U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–751PDF 2016

HOPE DEFERRED: SECURING ENFORCEMENT OF

THE GOLDMAN ACT TO RETURN ABDUCTED

AMERICAN CHILDREN

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 14, 2016

Serial No. 114–223

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Ms. Karen Christensen, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State .......................................................................... 3

Chris Brann, M.D. (father of child abducted to Brazil) ........................................ 23

Ms. Ruchika Abbi (mother of child abducted to India) ......................................... 30

Mr. James Cook (father of children abducted to Japan) ...................................... 59

Ms. Edeanna Barbirou (mother of child abducted to Tunisia) ............................. 78

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Ms. Karen Christensen: Prepared statement ........................................................ 6

Chris Brann, M.D.: Prepared statement ................................................................ 27

Ms. Ruchika Abbi: Prepared statement ................................................................. 36

Mr. James Cook: Prepared statement .................................................................... 67

Ms. Edeanna Barbirou: Prepared statement ......................................................... 83

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 96

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 97

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations: 

Letter from Mr. Elijah Jackson .......................................................................... 98

Letter from the Honorable Jim McDermott, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Washington ......................................................................... 100

Statement from the Honorable C. A. Dutch Ruppersburger, a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland ................................................. 101

Written responses from Ms. Karen Christensen to questions submitted for 

the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith .......................................... 102

(1)

HOPE DEFERRED: SECURING ENFORCEMENT 

OF THE GOLDMAN ACT TO RETURN 

ABDUCTED AMERICAN CHILDREN 

THURSDAY, JULY 14, 2016

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in room 

2255 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order, and welcome. 

I want to thank all of you, especially all the left-behind parents 

I see in the audience for joining us this afternoon to discuss what 

the U.S. Department of State’s second annual report under the 

Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act tells us about the Department’s implementation of the Goldman Act thus far. 

It is worth noting that the numbers of new abductions from the 

United States in 2015 remain below the pre-Goldman Act mark 

probably due to increased abduction prevention. So I want to commend the Department for a myriad of efforts it has undertaken on 

the prevention side. 

According to the report, 600 more children were abducted to 

other countries last year, quickly replacing the 229 children abducted in various years, not just last year but obviously previous 

years as well, who were returned. 

Overall, approximately 1,000 remain in a foreign country separated from their American parent. As many of you have experienced, international parental child abduction rips children from 

their homes and whisks them away to a foreign land, alienating 

them from the love and care of the parent and family left behind. 

Child abduction is child abuse and continues to plague families 

across the United States and across the world. For decades the 

State Department has used quiet diplomacy to attempt to bring 

these children home. 

In a hearing I held on this issue back in 2009 former Assistant 

Secretary of State Bernie Aronson called quiet diplomacy a sophisticated form of begging. 

Thousands of American families who suffer unspeakable agony 

from years of unresolved abductions confirm that quiet diplomacy 

2

is inadequate. Of course, conversations and contact are important 

but they need to be backed up with concrete actions as well. 

In 2014, Congress unanimously passed the Goldman Act to give 

teeth to requests for return as well as for access. The actions 

against noncooperating governments required by the law escalate 

in severity and range from official protests through diplomatic 

channels to the suspension of development, security, or other foreign assistance. 

Extradition of abducting parents also may be the case. The Goldman Act is a law calculated to get results as we did in the return 

of Sean Goldman from Brazil in 2009 and I stay in very close contact with them and both father and son are doing extremely well. 

This year’s report as required by the Goldman Act singles out 19 

countries in total including India, Brazil, Japan, and Tunisia for 

failures to work with the United States in the return of abducted 

American children. 

For instance, the report notes 83 abductions to India still open 

at the end of the year with 25 of those being new in 2015. Only 

one was closed with a court-ordered return to the U.S. 

These numbers will continue to climb each year until India creates a mechanism for resolution. Right now, India is a magnet for 

abductions because the taking parents are almost guaranteed to 

get away with their crime. 

Brazil had 17 abduction cases open at the end of 2015 with a 27-

percent resolution rate. Brazil has been a Hague Convention partner with the United States in 2003 and has yet consistently failed 

to comply with the Hague Convention. 

Devon Davenport, who has testified before this subcommittee, 

has won every one of his 24 appeals in Brazil’s courts over the last 

7 years and yet he still cannot get his daughter, Nadia, home. 

If there ever was a textbook case for sanctions, Brazil is it. They 

have met the legal threshold ten times over. The report lists Japan 

as a ‘‘country that has failed to comply with one or more of its 

Hague Convention obligations’’ specifically ‘‘in the area of enforcement of return orders.’’

Multiple parents have won victories in court only to discover 

Japan has what the report calls ‘‘systemic flaws’’ with enforcement. 

What remains inexplicable is why Japan was kept off the list of 

noncompliant countries for a second year, thus shielded from the 

imposition of sanctions prescribed by the Goldman Act, even 

though the Department condemns them for systemic flaws in their 

ability to enforce court orders. 

Failure to enforce return orders is a sufficient trigger for landing 

on the noncompliant list and I say that again. In the plain meaning 

and text of the Goldman Act that is enough to trigger being listed 

as noncompliant. 

One parent had to go outside of the Convention framework to 

achieve enforcement in an extraordinary case resolved after the reporting period. 

The report should also should have counted against Japan the 

40—count them—40 pre-Convention abduction cases it mentions as 

still pending, most of them for more than 5 years. 

Countries should be listed as worst offenders if they have high 

numbers of cases—30 percent or more—that have been pending for 

3

more than a year. Again, in Japan—most of these are more than 

5 years. 

Countries may also be listed if their law enforcement, judiciary, 

or central authority for abductions regularly fails in their duties 

under the Hague Convention or other controlling agreement or if 

the country simply fails to work with the United States to resolve 

the cases. 

Accurate reporting, including inclusion of the worst offenders list, 

is critical to family court judges across the country and parents 

considering their child’s travel to a foreign country where abduction or access problems are at risk. 

However, reporting is just step one. Once these countries are 

properly classified, the Secretary of State then determines which of 

the aforementioned actions the United States will apply to the 

country in order to encourage the timely resolution of cases. 

Such actions should bring an end to the nightmare of the Elias 

family whose children, Jade and Michael, who live in New Jersey 

but they now have been abducted to Japan, and have been missing 

in Japan for 8 years. 

Michael, their father, has testified before our subcommittee twice 

in the past, an Iraqi war veteran, and it is heartbreaking like it 

is for the other families that are here to know that their children 

languish in a setting where parental alienation causes severe and 

significant deleterious effects to their mental health and that has 

been well proven. And the longer the years the worse it, arguably, 

becomes for those children. 

We have a panel of family members, left-behind parents who will 

be testifying after Ms. Christensen. But I would like to thank them 

for being here and then I’d like to now introduce Ms. Karen 

Christensen, who has served as Deputy Assistant Secretary of 

State for Overseas Citizens Services since August 2014. 

Most recently, Ms. Christensen was the Minister Consular for 

Consular Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Berlin where she coordinated consular operations at several posts in Germany Prior to 

that she was Consul General in Manila. 

She also served in Washington within the Bureau of Consular Affairs in the Visa Office in the Office of Executive Director. Overseas, she has served as a consular officer in London, Bucharest, 

Warsaw, and Seoul. 

Other Washington tours include serving as an instructor in the 

Consular Training Division and a Career Development Officer in 

the Bureau of Human Resources. 

STATEMENT OF MS. KAREN CHRISTENSEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Chairman Smith, thank you for this opportunity to discuss international parental child abduction. 

This issue is one of the highest priorities of the Department of 

State. My testimony today will summarize my written statement, 

which I request be entered into the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for 

your leadership on this issue. We continue to use our diplomatic 

4

engagement with countries to prevent or resolve abduction cases 

using the tools you gave us in the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act of 2014. 

In preparing the recently released 2016 report, we used the feedback we received from you as well as from parents, judges, and our 

partners at the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 

to make the report a more helpful resource for parents, judges, and 

family law attorneys. 

The 2016 report includes additional narrative statements and 

country-specific information that will make it a powerful tool for resolving cases in the year to come. 

Mr. Chairman, we are getting results. In 2015, 299 abducted 

children were returned to the United States. The majority, 213, returned from countries we are partnered with under the 1980 

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. 

More than that, thanks to new measures in the law we have a 

liaison agreement with the Department of Homeland Security and 

a full time Department of State employee now serves at the Customs and Border Protection National Targeting Center. This allows 

for seamless communications and since the law took effect we’ve 

prevented over 140 potential abductions. 

We have prepared congressional reports on our international parental child abduction work since at least 2007. Our 2015 report 

was the first issued under the new requirements of the act. 

As the parents here today with us know, each abduction case is 

unique. To reflect this fact and the complexities involved in resolving these cases, in preparing the 2016 report we added narratives 

that give context to the statistics. 

