 18 cases

Other judicial actions 16 cases

Article 13b 14 cases

Child did not wish to return 5 cases

Child not located 1 case

Habitual residence not United States 1 case

a

d

c

b
Briefing Section I

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Germany

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Of the 172 closed return cases involving Germany, 67, or 39 percent, have 

resulted in a return of the child. In the remaining 105 cases, the child was 

not returned. In 34 of the 105 cases in which a child was not returned, the 

case was closed due to parental withdrawal of the application. Withdrawal 

of the application was characterized by (1) failure to pay the cost of 

litigation; (2) failure to maintain communication with or provide 

information to the German central authority to allow the case to proceed; 

or (3) a decision to pursue other options, such as private settlements, with 

the abducting parent. In some cases, the State Department closed the file 

because the left-behind parent ceased contact with the Department despite 

efforts by State to contact the parent.

German courts denied return in 16 cases based on a provision of the 

Convention, provided for in article 13a, which permits a court not to order 

return when it is established that the left-behind parent was not actually 

exercising custody rights at the time the abduction or retention took place 

(thus removal or retention was not wrongful as defined by the Convention), 

or had consented to or subsequently accepted the removal or retention. In 

14 other cases, German courts relied on the exception in article 13b in 

denying the return of the children. Article 13b permits denial of a return 

request if return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm 

or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. 

In another 16 cases, the denial of return occurred because of other judicial 

actions. These include four cases in which article 12 was cited in the denial 

of return—article 12 of the Convention allows denial in cases in which the 

application for return was filed more than a year after the abduction 

occurred and the child is settled in his or her new environment and five 

cases in which the court ruled that the left-behind parent did not have 

custody rights. In seven cases, State’s files indicated that the return was 

denied by judicial actions but did not have evidence of the specific reasons 

for the action. In two of these cases, return was denied but a German court 

mediated a settlement for visitation rights.

In 18 cases, the child was not returned because of nonjudicial actions or 

circumstances. Of these cases, the central authority denied 13 applications 

on the grounds that information contained within the application 

demonstrated that Hague qualifications had not been met. In some of these 

cases, the applications stated that the left-behind parent did not have 

custody rights of the child at the time of abduction, which is a requisite to 

establish that a wrongful removal or retention, as provided in article 3, has 

occurred. In two cases, a settlement was reached between the parents. In 
Briefing Section I

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Germany

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

the remaining three cases, the left-behind parent did not submit all required 

documents to either the German central authority or the State Department.

In 5 of the 105 cases, the child did not wish to return and was considered by 

Germany to be old enough and mature enough to make the decision. In one 

of these cases, the courts allowed a 9-year old child to exercise this right. 

In one case, the German court ordered the child returned, but the child 

could not be located. The abducting parent allegedly removed the child to 

another country. In the remaining case, a German court denied return, 

citing that the child’s habitual residence was not the United States.
Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction
Briefing Section I

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Germany

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Source: GAO analysis of State Department case files. 

Outcome in 26 closed visitation cases

Reasons visitation rights not granted with 12 children

Child did not want visitation granted 1 case

Insufficient information in file to determine

reason 2 cases

Inactivity by left-behind parent/left-behind

parent withdrew 9 cases

Visitation rights not granted in 12 cases

Visitation rights granted in 14 cases
Briefing Section I

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Germany

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Twenty-six visitation cases were closed involving Germany, of which 14 

resulted in visitation being granted to the left-behind parent. In the 

remaining 12 cases, visitation was not granted. Of these cases, visitation 

was not granted in nine cases either because of inactivity by the left-behind 

parent or withdrawal of the application by the left-behind parent. In two 

other cases, State’s files had insufficient information to determine why 

visitation was not granted. In the remaining case, the court did not grant 

visitation, citing that the child did not want to be visited by the left-behind 

parent. 
Briefing Section I

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Germany

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Source: GAO analysis of State Department case files.

Reasons 43 return cases remain open

• Left-behind parent

--providing additional documents

 --awaiting first judicial review

 --appealing court decision

 --deciding on actions to take

Reasons 16 visitation cases remain open

• Left-behind parent

--awaiting first judicial review

 --litigating enforcement of visitation

 rights that court granted

 --negotiating terms of visitation rights

 --completing financial aid forms
Briefing Section I

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Germany

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Twenty of the 43 open return cases were opened in 1999 or 2000, and the 

left-behind parents are still in the process of submitting necessary 

documents or are awaiting the first court date. In the remaining 23 open 

return cases, which were opened before 1999, the left-behind parent (1) has 

been asked to provide additional information such as whether custody 

rights have been established in the United States, (2) is appealing or is 

responding to appeals made by the abducting parent, or (3) has not notified 

State or the German central authority on their next course of action (to 

pursue or close the case).

In 3 of the 16 open visitation cases, the left-behind parent is waiting for the 

first German court hearing. In the remaining 13 cases, the left-behind 

parent is either (1) litigating enforcement of visitation rights,

(2) negotiating the terms of visitation rights with the abducting parent, or 

(3) preparing financial aid forms to cover the legal costs of adjudicating the 

visitation rights. 
Briefing Section I

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Germany

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Note: Data include closed return and visitation cases that were opened from January 1995 through 

May 15, 2000. Each case number represents an individual case.

Source: GAO analysis of State Department case files.

Median

duration

288 days

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1 11 21 31 41 51 61 71 81 91 101 111 121 131 141 151 161 171 181 191

Number of days case was open

Case number

Germany

198
Briefing Section I

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Germany

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

In the 198 closed cases involving Germany, the duration of the cases ranged 

from 4 to 1,019 days, with the median duration being 288 days. A primary 

reason for the lengthy duration of some cases is the appeal process. A 

left-behind parent may go through numerous appeals in an attempt to 

secure the return of a child, but the abducting parent can also appeal 

decisions. For example, two return cases that lasted 1,019 days each had 

several appeals. However, there are other reasons why cases take so long 

to resolve. For example, in a 704-day case, the German court ordered the 

child returned, but the abducting parent subsequently removed the child to 

a third country to avoid enforcement of the return order. The abducting 

parent and child have not been located.
Briefing Section I

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Germany

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

In a May 1999 report to Congress,1 the State Department raised concerns 

about the length of time Germany takes to adjudicate cases. Although the 

Department cited five countries in this report for demonstrating a pattern 

of noncompliance with obligations under the Convention,2

 it did not cite 

• State Department raises concern about case

duration but does not cite Germany for

pattern noncompliance (May 1999)

• State Department raises concern regarding

inconsistent implementation of the

convention (October 1999)

• President Clinton discusses high-profile case

with German Chancellor Schroeder (May 2000)

• United States and Germany create

working group (June 2000)

1

Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International 

Child Abduction (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, May 1999).

2

The five countries are Austria, Honduras, Mauritius, Mexico, and Sweden.
Briefing Section I

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Germany

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Germany for pattern noncompliance. In October 1999, a State official 

testified about State’s concerns with German courts’ inconsistent 

application of the Convention.3

In July 1999, Germany reduced the number of courts that could hear cases 

filed under the Convention from 600 to 24. State Department officials 

believe that the consolidation may improve Germany’s handling of 

Convention cases because (1) it may be easier to educate a smaller number 

of courts about Germany’s obligations under the Convention, (2) each of 

the 24 courts will hear more Convention cases and should develop practical 

expertise in handling them, and (3) the consolidation may limit the 

possibility of local bias in the adjudication of cases.

In May 2000, according to State Department officials, President Clinton and 

German Chancellor Schroeder discussed a high-profile case involving a 

left-behind parent whose children were placed in foster care in Germany by 

the abducting parent and remain with foster parents. The left-behind parent 

was not informed of the children’s placement. In 1995, the German courts 

denied return to the father by invoking article 13b of the Convention, ruling 

that return may risk psychological harm to the children. At the time of the 

abduction, the children were less than 5 years old and living with both 

parents. In July 2000, German authorities announced their willingness to 

facilitate visitation between the left-behind parent and his children. 

However, it is not clear when this visit may take place or whether this 

process may lead to the childrens’ return.

In June 2000, State Department and German Ministry of Justice officials 

created a bilateral working group to address problems with cases filed 

under the Convention. The working group met in July 2000 to begin 

discussing actions that could be taken to improve the processing of cases. 

The group has scheduled another meeting on September 25, 2000, in Berlin, 

Germany. State Department officials told us that the agenda for this next 

meeting would include discussion of Germany’s interpretation of 

exceptions under the Convention as well as enforcement of German court 

decisions.