We regret that this report was late. This year we completely reworked the format of the report to make it a more useful resource 

for families and we are taking steps to ensure that this delay does 

not happen again next year. 

Building on last year’s work we believe that the 2016 report is 

a significantly more helpful tool for all stakeholders. We are using 

the report to focus our efforts to collaborate with your constituents, 

advocacy groups, our interagency partners, foreign government 

counterparts and with you, Members of Congress, to return children home. We are getting results. 

In May, Japan successfully enforced its first court order under 

the Convention and four children returned with their mother to the 

United States. I was in Japan for bilateral meetings on abductions 

when the Japanese court enforced the return order. 

So I was able to witness first-hand the strong cooperation between our two countries that helped resolve this case and I am 

pleased to inform the subcommittee that on July 8th a second Convention case was resolved successfully following the enforcement of 

a Convention return order and a father was reunited with his son. 

Both have returned to the United States. We are optimistic that 

these two groundbreaking cases are a turning point in Japan’s ability to comply with the Convention and the beginning of a pattern 

of success for the Convention in Japan. 

The report highlights our deepening engagement with countries 

that have become party to the Convention. As a result of those efVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:21 Nov 01, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\071416\20751 SHIRL
5

forts in early 2016 we welcomed Thailand as our 74th partner 

under the Convention and we look forward to potential partnership 

review of the Philippines which became party to the Convention 

last month. 

Yet, we know that despite these positive diplomatic results some 

families continue to suffer as their children remain across an international border and we have much more work to do. 

In the 2016 report, we cited 13 Convention partner countries 

that either demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance or failed to 

comply with one or more of their obligations under the Convention 

in 2015 as defined by the act and we cited eight nonconvention 

countries that demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance in 2015 as 

defined by the act. 

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, we 

constantly strive to increase our effectiveness and always look for 

ways to collaborate with our partners including you, Members of 

Congress, who have committed so much time and energy to addressing this very important and urgent issue. 

We will continue to get results. Let me emphasize my personal 

commitment and the Department’s dedication to preventing international parental child abductions and safeguarding and returning 

abducted children to their places of habitual residence. 

I appreciate your feedback and suggestions and I look forward to 

your questions. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Christensen follows:]

6


20751a-1.eps
7


20751a-2.eps
8


20751a-3.eps
9


20751a-4.eps
10


20751a-5.eps
11


20751a-6.eps
12


20751a-7.eps
13

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Christensen, thank you very much for your testimony and I do agree that this year’s report is certainly more readable and I thank you for that. 

I do have a number of questions and let me first—I deeply appreciate Secretary Kerry’s letter of transmittal in the report where he 

says there can be no safe haven for abductors and I believe in his 

whole heart and soul he believes that. He, when he was a U.S. Senator, had family members of a constituent abducted in one case to 

Egypt. 

At one point we had the father testify and it was very compelling 

testimony and Egypt, of course, is on the list of non-Hague patterns 

of noncooperation and as it should be. But he, in the letter, he also 

makes the point that there has been an effort to stop abductions 

as they are happening. 

Can you elaborate? Have there been actual instances that you 

can cite, maybe a number and maybe without naming names but 

a situation where such an abduction was stopped in progress? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Sure. We have had actually a case—one of the 

things in the world of prevention, first of all, as mentioned we have 

an officer from our office who is permanently seconded now to the 

National Targeting Center. That allows for the communication to 

happen immediately when we hear of an abduction in process and 

I can tell you, because I read the duty officer reports, that my staff 

is involved in it every night. That means 24/7 somebody is on duty 

and I see every day there is at least one phone call that involved 

a parental child abduction. 

Not necessarily an abduction in process—sometimes they’re calling to say I think this might happen, how do I protect myself, how 

do I get this stopped, how do I enroll my child in the program that 

prevents them from getting a passport without my permission. 

We’re answering those calls 24/7. 

But because we have an officer now at the National Targeting 

Center and because in the Sean and David Goldman Act you gave 

us the tools—you gave CBP—Customs and Border Protection—

some additional tools to be able to actually act on those abductions 

in progress we have been able to stop quite a number of those. 

I can think of one example, and this was quite groundbreaking, 

where a plane actually turned around and the plane had departed 

already—turned around and came back with the child who was in 

the process of being——

Mr. SMITH. Where was that plane heading to? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. It was headed to China. 

Mr. SMITH. So the child was reunited? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Yes, so the child was reunited. Another thing 

we’re doing is working very closely with the airlines and the airlines are ramping up their training for staff to be able to spot the 

characteristics of a child who is being abducted or a situation in 

which the child is being abducted. 

So we are trying to come at this from a lot of different angles. 

We also have an interagency group that meets twice a year to discuss how we can all cooperate best on this. 

Mr. SMITH. We have four very, very loving and committed parents—two mothers and two fathers—who will be testifying and I do 

hope your office knows about them, knows their cases well. 

14

But if you could take their testimonies to heart again, with a 

new commitment. Ms. Abbi, who is the mother of a child abducted 

to India, Mr. Cook, father of a child abducted to Japan, Dr. Brann 

to Brazil, his child Nico, and Ms. Barbirou to Tunisia. 

Now, all of those countries are listed as problem countries in the 

report and it is my sincere hope that the other shoe, and if you can 

give us any insight as to whether or not this will happen—the 

other shoe, which is the sanctions part, will that drop? 

I’ve authored a number of other human rights laws including the 

Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2000 and it prescribes all 

kinds of penalties of countries on Tier 3 and very often we find on 

the enforcement side of the ledger there’s a lot of admonishments 

but not a whole lot of penalties. 

On the International Religious Freedom Act there are countries 

called CPC countries, as you know so well, and very often they get 

a lot of good diplomatic chatter but not a whole lot by way of the 

18 prescribed sanctions that are articulated in that legislation, 

which was enacted in 1998. 

And then so will there be a sanctions—serious sanctions effort 

that will follow now the naming of these countries? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. There will be a serious evaluation of what 

next steps would be most appropriate for those countries and for 

each individual case. 

I know you’ve heard us talk about persistent diplomacy, about 

creating a steady drumbeat and I know sometimes when you look 

at the list of actions and it says we’re going to raise these cases, 

we raise these cases at the highest levels and we engage with those 

countries at the highest levels. 

And there’s a question I’m sure amongst all the parents about 

what does that mean, what is this diplomacy that you’re engaging 

in? I know you’ve spoken with Ambassador Susan Jacobs, who’s 

our Special Advisor for Children’s Issues. 

You’ve spoken also with our Assistant Secretary, Michele Bond. 

Both of them travel frequently and everywhere they go they talk 

about these cases. 

I have been twice to Japan and spoken with the Japanese authorities there prior to these two returns that we’ve had. And I can 

tell you that those conversations, although we say raise the cases, 

it’s much more than that. 

Those are very frank and, I will say, often very contentious discussions about the need to return these children with us pressing 

and pressing about things that can be done, suggesting, talking 

often with raised voices about these are steps that you can take to 

make these processes work. 

Let me give you also an example from this week. I don’t want 

to name a name or a country, but we had a very longstanding case 

in a non-Hague country, a case in which we were actually seeing 

some positive movement and we were expecting that it was quite 

close to resolution. 

We heard from the left-behind parent some very distressing news 

about how things were proceeding. That very next day Ambassador 

Susan Jacobs was in speaking to the Ambassador from that country. 

15

Our post in that country went out and met with two different 

ministries in the government and really working together to try to 

figure out what we believe will be a way forward that will protect 

both the child and the left-behind parent and lead, we hope, to a 

resolution. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you, on page 13 mention was made of the 

213 returned from Convention countries, 86 from countries adhering to the protocols with respect to child abduction. 

One of the provisions, Section 103, calls for not later than 180 

days after date of enactment the Secretary shall initiate a process 

to develop and enter into appropriate bilateral procedures including 

a memorandum of understanding as appropriate. 

It’s an issue regarding Japan and India that I have raised for 7 

years and maybe even longer but certainly at least that long and 

it seems to me that the bitterness of a Japanese left-behind parent 

whose child has been abducted to Japan is exacerbated and compounded as if they’d been left a second time when there is no procedure for those remaining cases. 

And just calling a case closed because a child ages out or something along those lines is, you know, is—maybe they’ll see them, 

maybe not someday but it’s awful, in my opinion, for these families, 

some who have waited, you know, more than a decade, like Paul 

Tolland—well over a decade. 

I have a big difference of opinion with the administration on this 

but I hope it’ll be revisited. The MOUs have to deal with these 

other, you know, left-behind parents the second time because, as 

we all know, ratification of the Hague Convention starts at the 

date of ratification and everyone before that may get in, as was 

said earlier in previous testimony, by the good will that’s generated. I don’t believe that for a moment. 

The culture takes a long time to change and if it’s, again, those 

40, for example, cases in Japan we’ll still have 40 next year. Or 

though some may age out again and we’ll be counting that as fewer 

cases. But that’s really a poor excuse for true resolution. 