3

Statement of the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State, before the 

Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives, October 14, 1999.
Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Briefing Section II

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases Involving 

Sweden BerinfgSecotinI

Source: GAO analysis of State Department case files. 

From January 1995 through May 15, 2000,

27 return cases were opened

14 children returned and 7 not returned

 6 cases remain open

3 visitation cases were opened

 2 cases have been closed

 visitation not granted

 1 case remains open
Briefing Section II

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Sweden

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Between January 1995 and May 15, 2000, left-behind parents filed 30 Hague 

applications with the State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues seeking 

return of, or access to, children abducted to or retained in Sweden. Of 

these cases, the left-behind parent pursued the return of a child to the 

United States in 27 cases. Of the 27 cases seeking return of a child from 

Sweden, 21 have been closed. Of the 21 closed cases, the child was 

returned in 14 cases but was not in 7 cases. Six cases remain open. 

There were only three cases in which left-behind parents sought visitation 

rights. Of these, two have been closed without visitation being granted. One 

case remains open. 
Briefing Section II

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Sweden

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

a

Settlement was reached between the two parents. 

b

Article 13b allows a Hague Convention party state to refuse to return the child if return would expose 

the child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm.

Source: GAO analysis of State Department case files.

Outcome in 21 closed cases

Reasons seven children not returned

Habitual residence not United States

3 cases

Article 13b 2 cases

Other nonjudicial reason 1 case

Left-behind parent withdrew 1 case

Child not returned in 7 cases

Child returned in 14 cases

b

a
Briefing Section II

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Sweden

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Swedish courts ruled in three of the seven closed cases in which the child 

was not returned that the child’s habitual residence was not the United 

States. In two cases, Swedish courts denied return based on an exception 

in the Convention (article 13b) that allows denial of a return request if there 

is a grave risk that return would expose the child to psychological or 

physical harm. In one case, a left-behind parent withdrew the application 

because the parents had informally reached an agreement. In the remaining 

case, the State Department’s file indicated that a mediated settlement had 

been reached between the two parties. 

In the two closed cases where the left-behind parent sought visitation of 

the child, visitation was not granted. In one case, the left-behind parent 

withdrew the visitation application, and in the other case, State’s files had 

insufficient information to determine why visitation was not granted. 
Briefing Section II

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Sweden

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Source: GAO analysis of State Department case files.

Reasons six return cases remain open

• Left-behind parent 

--appealing court decision in four cases

 --awaiting first judicial review in one case

--providing additional information in one case

Reason one visitation case remains open

• Left-behind parent is still litigating the terms

 of visitation
Briefing Section II

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Sweden

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

In four of the six return cases that remain open, the left-behind parent is 

appealing a court decision. In each of these four cases, the Swedish court 

of first instance denied the request for return of the child. In the fifth case, 

the left-behind parent is awaiting the first court hearing on the case. In the 

remaining case, the Swedish central authority has requested additional 

information from the left-behind parent before the case can be forwarded 

to the court for adjudication. 

In the visitation case that remains open, the court has awarded visitation 

rights to the left-behind parent, but the terms and the enforcement of the 

court ruling are still being litigated. The left-behind parent is attempting to 

ensure that visitation rights granted by the court will be enforced. This case 

is the second action regarding the same child. In the first action, the 

left-behind parent unsuccessfully sought the return of the child to the 

United States.
Briefing Section II

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Sweden

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Note: Data include closed return and visitation cases that were opened from January 1995 through 

May 15, 2000. Each case number represents an individual case.

Source: GAO analysis of State Department case files.

Median

duration

168 days

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23

Number of days case was open

Case number

Sweden
Briefing Section II

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Sweden

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

For the 23 closed cases with Sweden, the duration ranged from 28 to 

1,329 days, with the median duration being 168 days. One reason for the 

lengthy duration of some cases was Sweden’s difficulty in locating a child. 

For example, in a case that lasted 1,329 days, the abducting parent evaded 

Swedish authorities on several occasions and was eventually located along 

with the child in another country, where the abducting parent was arrested. 

The child was subsequently returned to the United States in June 2000. In 

another case that lasted 619 days, the left-behind parent was granted a 

return order, but the Swedish authorities could not locate the abducting 

parent and child for over a year. The child eventually was located and 

returned to the United States in May 2000.

Another reason for lengthy durations for some cases is the time-consuming 

appeal process. For example, in a case lasting 490 days, the left-behind 

parent was initially granted return of the child. The abducting parent, 

however, won an appeal in Sweden’s Supreme Court which, 

notwithstanding that the Convention applies to any child who was 

habitually resident in a party state immediately before removal,1

 denied 

return on the grounds that the child was a habitual resident of Sweden. The 

court found that the child’s habitual residence had become Sweden during 

the child’s 2-year stay with the abducting parent. The left-behind parent has 

opened a case seeking visitation with the child. 

1

Hague Convention, article 4.
Briefing Section II

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Sweden

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

 State Department delivers two diplomatic

notes (June 1996 and July 1998)

 State Department cites Sweden for

pattern noncompliance (May 1999)
Briefing Section II

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Sweden

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Although the number of cases filed involving Sweden is relatively small—

about six annually for the 5-year period ending 1999—the United States has 

raised concerns about the country’s fulfillment of its obligations under the 

Convention. In a May 1999 report to Congress, State said that Sweden was 

not in compliance with its obligations under the Convention.2

 Two return 

cases illustrate why. In a case filed in October 1996, the left-behind parent 

sought to have his child returned to the United States, and the Swedish 

court ordered the return. The abducting parent absconded with the child, 

and Swedish authorities were unable to locate the child until June 2000, at 

which time the child was returned to the United States.3

 The State 

Department believed that Sweden was not fulfilling its obligations in this 

case to locate “the whereabouts of children wrongfully removed” to a 

country (specified in article 7a of the Convention). In July 1998, State 

delivered a diplomatic note to the Swedish Foreign Ministry expressing 

U.S. concerns with Sweden’s actions regarding this case. 

In a second case, the left-behind parent was initially awarded the return of 

his child by Sweden’s lower courts in 1995. After losing several appeals in 

lower courts, the abducting parent won an appeal with Sweden’s Supreme 

Administrative Court in May 1996. The Supreme Court overturned the 

lower court rulings and denied the return of the child because the child’s 

habitual residence had over time become Sweden.4

 This decision was made 

despite a mutually agreed-upon U.S. custody order stipulating that the 

child’s habitual residence was to remain the United States and that 

jurisdiction over issues of custody was to remain with the U.S. court. In 

response to the Swedish Supreme Court’s decision, State delivered a 

diplomatic note in June 1996 to Sweden regarding Sweden’s failure to abide 

by its obligations under the Convention. As of July 2000, the child remains 

in Sweden. Although Swedish courts granted the left-behind parent limited 

visitation rights, it is not yet clear whether the left-behind parent will be 

able to exercise those rights. 

2

Report on Compliance With the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International 

Child Abduction.

3

This case was cited earlier on page 33 as having a lengthy duration of 1,329 days.

4

This case was cited earlier on page 33 as lasting 490 days. 
Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Briefing Section III

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases Involving 

Austria BrenifgSecotinI

Source: GAO analysis of State Department case files.

From January 1995 through May 15, 2000,

Nine return cases were opened

 six cases have been closed

 two children returned and four not returned

 three cases remain open

Two visitation cases were opened

 both remain open
Briefing Section III

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Austria

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Six of the nine cases seeking the return of a child from Austria have been 

closed. The child was returned in two cases; not returned in four cases; and 

three cases remain open.

The two cases in which the left-behind parent sought visitation both remain 

open. In one of these cases, the left-behind parent lost an original request to 

have the child returned and then applied for visitation rights.
Briefing Section III

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Austria

Page 38 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

a

Article 13b allows a Hague Convention party state to refuse to return the child if return would expose 

the child to a grave risk of physical or psychological harm. 

Source: GAO analysis of State Department case files. 