So my question is about the MOUs and if you could tell us as 

well how many of the cases after the reporting period calendar 

year, December 31st, of those 4 have any of the 40 been resolved 

since then? We’re 6 months plus into the new year. Anybody on 

that list been truly resolved by bringing the child home? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Let me start first by saying something about 

MOUs and why we continue to believe that the Hague Convention 

is so important because MOUs are simply a collection of what procedures already exist. 

They don’t create any new legal structures or any new potential 

enforcement structures and that’s one of the difficulties that we see 

when we talk about MOUs and we always bring up MOUs and bilateral agreements with countries when we’re talking about this. 

But, quite frankly, because they don’t create new legal structures 

they don’t have teeth behind them. 

Mr. SMITH. But they could create new administrative structures 

that would have the force of law—that a country that’s committed 

and really feels that there is a penalty awaiting them, a sword of 

Damocles of some level in terms of a sanction, a country doesn’t 

16

necessarily have to go through the Diet or through their Congress 

or Parliament, although that would be nice, it could still——

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. It doesn’t create a new legal structure for 

them to enforce something. Let me talk a little bit about Japan. 

Mr. SMITH. Again, they can do it by administrative action. I 

mean——

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Some things. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. We make law all the time by Federal 

regulation that is given vague advice by Congress only to—or a 

vague mandate and then all kinds of things are promulgated with 

the same exact force of law and penalties that accrue thereon if you 

don’t follow them. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I would also point out that there are countries 

in which we do have bilateral agreements and bilateral arrangements and all three of those countries are cited here for noncompliant. They’re non-Hague countries that are under the pattern of 

noncooperation. 

Let me talk a little bit about Japan, what exists now for the parents who are in that pre-Hague, those earlier cases. While they 

cannot file for a Hague return order, what they can file for is a 

Hague access. 

They can file a Hague access case. That puts a little more force 

of government behind it, creates a few more tools at their disposal 

to—for Hague access cases. 

We have encouraged parents to do this. A number of parents 

have filed Hague access cases. Not all parents have. That’s, of 

course, their choice. We have seen some limited success there. We 

have seen a number of——

Mr. SMITH. How many have had success? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I’d have to look up exactly how many have 

had success. Has been a handful, I would say. I don’t have the 

exact number in front of me, and success means—and let me qualify that because I know this is not what the parents would deem 

a success nor is it what we’re looking for as an ultimate resolution. 

But there are parents who have gained some limited access 

through the tools that the Japanese Government has put at their 

disposal and helps to manage and this limited access, of course, in 

these cases that are very, very longstanding, this access is the first 

step toward rebuilding that relationship that then hopefully will 

lead to the children also saying yes, I want to be joined with that 

family and I want to rejoin the left-behind parent. 

So I understand that that’s not a full success but we believe that 

that is a first step toward that. 

Mr. SMITH. But again——

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. But we believe that that is a first step toward 

that. 

Mr. SMITH. Having the child say pro or con, he or she wants to 

do that or they—children, siblings—is not in any way a determinant. I mean, in the Sean and David Goldman case the lawyers 

went out of their way to even put Sean Goldman in front of a camera with prompts for him to say how he wanted to stay in Brazil. 

Talk to Sean Goldman now and there’s—and there’s no doubt 

that he was pressured into that kind of exchange. And I would fear 

taking the word of a 5-year-old——

17

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I’m not—I’m not saying that at all. I’m not 

saying we just take the word for the child. I’m saying that that creates—that starts to rebuild that relationship that has suffered by 

being—by that long-term separation. 

Can I also say something about India, since you mentioned 

India? 

Mr. SMITH. Sure. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. India, as you know, we have been talking to 

India for a long time and pushing India to join the Hague Convention and one of the sticking points has always been that they needed legislation to facilitate their accession to the Hague. 

That legislation has now been drafted. It has been put out for 

public comment and the public comment period has closed. So they 

are actually taking a step toward Hague accession. 

And another significant milestone in our work with India has 

been that for the very first time this has been mentioned by the 

prime minister. It was in the joint statement during Prime Minister Modi’s state visit here recently and there was mention of 

international family matters in there and that is really a significant milestone that has been mentioned at that high level in India 

publicly. 

Mr. SMITH. When the President and the Secretary of State met 

with Modi—I met with him, very briefly. I introduced him to Bindu 

Philips who has been waiting for years to even see her two sons. 

The police department in New Jersey has documented that not 

only did the husband abduct her two children, and did so in the 

most fraudulent of ways, there’s also a lot of theft involved and she 

was left pretty much destitute without her two children and her 

husband. 

I mentioned it to Modi. He listened. I don’t know if he’ll do anything. I’ve met with the Ambassador on that case and several others—the Ambassador to the United States from India—and he 

stressed how important it was that we speak with respect to each 

other and I can tell you I deeply respect India. It’s a robust democracy. But if it’s failing and engaging in egregious human rights 

abuse against American children. I’ve had hearings on the Dalits 

and how they’re abused in India. 

We’ve had hearings on the endemic problem of child sex tourism 

within as well as into India. 

All of that laid aside, we respect India, but solve these cases. 

And so I would, again, say to the Ambassador as I did privately 

there is no disrespect here. It’s just the opposite. 

We expect you to live up to the highest standards articulated in 

the Hague Convention. Whether you sign it or not, it is an international human rights norm and a treaty and a law for those who 

sign it. 

But for the ones who, again, will be left out, I would encourage 

you in the strongest way to be thinking about an MOU that 

would—and I do believe new procedures could be included in an 

MOU. In countries and administrations, executive branches have 

wide latitude to come up with mechanisms that will effectuate the 

return of children. 

And Bindu Philips, like so many others are quintessential examples of abuse and just like I said earlier some of these folks like 

18

in Brazil win court case after court case and they still don’t have 

their kids. 

So I can’t say enough. It’s in the law about the MOU and Congress wants this. It was a bipartisan law and while three countries 

may not have lived up to an expectation of an MOU being effectual, 

it can be if it’s made to be effective. It’s a matter of prioritization, 

both sides, and doing it. And again, for the Japanese left-behind 

parents, having met with them so often and so many places, heard 

their testimonies but even more so heard them tell their stories 

with tears in my office and in other venues. 

You’ve heard it too. We’ve got to be the wind behind their backs 

and that goes for all of the countries, of course. But they feel and 

they felt it then. Of course, sign Hague, ratify Hague. But don’t 

leave us out again. 

So I would encourage you please go back and think of an MOU 

vis-a-vis these countries that would really make this real. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Let me just say, for one of those non-Hague 

cases there was a case where the father is currently visiting his 

son and the older son already came back under a voluntary return. 

I realize that is not a complete success for everybody but I think 

that is the beginning of a step in the right direction. 

Mr. SMITH. You mentioned in the report on page 10 that approximately 100 judges from 65 countries are part of the judges network. How many Japanese, Tunisian, Indian, and Brazilian judges 

are a part of that? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I don’t have the numbers of how many judges 

there are from each country. I know that we certainly have met 

with Japanese judges. 

We have met with the Japanese judges. I think they only recently have officially declared that they are judges who are part of 

the Hague network. 

We have our own Hague network judges that go out and visit 

with judges in all of these countries to talk about it on a peer to 

peer basis because often that is also effective and because our 

Hague network judges have travelled to a number of countries and 

they’re familiar with a number of different legal systems. 

We think they are a very effective tool for helping to explain particularly to new Hague countries how Hague can fit within their 

legal system. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just ask a couple of final questions and I 

thank you again for being here. Could you elaborate on page 32 on 

Japan’s section? It seems to be in its own category, a limbo where 

I think it should be a pattern of noncompliance because of the so 

many unresolved cases. 

Where do they sit and, secondly, just to quote the report, it says 

at the end of 2015, 40 open pre-Convention abductions remained. 

Of these, 32 were with the Japanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs for 

more than 12 months. In 2015, one pre-Convention case was resolved and 11 cases were closed and maybe you can explain. By 

closed were they aged out? What was that? 

And then you point out that in 2015 Japan failed to comply with 

its obligations under the Hague abduction Convention in the area 

of enforcement of return orders. So now we’re talking about the actual Convention and of course if you don’t have enforcement you 

19

don’t have anything. You know, ask so many of the left-behind parents. 

When the police fail to deliver the child or whatever the law enforcement mechanisms was, and then you say exposing what may 

be a systemic flaw in Japan’s ability to enforce return orders. 

What are we doing to push back on that? It seems to me that 

if any part of the stool is broken kids don’t come home. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Right. Those are some of the most contentious 

discussions I can tell you that we’ve had is the discussion the enforcement and what Japan could do to improve its enforcement of 

the orders. 

Here in this section when we’re talking about 2015 in Japan, 

while there were several ordered returns or there were several return orders, the way the system works in Japan there’s then another step that you have to take to actually request that those orders be enforced. 