Outcome in six closed cases

Reasons four children not returned

Habitual residence not United States 2 cases

Article 13b 1 case

Left-behind parent withdrew 1 case

Child not returned in 4 cases

Child returned in 2 cases

a
Briefing Section III

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Austria

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Of the nine return cases involving Austria, six have been closed, of which 

only two resulted in the return of the child. Of the remaining four cases, 

three denials of return were based on Austrian judicial decisions. In two of 

these cases, the Austrian courts ruled that the child’s habitual residence 

was not the United States. In the third case, the abducting parent 

effectively resisted an attempt by Austrian authorities to enforce the return 

order. The Austrian appeals court allowed an appeal by the mother to the 

Supreme Court, which decided to reopen the Hague case. In April 1997, the 

Austrian Court approved the mother’s petition not to enforce the order for 

return under article 13b of the Hague Convention. It found that the child 

had over time become settled in Austria and would be harmed by being 

uprooted. In the remaining case, the left-behind parent withdrew the 

application. No reason was listed in the files as to why the application was 

withdrawn. 

The median duration of the six closed cases was 176 days. However, one 

case lasted 819 days, and a second case lasted 571 days. 
Briefing Section III

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Austria

Page 40 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Source: GAO analysis of State Department case files.

Reasons three return cases remain open

• Left-behind parent appealing court

 decision in one case

• Left-behind parent providing additional 

information in two cases

Reasons two visitation cases remain open

• Left-behind parent negotiating expanded

terms of visitation rights

• Left-behind parent appealing court decision
Briefing Section III

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Austria

Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

One of the three return cases that remain open is being appealed by the

left-behind parent. The Austrian court of first instance denied the return of 

the child ruling that the left-behind parent did not have custody. In the two 

remaining cases, filed by the same left-behind parent for the return of two 

children, the Austrian central authority has requested information on 

whether the children are habitual residents of the United States.

One of the two visitation cases that remain open is a second action in 

which the left-behind parent lost an initial request for return. In this case, 

the left-behind parent was granted visitation rights but is still attempting to 

broaden the terms of visitation rights to include visits to the United States. 

In the second case, the left-behind parent is appealing the visitation terms 

granted by an Austrian court. 
Briefing Section III

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Austria

Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

• State Department delivers diplomatic

note protesting case handling

(November 1998)

• State officials meet with central

authority (March 1999)

• State Department cites Austria for

pattern noncompliance (May 1999)
Briefing Section III

U.S. Parental Child Abduction Cases 

Involving Austria

Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Despite the relatively small number of cases involving Austria, the State 

Department has expressed concern regarding Austria’s implementation of 

the Convention. In a November 1998 diplomatic note to Austria, State 

raised its concern over the judiciary’s lack of understanding of the 

Convention, especially its slowness in handling cases filed under the 

Convention. In March 1999, State officials met with the Austrian central 

authority to discuss overall compliance with the Convention.

Subsequently, State noted in a May 1999 report to Congress that Austria had 

demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance with its obligations under the 

Convention.1

 State based its finding primarily on a case in which the 

Austrian court ordered the return of a child to the left-behind parent but did 

not enforce the order. The abducting parent absconded with the child, and 

their whereabouts were unknown for more than 18 months. Upon 

resurfacing, the abducting parent appealed any further enforcement of the 

existing return order and won. The Austrian court ruled the child had 

“resettled into her new environment” in Austria during the period when the 

abducting parent was evading the final return order. State officials have 

discussed this case with the Austrian central authority, but the child 

remains in Austria.

1

Report on Compliance With the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International 

Child Abductions.
Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Appendix I

The Hague Convention and the Processing of Apendxies

Hague Cases ApendxiI

The goal of the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of 

International Child Abduction is to protect children from the harmful 

effects of wrongful removal or retention. The Convention establishes 

procedures to (1) promptly return a child wrongfully removed to, or 

retained in, a party country to the country in which the child was habitually 

resident prior to the abduction or retention and (2) ensure that custody and 

visitation rights established under the law of one party country are 

respected in the other party countries. As provided for under article 3 of 

the Convention, the removal or retention of a child is considered wrongful 

when it is in breach of custody rights actually being exercised by a 

left-behind parent when the removal or retention took place. Sixty 

countries are party to the treaty, including the United States, Germany, 

Sweden, and Austria.