In 2015 there had been an attempt—one attempt to enforce one 

order. That was not successful. That particular case didn’t then 

come for another attempt to—for to enforce the return order until 

January 2016. 

So what we were looking at in terms of enforcement was we believed not a pattern of a lack of enforcement because there had 

only been a single attempt in a single case. But we did have concerns about the entire mechanism that existed for enforcement and 

whether that was going to lead to ongoing problems in the enforcement of return orders. Japan has actually issued a number of return orders and now we’re into the enforcement phase and that’s 

something that we’re watching very, very carefully. 

I mentioned that two of those return orders have been enforced 

so far this year. You yourself mentioned that one parent had to go 

outside the Hague for the eventual enforcement. 

Mr. SMITH. Given that track record and, again, I think the narrative on Japan is chilling, how does it not rise to the level of persistent failure as——

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. We were looking at that enforcement in 2015. 

Those records were then enforced in 2016. As I said, there had only 

been one attempt. 

Question was was that a pattern or was that a failure in a particular area. We think there was a very—Japan has a very wellresourced central authority. They provide counselling. They have a 

whole lot of resources. 

But if the children don’t return then that’s a failure in that particular area which is the enforcement of the return order. 

I will say although that—in that case they did have to ultimately 

go beyond the Hague—the Hague procedures in order for that return to be enforced in that first case. And as I said, I was there 

while that was happening. There was quite a lot of drama associated with it. 

But I think that what that shows—what we hope that shows is 

that it was a commitment on the behalf of the judicial authorities 

in Japan, even beyond the Hague procedures to see those orders 

enforced. 

And what we really hope is that that will then be an incentive 

for other parents to cooperate sooner in the process. That is what 

20

we see as one of the greatest benefits of the Hague Convention is 

to discourage parents from committing these abductions to begin 

with. 

Mr. SMITH. On the International Visitor Leadership Program, in 

2015 the report says that judicial, administrative, and other leaders from 15 nations came here to learn how we do it. Were those 

nations Tunisia, Brazil, Japan or India, or other countries? I mean, 

what are the 15? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I don’t have the list in front of me and we can 

certainly take that question back and send you that list. I know 

that we go out of our way to invite the countries that we believe 

do have the biggest challenges. 

So we would invite judges from Brazil. I know that there was a 

group from Japan that visited this past year. I know that we particularly invite countries where we believe they could most benefit 

from our discussions. We’re not going to invite necessarily the 

countries where things are working smoothly. 

They don’t need our help. We’re going to invite the countries 

where we really think we have something to contribute in trying 

to make this work better. 

Mr. SMITH. Since they would stand out, were there any judges 

from Japan? Stand out because their judicial system has shown 

itself to be so flawed when it comes to implementing these cases. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I don’t believe judges from Japan have travelled here. However, I do know that our Hague network judges 

have travelled there and spoken to them in Japan on several occasions. 

Mr. SMITH. That’s about all I have. 

Again, I would again ask you to please take the MOU request 

seriously. It is in the law, prescribed in the law. I think without 

it we’ll be back here next year and the year after that and the year 

after that talking about maybe a diminishing number of cases from 

countries but only because individual children will have aged-out 

or perhaps the parents just exhausted financially, emotionally, and 

physically from this trauma; I don’t know how any of these parents 

can endure this. 

We have cases where we know there are concerns on whether or 

not the children are being abused, where there was history of 

abuse in the family. We have situations where bad advice was 

given by JAG officers, and I’ve read the report and I know at by 

nearby university, George Mason, 400 or so JAG officers got training and I think that’s a good thing. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. We also did training. 

Mr. SMITH. The more we train the better, and thank you for that. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. We also did training actually in Naha with 

JAG officers there. That was just this year. That was in May. 

Certainly, I would like nothing better than for there to be no 

need for us to come up here, not because it bothers us to come up 

here but because we would like this problem solved. 

Mr. SMITH. It has been my experience 36 years as a Member of 

Congress that when it comes to human rights even of our own citizens, very often other issues have a way of crowding out that concern. So it slips from page 1 to page 5 to an asterisk somewhere. 

21

And it is very troubling that the parents say to me how discouraged they get dealing with our Government. They don’t want to 

complain too much. 

They’re fearful there could be a backlash, that people would say 

well, if you’re going to be so concerned well, forget it. I’m going to 

go slow on your case. I don’t know if that’s happened and I 

wouldn’t think it could happen——

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Let me put that to rest right away. Parents 

should not ever feel shy about contacting us about that. 

Mr. SMITH. And being critical. I mean——

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. And being critical, and——

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Who gets more criticism than Members 

of Congress? But I think it serves a purpose. It sharpens everyone’s 

thoughts with regards to what course ought to be taken and I think 

the same goes for——

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. And we value very much our collaboration 

with the parents in trying to figure out what’s the best way forward in any individual case. 

Circumstances are different in each individual case and what 

might work in one might not work in another. So it’s very important for us to have a very close collaboration with the families and 

talking about what’s the best way forward. 

Mr. SMITH. In terms of noticing Members of Congress when there 

is a case from their district, of course, we wrote that into the Goldman Act but we made it so that it was an opt-in on the part of the 

parents. 

Are the Office of Children’s Issues personnel advising families 

that an advocate could be your Congressman or Congresswoman? 

Is that okay if we do it? Do you have an X in the box somewhere? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I know it’s something that we ask parents 

about all the time, yes—can we notify your Member of Congress, 

would you like us to notify your Member of Congress. 

Mr. SMITH. And what do most them say? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I think most of them say yes. 

Mr. SMITH. And do you? I mean, is there a formal letter that goes 

out to the members? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. How we do notify them, yes. In fact we went 

back also to all the old cases and asked them. 

Mr. SMITH. That’s very good. Thank you. 

And again, I would just make the strongest appeal that as you 

look at part two, the sanctions regime because they are stale and 

toothless if they’re not employed. 

You have all kinds of options pursuant to the Goldman Act 

whether it be an escalating effort and certainly the countries on 

the list and I would hope that Japan would soon be named for 

what it is rather than in this special category, that I don’t know 

what it is, with Austria. Why is it there? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Well, as I said, it is in the law. There is a provision in the law that says has failed to comply with one aspect 

and in looking at it we felt, when looking at the—particularly when 

looking at their Hague compliance, that we hadn’t seen a pattern 

yet. This does not mean a pattern cannot exist in the future and 

it’s—we’re keeping a very close eye on Japan. 

22

It is something that we’re watching very, very carefully. We continue to talk to the Japanese frequently on this issue. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. But again, even according to the narrative set 

forth on the situation on the ground in Japan only one of these 

have to be true, and one of them is law enforcement authorities 

regularly fail to enforce return orders. 

Even the one that was procured under the Hague Convention 

went afoul and all the others simply haven’t happened yet. That’s 

beyond the pattern. That’s almost uniformity. 

So I would hope even now you’d go back and relook at this. Nothing precludes you from putting this back. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. We’re reevaluating everything for the next 

year’s report. 

Mr. SMITH. You could designate Japan tomorrow, if you’d like, 

based on the record, a reappraisal that it’s a country that has persistently failed and therefore it’s a pattern of noncompliance because it really is. 

Because I don’t understand that, in all candor, because we wrote 

the law. It’s clear as a bell. I thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. And again, look at the sanctions regime. If we use 

them, use them judiciously I think we will see a much sharper response from each of these countries and the net beneficiaries will 

be these American children and their agonizing left-behind parents. 

Thank you. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. I’d like to now welcome to the witness table our second panel, beginning with Dr. Chris Brann, who is a physician in 

Houston, Texas. He received his B.S. in biology from the University 

of Texas-Pan American and a joint MBA-MD from Rice University 

and the Baylor College of Medicine. 

He completed his medical residency in internal medicine at 

Baylor College of medicine and affiliated hospitals where he currently practices in internal medicine and is an assistant professor. 

On July 1, 2013, his then wife, Marcelle, abducted their son, 

Nico, to Brazil and he has been before us before and we’re all looking forward to his statement today. 

We’ll then hear from Ms. Richika Abbi who has been a legal permanent of the U.S. since 2010 and a citizen of India residing in 

Virginia, employed with Amazon Web Services. She came to the 

United States on a student visa in the year 2000. In 2001 she married a man from India in 2001 named Seth and they both came to 

the United States with the intent of permanently settling here. 

Her child, Roshni Seth, is a U.S. citizen by birth born in 2007. 

Roshni resided with both parents in Virginia in 2014 when she was 

uprooted from her habitual residence and abducted to India by her 

father after he was convicted of violently assaulting her mother. 

Ms. Abbi has been desperately seeking her daughter’s return to the 

United States for the last 2 years. 

Then we will hear from Mr. James Cook, who’s the father of four 

children, two sets of twins, who have been in Japan for 2 years. 

Later this month will be the 1 year anniversary of his Hague application to return his children to Minnesota. 

23

In this time, he has only been allowed one visit with this children. All other contact was unilaterally severed by the taking parent. 

The last contact and reply from his children was late August 

2015. Mr. Cook works for Boston Scientific Corporation, a manufacturer of medical devices in Minnesota. 

We’ll then hear from Ms. Edeanna Barbirou, who is the mother 

of an abducted child to Tunisia and their two children named 

Zainab and Eslam Chebbi, who were abducted by their father to 

Tunisia. The family resided together in Maryland until February 

2010 when Edeanna obtained a protective order and was able to remove herself and the children from the family home. 

In January 2011, she and her ex-husband signed a legal separation agreement granting her full legal and physical custody of the 

children in exchange for maintaining visitation every other weekend, adding 1 weekday afternoon with the children with no child 

support. 

In November 2011, however, her ex-husband picked up the children from their routine weekend visitation. It was later discovered 

that his friend drove them directly to Dulles Airport to depart to 

Tunisia. 

Just four very compelling cases and I thank you for coming here 

to share with the subcommittee, to the Congress, and I hope the 

executive branch as well and I thank you for staying to hear your 

testimonies. 

Dr. Brann. 

STATEMENT OF CHRIS BRANN, M.D. (FATHER OF CHILD 

ABDUCTED TO BRAZIL) 

Dr. BRANN. Good afternoon. My name is Chris Brann. My son, 

Nico, was abducted from Houston, Texas and taken to Brazil by my 

ex-wife 3 years ago in July 2013. 

Before I begin, I’d like to personally thank you, Representative 

Smith, Chairman Smith, for your tireless advocacy, unwavering 

support of my case and all of these cases, and holding this hearing 

today. 

Additionally, I must note that Ambassador Bond and Ambassador Jacobs, U.S. Ambassador to Brazil, Liliana Ayalde, have all 

been involved in my son’s case for many years and have expressed 

continued interest in seeing Nico returned home. 

I’d also like to thank Deputy Assistant Secretary Karen 

Christensen for her remarks and her report. 

My son Nico was born September 14, 2009. He’s a cheerful, playful, and beautiful little boy and I love him deeply and I miss him 

deeply. 

My ex-wife, Marcelle, and I separated in 2012 and while there 

were some irreconcilable differences we agreed on joint custody so 

that both of us could be in Nico’s life. I did everything I could to 

protect Nico. When Marcelle, my ex-wife, asked if she could travel 

with Nico to Brazil to see her family I was hesitant. 

I had heard the horror stories and I was familiar with Sean 

Goldman’s case. But I said yes on the condition that we had a travel agreement in place making clear that she would bring Nico 

home. 

24

And I knew all the Texas court orders made clear that Nico’s permanent domicile was in Texas. I am the textbook classic case of 

somebody who did everything they possibly could do to protect 

themselves. 

The law, I thought, was on my side. I was so incredibly wrong. 

In Brazil, I learned much later, that my ex-wife had immediately 

filed for sole custody of Nico, hiding the fact that we already had 

a joint custody agreement in Texas. 

We now know that Nico’s abduction was premeditated, facilitated 

by the school owned by Marcelle and her family. This means that 

she had been lying to me and to the Texas court when she signed 

the travel agreement. She never planned to bring Nico back. 

I immediately filed a claim under the Hague Convention on the 

Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to have my son returned home to Texas and I also challenged the Brazilian court 

order of sole custody. 

That was 3 years ago. Today, after 17 visits to Brazil and five 

to Washington, DC, things have actually gotten worse, not better, 

and there is no end in sight. 

In July 2015, a Brazilian Federal court issued its final decision 

under the Hague Convention. The presiding judge, Arali Duarte, 

wrongfully found that Nico was well settled and refused to order 

his return. 

Under the Hague Convention, that exception to prevent a return 

can only be invoked by a judge if the left-behind parent waited 

more than a year to file their case. I did not. 

Also surprising was that the only precedent that the judge cited 

to justify her action was an old decision in the Sean Goldman case, 

which was later overruled by the Brazil Supreme Court. Apparently it did not matter that Sean Goldman had been back in New 

Jersey for more than 5 years. 

I am now looking at years of appeals and meanwhile the state 

court in Brazil that gave my ex-wife sole custody has refused to revisit that decision. It has even issued further rulings on custody, 

visitation, and child support. 

Now, every time I go to Brazil there is a risk that I will be 

thrown in jail because I refuse to finance my own child’s abduction 

by paying the $3,000 a month child support payment that was 

ruled by the Texas state court judge, effectively rewarding Marcelle 

for illegally abducting my son. 

There have been some small steps forward. The Government of 

Brazil agrees that Nico was abducted and must return to the 

United States. 

In January, based on a request from the FBI, Interpol issued a 

yellow notice for Nico declaring him missing and the Brazilian 

Prosecutor General has opened two investigations, one a criminal 

and one civil into Marcelle’s wrongdoing. 

But despite these developments, Nico is still not home and there 

are no prospects that he will ever be returned, certainly not anytime soon. 

These have been the longest 3 years of my life. Today, I only see 

Nico less than 1 percent of the time and only in the presence of 

armed guards. When I do see Nico it’s painfully clear that I’m losing my son. 

25

He doesn’t speak English anymore. He doesn’t remember his 

grandparents or his cousins. Whatever I ask he responds like a 

robot, saying Mommy doesn’t like, meaning that he’s not allowed 

to talk to me about it. 

Brazil’s disregard of its international obligations and the unwillingness of our own Government to use the maximum resources at 

his disposal only add to my intense pain. 

While I am grateful that the State Department has been engaged 

on my case I’m incredibly disappointed that it has failed to take 

any action against Brazil for its persistent noncompliance with the 

Hague Convention for more than a decade. I cannot understand 

how Brazil allowed to continue to flout international law so blatantly without any repercussions. 

The Goldman Act provides eight different options to the State 

Department up to serious trade sanctions. In Brazil’s case we have 

only used one—repeated demarches—and this has about the same 

level of force as a post-it note stuck to a window. 

Unless Secretary Kerry fully utilizes the Goldman Act’s arsenal, 

the legislation is meaningless. Now, I know that you’ve heard 

countless left-behind parents testify to you and ask you to think as 

if these children were your own. 

I’m a physician and I’d like to use a different analogy, if you will. 

I want you to imagine that your child is hospitalized and they have 

one of these superbugs that’s resistant to common antibiotics including penicillin. 

And I want you to imagine that I’m the doctor and that I continue giving your child penicillin knowing full well that it will not 

work. 

I come in every day and you ask why isn’t my child getting better 

and I keep saying we’re going to keep trying to give the patient 

penicillin, knowing full well that no patient has ever recovered by 

taking penicillin. 

That is the Einsteinian definition of insanity—doing the same 

thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome. Brazil 

does not respond to demarches. They do not respond to empathy. 

They do not respond to compassion. They do not respond to logic. 

They do not respond to reason. 

They respond to consequences. And the way that we have been 

treating Brazil is absolutely insanity. As far as I know, they have 

never returned a child to the U.S. through the Hague Convention. 

And I’m not talking about what’s been ordered or not ordered. I’m 

talking about feet on the soil in the U.S. 

Now, everyone in this room is going to say Sean Goldman, Sean 

Goldman. But you and I both know that Sean Goldman was returned because of a trade bill that was put on hold. 

We both know that his order would not have been enforced unless people like you or other high-level officials had engaged directly. 

Effectively, we told Brazil that the consequence of not returning 

Sean Goldman would be so painful that they were forced to return 

him. More can be done. More has to be done. 

I, as Nico’s father, will never give up on him and I’m not asking 

you to do things for me that I can’t do for myself. 

26

As a physician I’m a gatekeeper between patients and life-saving 

medications. And as lawmakers you’re the gatekeeper between me 

and the things that I cannot do for myself. 

I implore my Government not to give up on him either. Nico is 

a U.S. citizen. He should be in home, in the United States with the 

family who loves him. I urge President Obama, Secretary Kerry 

and Ambassador Jacobs to act in my case and that of all the fine 

parents as if our children were your own. 

This is a living death. I need your help. Nico needs your help. 

There is no statute of limitations on the love for a living child. 

Please do more. Please find a way to bring him home. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Brann follows:]

27


20751b-1.eps
28


20751b-2.eps
29


20751b-3.eps
30

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Brann. 

Ms. Abbi. 

STATEMENT OF MS. RUCHIKA ABBI (MOTHER OF CHILD 

ABDUCTED TO INDIA) 

Ms. ABBI. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, members of the subcommittee and officials from all other departments here as well as 

my fellow left-behind parents and their supporters who are present 

here in person and in spirit to advocate the return of our abducted 

children. 