Filing and Processing 

an Application

Under the Convention, a left-behind parent who believes his or her child 

was wrongfully removed or retained in a foreign country can apply to have 

the child returned and/or to have visitation rights to the child. Filing an 

application under the Hague Convention is a private civil legal action, and 

the left-behind parent is a party to the legal and administrative processes in 

the foreign country. The party country governments are expected to 

facilitate case processing in a manner that is consistent with the 

Convention. As illustrated in figure 1, when an abducting parent refuses 

voluntarily to return a child to, or grant visitation to, a child by the

left-behind parent, the case may be resolved through judicial review or 

other actions.
Appendix I

The Hague Convention and the Processing of 

Hague Cases

Page 45 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Figure 1: Process for Filing and Adjudicating an Application for Return or Visitation of a Parentally Abducted Child Under the 

Hague Convention 

a

A left-behind parent can file for the return of or access to a child through the State Department or 

directly with either the foreign government’s central authority or courts. 

Source: State Department.

Left-behind parent submits

application to State Departmenta

Left-behind parent submits

application to State Departmenta

State Department reviews and

forwards the application to the

foreign central authority

Application shall include

(1) court decision or state

law establishing custody

rights, (2) translations, and

(3) signature and date

Foreign central authority processes

application

If the abducting parent does not return

child voluntarily, or grant visitation

rights, then a court hearing is scheduled

Court hearing

Return or visitation

ordered

Return or visitation

denied

Voluntary

return or

visitation

Appeal

Return or

visitation

Denial

sustained
Appendix I

The Hague Convention and the Processing of 

Hague Cases

Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

How Cases Are 

Resolved

There is a Convention obligation to return an abducted or wrongfully 

retained child below the age of 16 if the application is made within 1 year 

from the date of the wrongful removal or retention. However, this 

obligation does not exist under the following circumstances:

• The Convention does not apply to any child that was not “habitually 

resident in a contracting [country] immediately before any breach of 

custody or visitation rights.” This provision, under article 4 of the 

Convention, does not define “habitual residence.” Most U.S. courts, and 

the courts of some foreign jurisdictions, define habitual residence as the 

place where a child has been physically present for an amount of time 

sufficient for acclimatization and that has a degree of settled purpose 

from the child’s perspective.1

 The child’s parents need not intend to 

reside permanently in a country for it to be considered the child’s 

habitual residence.2

• The Convention does not require the return of the child when the 

left-behind parent seeking the child’s return “was not actually exercising 

custody rights at the time of the removal, or had consented to or 

subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention” (article 3b and 

article 13a of the Convention).

• The Convention does not require return or visitation of the child if the 

country’s legal authority rules that “there is a grave risk that [the child’s] 

return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or 

otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation” (article 13b of the 

Convention). 

• The Convention permits but does not require return where return 

proceedings are commenced after 1 year has passed since the child’s 

abduction (article 12 of the Convention) and the child has become 

settled in its new environment. 

1

 See, for example, Feder v. Feder, 63 F.3d 217 (3d Cir. 1995) citing In re Bates, No. CA 122-89, 

High Court of Justice, Family Div’l Ct. Royal Courts of Justice, United Kingdom (1989); 

Friedrich v. Friedrich, 983 F. 2d 1396 (6th Cir. 1993).

2

 Elisa Perez-Vera, “Report of the Special Commission,” Conference de La Haye de droit 

international prive: Actes et documents de la Quatorzieme session, Vol. III, Child Abduction, 

¶ 66. According to the State Department, this report by the Hague Conference Reporter for 

the Convention is “recognized as the official history and commentary on the Convention and 

is a source of background on the meaning of the provisions of the Convention.” U.S. 

Department of State, Legal Analysis, Hague International Child Abduction Convention, 

51 Fed. Reg. 10494, 10503.
Appendix I

The Hague Convention and the Processing of 

Hague Cases

Page 47 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Cases may also be concluded by (1) the left-behind and abducting parent 

reaching an agreement with or without judicial mediation or (2) a 

left-behind parent withdrawing the application.
Page 48 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State ApendxiI
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State

Page 49 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State

Page 50 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State

Page 51 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State

Page 52 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction
Page 53 GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR Parental Child Abduction

Appendix III

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiI

GAO Contact John Brummet (202) 512-5260

Acknowledgments In addition to the person named above, Mark B. Dowling, Ryan P. Hartman, 

Kathleen M. Joyce, Edward D. Kennedy, Janice Villar Morrison, and 

Michael C. Zola made key contributions to this report.

(711517) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit 

cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

Orders by Internet:

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00