My name is Rachika Abbi and I’m a permanent resident of U.S., 

a citizen of India residing in Chantilly, Virginia. My daughter, 

Roshni Seth, she is a U.S citizen and she was a mere 61⁄2 years 

of age when she was abducted to India by her own father and he 

refused to come back and bring her back home. 

I have been desperately seeking Roshni’s return for over 2 years. 

I was in India for almost 11⁄2 years. I have been seeking her return 

to her home country where she was uprooted from, based on multiple court orders, not just from U.S. but also from Indian courts. 

But Roshni stays separated from me. She is deprived of my love 

and care and she is held as a hostage thousands of miles away. 

I am often seen carrying this teddy bear and maybe judged as 

well. Not many people know that what I carry is my hope, my hope 

which will be deferred. It gets dwindled from time to time but I 

strive really hard to keep it alive, to revive it and keep it alive 

every single second, every single minute, every single day. 

Roshni’s bear, Riley, was actually abducted, or you may want to 

say, she accompanied her when she was taken and I was in India 

with Roshni and couldn’t bring her back and Roshni sent her bear 

back with me, telling me Mama, I can’t go back home but please 

take Riley home. 

Roshni’s bear made it back. She stands with Roshni and I am 

moving heaven and earth here to bring Roshni home as well. 

It’s not just Roshni. There are so many children out there who 

are victims of international parental child abduction, a crime committed not by a stranger but by one’s own parent. These children 

are wrongfully abducted and detained in different parts of the 

globe, robbed of a loving parent and normal childhood. 

My heart goes out to all these children and their seeking parents 

across this nation. I am advocating the immense need to eradicate 

this global curse of international parental child abduction. 

I’m an active member of Bring our Kids Home and the underlying message in my testimony is that parents of American children like me, victims of international parenting kidnapping to 

India, is enormous and often insurmountable obstacles in seeking 

the return of our children. 

We receive little assistance from the U.S. Government and no assistance at all from the Indian Government. Despite the fact that 

these cases have been lingering for years. 

I’m here today asking for help—your help. I’m asking that our 

children be returned home to the United States without further 

delay. 

31

In the recent report on IPCA, India was called out as one of the 

over 20 countries who have been showing patterns of noncompliance resolving these open cases of abduction. 

India is persistently failing to work with the U.S. to resolve abduction cases and does not adhere to any protocols with respect to 

these cases. 

By December 31, 2015, 83 reported abductions remained open, 

which represent almost 94 abducted children. Sadly, my daughter 

Roshni is one of these 94 abducted children—94 unfortunate children who are called out as open abduction cases in this report. 

I have been in the U.S. since the year 2000 and was blessed with 

Roshni on Christmas Eve on 2007. She was an active 6-year-old 

Girl Scout Daisy. She was loved by her parents and neighbors. She 

was attending kindergarten school in South Riding, Virginia. She 

enjoyed piano and swimming lessons. She was having the time of 

her life. She was blossoming, growing up. 

But all of a sudden on April 15, 2014, 2 years ago, when I was 

traveling for an overnight business trip, I was in North Carolina. 

She was surreptitiously taken by own father to New Delhi, India. 

I left in the morning, handing her over to him, as I would normally do whenever I went to travel. And in the evening I was trying to reach her on FaceTime and phone and nobody responded and 

I just had chills. 

I started called friends and neighbors frantically only to realize 

that I was facing the worst fear of my life. Once inseparable, she 

wouldn’t stay without me even for a few minutes. But now she was 

snatched away all of a sudden from me. 

Looking back, I still shudder at the very thought of the night 

when I flew back to Virginia. Imagine coming back to the silence 

and emptiness of the abandoned home. 

It was left with nothing, nothing but memories and belongings 

of my only daughter suddenly taken across international borders. 

Her toys were all over, her bicycle was lying outside, and there was 

nothing else in that house. 

I was grieving that day. I was grieving as if—you know, she was 

alive but I was grieving because I knew he was not coming back. 

I knew he was not bringing Roshni back. He abandoned the house, 

the marriage, of course, the marital debt, his employment, his permanent residency status. He abandoned everything and just disappeared. 

In this case—in my abduction case it was not in defiance of any 

custody order. It was not a refusal from, a return from a vacation 

in India. It was a preplanned successfully executed kidnapping of 

my daughter. 

Two years before abduction he was arrested for domestic violence 

which took place in front of Roshni and then she also witnessed his 

arrest for DUI. And during the probation he had multiple violations for which he was facing criminal charges and even jail time. 

And Roshni continued to witness this discord, disagreements as I 

succumbed to the emotional, physical, and verbal abuse. But I 

could never muster the courage to get out. I couldn’t have done 

what he did to me. 

32

Given his threats, I also enrolled Roshni in the CPIAP program. 

But due to pressure I had to give my consent for her passport renewal. 

I really wish when the Department of State called me for my 

consent and I asked them, given the situation, if at all this happens, if she is taken away will you be able to help me get her back 

and they said we do have measures in place and we will be by your 

side. 

I really hoped. They told me if you see that imminent threat to 

her abduction, do not renew her passport. I know I wasn’t able to 

safeguard the passport but I wish they told me—I wish they told 

the pandemic nature of this issue—how many cases are unresolved, 

how parents go through the trauma and they’re not able to bring 

their children back. 

I wish they told me and I wish there were certain travel alerts 

in place for parents or exit controls for children who have ever been 

entered into this program. In my case, she was entered. 

Yes, I gave my consent. But then if there was some alert this 

could have been averted. But it was too late. I had lost her already. 

And my only recourse was legal and, you know, ongoing legal 

battle in U.S. and India. For 27 months I have been running from 

pillar to post. I have embroiled myself in international legal proceedings. 

I have faced extreme hardships at various fronts: emotional and 

financial and the harsh reality of navigating the legal system in 

India that is largely insensitive to parents of child abductions and 

ill-equipped to deliver from justice. 

During this time, the access to Roshni was curtailed for prolonged periods and as of now I have not seen her or even had a 

glimpse of her in the last 7 months. 

I had a custody order from Loudoun County Circuit Court. It 

gave me sole legal and physical temporary emergency custody and 

also stated that Loudoun County Circuit Court has both subject 

and personal matter jurisdiction over the father and the mother 

and full authority for my child’s custody determination. 

Desperately seeking reunion with my daughter, I immediately 

went to India. This was 4 months after the abduction. I filed a writ 

of habeas corpus and in my case by God’s grace I did get her interim custody back. 

But there were restrictions on her travel. I couldn’t bring her 

back. I had gone for a few weeks. I thought I would be going back 

and forth. 

But then I had my daughter but I was trapped. Roshni was with 

me at my parents’ house for the first 8 months and I was stranded 

and I fought jurisdiction challenges in Indian courts. 

But because of financial hardships I just couldn’t keep up. I had 

to travel back and that took a toll on my child. She was heartbroken when I told her that I’ll have to leave you with my parents. 

But I assured her I would come back for you and take you back 

to where you belong. But after that, once I left she was abducted 

again. The father took her for visitation and refused to send her 

back to my parents’ house. 

After that, I just couldn’t reunite with her. I got an order from 

the Supreme Court of India that stated when the mother comes 

33

back she will get the custody and at that time considering her 

plight I dropped everything again and I went back. 

But the father will obeyed the order. He told me you can come 

with any order from any court with armed forces—I am not handing Roshni back over to you. That’s what he told me literally. I was 

standing on the street. And during this period it was almost for 7 

months I stayed there. Roshni was called to Supreme Court of 

India multiple times. Once she was called in open court. I was sitting like this and she had to walk up to the judges to answer 

maybe the hardest question of her life—dad or mom. 

She didn’t look at me in my eye. I wasn’t allowed to go and embrace my own daughter. I wasn’t allowed to console her. I was told 

no, she is traumatized and she was sent back to the father, to the 

abducting parent because she was traumatized and the mother 

wasn’t allowed to console her. 

Obviously, in those months she was—she was showing signs of 

parent alienation and again I lost her. This time it was to parent 

alienation. After 7 months she was called again for another in 

chamber hearing, the fourth one, and the case was disposed of. 

They sent me back to family court. So high court, family court—

I went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court went back to 

family court and I’m still just going through the legal proceedings. 

While the justices delayed here, I am still hoping every single 

day that in the end it will be denied. She remains wrongfully detained in India without a valid U.S. passport because I cancelled 

her passport and without an Indian visa the absconding father was 

rewarded with her custody. He is not even employed. 

The courts in India took a straightforward child abduction case 

and turned it into a complex international legal web. It’s like going 

to emergency room asking for medical help for a bleeding finger 

and doctors end up performing an open heart surgery on you literally without even giving you anesthesia. 

I feel legally humiliated, emotionally exhausted by lack of laws 

and awareness, systemic delays, and insensitivity of the judicial in 

India. But most importantly, it’s the suffering our children are 

going through. It is unpardonable. The psychological trauma and 

ordeal that my little girl has suffered for over the past 2 years it 

just gives me chills. 

Parental alienation is child abuse. Abduction is child abuse. How 

can child abuse go unpunished for so long by not one but two countries? How can Roshni’s government—the U.S. Government—fail 

her? Why is the U.S. so powerless? We parents do not understand 

this at all. 

U.S. is so powerless in helping her own children and citizens. 

Why? How could the world’s largest democracy, India, who has 

such great ties with the U.S., how can it be a safe haven for child 

abductors? 

I’m sorry. I may be going a little over time. But I just want to 

highlight a few systemic challenges here as well before I close my 

testimony. 

Left-behind parents, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, nationality, they face extreme challenges in India seeking the return of 

their kids. Indian courts often choose to relitigate custody decision 

34

already made in the best interest of child by courts where the child 

was residing prior to abduction. 

And most of all, the left-behind parents rarely get access to their 

children and the children are systematically alienated and that is 

what happened in my case. They are alienated from their parents 

and all this is done in the name of welfare of children. 

I really want to underscore that even in the instances like mine 

where a left-behind parent gets a favorable order, these orders are 

ignored. They are violated. They are appealed for years and they 

are even reversed in some cases. That happened to me. 

Every parent’s nightmare is the fatal loss of their child. It’s the 

harsh reality of IPCA. I really want to call out this one case here 

that we heard of in April 2016. 

The tragic and mysterious death of the 6-year-old American 

child. Her name is Kiara. She was in wrongful custody of her mother in Mumbai. This should be a wake-up call to both our governments. There are much needed urgent and decisive actions that 

need to be done to protect victimized children from harsh realities 

of IPCA. 

Kiara’s father had her sole custody from the U.S. and also from 

India but the order got appealed and Kiara met with an unnatural 

death during the pendency of these proceedings. 

Also, India’s duplicitous treatment on IPCA cases depending on 

whether they are inbound or outbound doubts about India’s commitment to upholding the rule of law, rights of children and families. 

For years we have been informed that India does not recognize 

parental abduction as a crime and often treats our cases as routine 

child custody cases. 

But then on the other hand, there was a recent outbound child 

abduction case and that shows that Indian court and law enforcement do in fact recognize parental child abductions as a crime and 

they’ll not hesitate to apply any legal tools to return to seek the 

return of abducted children from other nations. 

So outbound abductions are obviously treated and we do not understand this bias. The Chief Justice of India recently made a public remark about left-behind fathers and he said that Indian court 

orders could not be mechanically enforced by Indian courts. 

He said U.S. courts have a different approach. Can Indian courts 

ignore the situation where the mother of her child was not represented in the U.S. court and was incapable of doing so on account 

of paucity of means? 

He said pointing out that situation the welfare of the child would 

weigh with the Indian court. I do not understand this. Why is there 

a bias? Why are they talking about left-behind parents as fathers? 

It’s both. It’s fathers and mothers. 

Also, highlighting cultural and gender bias and I will close soon. 

Indian officials state that India has a responsibility to protect those 

who are fleeing from abuse from other nations. 

There’s a euphemism used to describe the situation that women 

of Indian origin who claim abuse in countries of their habitual residence after reaching India they seek criminal and civil remedies in 

India by filing charges against, in most cases, their estranged 

spouses, estranged husbands. 

35

As a victim of domestic violence, I do empathize with anyone who 

has suffered consequences of DV. However, as a law abiding citizen, I do not support child abductions in the name of escaping 

abuse from DV, especially those mothers who abduct their children 

to India from United States where there are robust protections for 

victims of DV. 

The negative consequence on child abductions on victimized children cannot be justified by any allegations and for the Government 

of India to not offer any protection to our victimized children and 

failure to hold child abductors accountable has no moral or legal 

standing. 

India’s Ministry of Women and Child Development is the key 

ministry tasked to address the issue of IPCA in India. But MWCD 

appears so speak on all sides of the IPCA debate, thereby raising 

serious doubts about its commitment to protecting children’s rights 

distinctly from its efforts re women’s empowerment in India. 

I continue to seek justice in Roshni’s return. I continue to work 

and pay off the old and new debt. Roshni’s father continues to hold 

our daughter as a captive, block all her access, damage my relationship with her beyond repair and erase me from her life. 

I’m really scared at times that she may think that I have abandoned her. So from these hallowed halls of the U.S. Congress I 

really want to implore my estranged husband, Roshni’s father, in 

words of the great Indian poet, Tagore, by plucking her petals you 

do not gather the beauty of the flower. By snatching Roshni you 

are only despoiling her in a sense her childhood, her womanhood, 

and for Roshni I just want to tell her that I really love you and 

you may be miles apart but you are you always will be a part of 

me and no one can abduct that feeling from me. No one can steal 

that feeling from me. 

I am hoping that by sharing my personal story today I am not 

just seeking Roshni’s return but I am also seeking the return of Alfred, Albert, Reyansh, Abdallah, Nikitha, Vihaan, Indira, Rhea, 

Trisha, Pranav, Kireeti, Krish, Kashvi, Archit, Ishaan, Siva 

Kumar, Avantika, Aryan and the list goes on. 

I am seeking return of these voiceless American children who are 

being denied the love of their left-behind mother or father whose 

human rights continue to be violated in a nation that we all admire, the one that shares our value and yet is unable to deliver justice to innocent victims of this crime. 

I plead the U.S. Government, the Government of India, the Department of State to intervene here, to interject, to do whatever it 

takes and help us bring our kids home. 

Thank you, Chairman Smith, for your continuing efforts and 

staying by our side and thank you for giving this opportunity to 

speak on behalf of Roshni and our children. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Abbi follows:]

36


20751c-1.eps
37


20751c-2.eps
38


20751c-3.eps
39


20751c-4.eps
40


20751c-5.eps
41


20751c-6.eps
42


20751c-7.eps
43


20751c-8.eps
44


20751c-9.eps
45


20751c-10.eps
46


20751c-11.eps
47


20751c-12.eps
48


20751c-13.eps
49


20751c-14.eps
50


20751c-15.eps
51


20751c-16.eps
52


20751c-17.eps
53


20751c-18.eps
54


20751c-19.eps
55


20751c-20.eps
56


20751c-21.eps
57


20751c-22.eps
58


20751c-23.eps
59

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very, very much for your testimony and 

obviously this subcommittee—this chairman will continue to push. 

Mr. Cook. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES COOK (FATHER OF CHILDREN 

ABDUCTED TO JAPAN) 

Mr. COOK. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith, all subcommittee 

members and all those affected by the issue of international parental child abduction in attendance today and those watching around 

the world. 

I am very sorry we know each other in this way. I am James 

Cook and today is the 2-year anniversary of our four children arriving in Japan. 

They are two sets of twins. Later this month will be the 1-year 

anniversary of my Hague application to them to return to Minnesota. 

In this time, I have visited our children once and then slowly all 

contact was unilaterally severed from Japan. 

The last contact or reply from our children was late August 2015. 

I have been constantly involved in my children’s lives. Now, they 

have been made to believe I am dangerous and seek to do them 

harm. Children, who knew me as the unconditionally loving parent 

no matter what, have been led to believe I seek to avenge the alienation. 

Children who knew me as the parent that hugged them, kissed 

them on forehead, and in so many ways communicated my unconditional acceptance of them as people have been told to fear me and 

deny my attempts at access. 

I understand their situation and I know the choices they had to 

make to survive. But the emotional pain still remains. Perhaps the 

greatest sadness I have is the realization that our children will 

have long-term issues to resolve as human beings subjected to captivity and denied the fundamental connection to their parent that 

is necessary for healthy development. 

Please note, I will not mention or share our children’s names in 

my testimony to protect their privacy. They are innocent and do 

not deserve any more trauma from this abduction. 

My testimony today will be divided into three sections. First, I 

will read an open letter to our children because I have been blocked 

from any access or means of communication with them. 

It’s my hope that the video of this testimony will be shown or 

made available to them in Japan because this is the only means 

I have of reaching them anymore. 

Second, I’ll provide you a view into the Hague implementation in 

Japan as I experienced the process. And third, I will offer brief recommendations to the committee. 

Hey, guys. This is Papa. 

I’m so very sorry for all you’ve been put through as a result of 

what has happened. You’ve had to make choices out of dependency 

and harmony within Ba-Chan and Ji-Chan’s home. I understand 

those choices and I’m not angry at you or seeking revenge against 

anyone, as you may have been told. 

60

Every day of your absence starts for me the realization that you 

are not in our house and you are gone. Nothing has changed in any 

of your rooms. They remain just as you left them. 

The light blue bedroom still has the blue marker on the closet 

wall and the night stand drawer still smells like Count Chocula 

that you poured in there for yourself. The only evidence of what 

you did was the empty plastic cereal bag you left on your floor. 

Your closet has all your unopened toys sitting on the shelf and 

the mixture of socks from which you created your unique pairing 

each day. I want you to know I did not see you break it. So I agree 

you did not break it. Also Papa always carries a pencil in his car 

now. I love your individuality and personality. I want to possess 

the calm confidence in yourself that you do. 

The pink bedroom still has your ‘‘Frozen’’ sticker book and plastic 

purple unicorn on the night stand. Auntie Laura stayed in your 

room one night and she had cried because you were gone, but it 

looked like you were there. 

Like me, she expected to see you come into your room at any 

time, at any moment. Big Bear is still in your closet next to your 

dress-up clothes and your Barbies are still stashed in various drawers of your dresser. 

On my phone I carry the video of you dancing for me in the back 

hall of our school during the spring music concert. I love your happiness and unbelievable self confidence. I want to be fearless like 

you. 

In the green bedroom both of your beds are just as they were 

when you went to the airport. On your long dresser still sit your 

architectural Lego buildings. I’ve dusted them a few times. 

The perfectly drawn sketch of a hand still hangs above the bookshelf that holds all the Doraemon comic books you’ve read several 

times. 

The baseballs and numerous athletic and musical trophies are 

just as you left them. Your Pikachu alarm clock still ticks away, 

waiting to be used to wake you guys. 

I see violin sheet music and our piano and I nearly weep sometimes. Thing one—I love how you started playing piano every 

morning. The dedication and commitment you have always made 

to being better, smarter and the best you I admire. You will suck 

the marrow out of life by experiencing all that you can. 

I want your discipline and determination. Thing two—I admire 

your kindness and empathy toward others. I think of you when I 

need to be my best self and imagine what you would do. 

I cried for the first time in a while when I wrote this because 

my heart aches without you. I went into your closet and I saw multiple bags of clothes packed in haste. I think I know why those 

were packed and likely the mood under which you were told to 

pack. I am so sorry you had to experience being complicit in your 

own abduction. 

I told you it was only a vacation. What you experienced told you 

otherwise. You guys were 11. I am sorry I did not see what you 

saw. I know you were told not to say anything to me. 

I don’t know how that affected you or damaged your self but I 

ache with you in that pain. I want you to know I have never 

61

stopped working for your return and everything I have done was 

to get you back home no matter what you have been told. 

You have been denied a critical relationship at a critical time in 

your lives. It’s only later in life you will understand the lasting impact of losing our connection during this time. I know this and I 

wish others did. 

Do you think about our adventures to AEON from years ago? I 

know it was only to go eat Pepper Lunch at the food court and play 

Mario Cart until I ran out of 100 yen coins. 

Those were fun adventures. Remember our trip to Tokyo 

Disneyland 6 years ago and riding the shinkansen? Just the three 

of us guys eating 550 yen or 150 yen shinkansen ice cream and 

having fun. You guys were nervous because you weren’t sure I really understood Japanese. But as with most things it all turned out 

for the best. 

When I came to Japan to visit in October I remember riding back 

for Kyoto to Tokyo with you two little guys sitting my lap. As tired 

as I was and jetlagged, it was the best shinkansen ride I can ever 

remember. I miss holding you two little guys and attempting to do 

pushups while you try to ride me like a horse. I miss carrying you 

on my shoulders and holding your little hands so you wouldn’t use 

my face as a handle. 

I will come to pick you up and bring you home very soon. Please 

be ready and make it easy for everyone by cooperating when I 

come. 

I love you guys. I’ll never stop until you are back home with me. 

I want you back. Love, Papa. 

Section two—in July 14, 2014, Hitomi Arimitsu of Nara, Japan—

my wife, and our four children arrived in Japan for a 6-week vacation. 

Prior to her departure, I drafted a simple agreement between her 

and I. I indicated my consent for her to travel with our children 

and a specific return by date of August 29, 2014. 

This agreement was drafted with her knowledge, signed by both 

of us and notarized and was supposed to be part of her travel documents. 

Needless to say, she did not return and has been continuously 

aided and harbored by her parents, Yukinori and Hiroko Arimitsu 

of Nara, Japan. Mr. Yukinori and Hiroko Arimitsu and his family 

own Arimitsu Industry Company, Limited of the Higashinari-ku 

area of Osaka, Japan. 

In September, 2014, I clearly stated my plan to Hitomi to bring 

our children back to U.S. in December 2014. Hitomi refused and 

ceased communications with me. In October 2014, I visited Tokyo, 

Japan to visit our children for a 3-day weekend to go to Tokyo 

Disneyland and Disney Sea. My mother visited everyone in Japan 

in December 2014 prior to Christmas and she reported back to me 

that our children were different and seemed negative toward me. 

It was deeply upsetting to my mother that Hitomi had exerted 

significant undue influence over our children and significant parental alienation was obvious. 

In January, 2015, I commenced divorce proceedings against 

Hitomi in Hennepin County court for the sole purpose to force our 

children’s return. 

62

Minnesota has a service first requirement and I followed the 

Hague process with Japan for service. The result was a 4-month 

delay of service that my local court used to deny jurisdiction over 

custody of our children. 

Had Hitomi been present in Minnesota the service would have 

been days, not the 4 months caused by the Japanese central authority. 

I immediately sought out other avenues to our children’s return 

with significant assistance and guidance from the Department of 

State. 

I began my Hague application on July 23, 2015. It was received 

on August 4, 2015 at the Department of State. The application was 

then forwarded to and received by Japan’s central authority, the 

JCA, on August 7 and accepted officially on August 10, 2015. I had 

prima facie proved my Hague case. 

The legal case once started was to take 6 weeks according to 

Hague guidelines. The legal case started in August 19, 2015, when 

my legal team filed the return petition to Osaka family court. Two 

weeks later on September 4, 2015, the first hearing of our case was 

held and I was present in Osaka family court in Japan for this 

hearing. 

Hitomi was not in attendance and manipulated the court by saying I was dangerous and they should have extra security. 

I purposely added 2 extra days over the weekend to allow for 

meeting our children. Hitomi refused to cooperate with my request 

and told me my children were afraid of me. 

It’s odd that the longer our children are away from me the more 

afraid and distrustful of me they have become. This is de facto parental alienation. 

Court investigators, or social workers, interviewed our children 

the following week. In the invitation sent to our children, the investigators explained what was going to occur and provided them significant information in advance. 

As a result, our children were very well prepped to answer exactly as they were coached by Hitomi. This included a recollection 

by our younger children about an event that happened prior to the 

conception. 

The second hearing of her case was held on September 30 to provide a status update for all parties. Neither Hitomi nor I were in 

attendance. This was the 6 week point the process. 

Our third hearing on October 13, a year to the day when I last 

saw our children in person was the trial hearing in front of the 

Hague three-judge panel. 

I added extra days over the weekend to this trip, again, to allow 

me time to meet with our children and again I was refused a meeting. I was even refused FaceTime or any type of communication. 

Under the Hague Convention, I am guaranteed some amount of 

access. If Hitomi doesn’t want to do it she doesn’t and Japan lacks 

the enforcement powers to make her comply. 

The first decision in our case came on October 30, 2015. The 

Osaka family court determined I had satisfied all Hague criteria 

for all four children but they only ordered the return of our two 

youngest children and used the court’s discretion to overrule the 

Hague required return of our older children. 

63

The court deemed our 12-year-old sons to be of sophistication and 

sound mind to object. I am sure the Solomonesque splitting of the 

baby made sense to the pragmatically minded court. It appeared 

our children were little more than property to be divided. 

This was the 10th week of the case. The decision of the Osaka 

family court was appealed to Osaka high court by both Hitomi and 

myself in the first part of November. 

Let me repeat, in the first part of November. With no decision 

yet from the Osaka high court, on December 24 I filed for mediation to see if there was an alternative path to resolution and 

Hitomi refused to participate. So any solution via mediation was 

ended on January 18, 2016. No enforcement requiring her to participate. This marked the 25th week of our case. 

On January 28, 2016, Osaka high court rendered their decision 

in which they affirmed the lower court’s decision and additionally 

ordered my older children, now 13 years old, returned, citing the 

psychological damage from splitting siblings. 

This decision came in the 26th week, 1⁄2 year since the first court 

filing. The Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Bond 

was recently quoted in a major Japanese newspaper saying the 

legal process in Japan takes too long. My case is evidence and I 

now know my experience thus far was not unusual. 

This is not compliant with the Hague guidelines for expidient at 

all. During this time, my children were being alienated against me 

with no means of interim access to them. This lack of access is in 

violation of the Hague and as such Japan, again, is noncompliant. 

A week later Hitomi filed an appeal to Japan’s Supreme Court 

and I filed for a warning from Osaka family court to Hitomi to comply with the Hague return order. 

This was the first of many steps that must be filed for enforcement of a decision—the first of many steps. 

I thought that a justly rendered and affirmed court order was 

enough to complete my Hague process. I was not even close to the 

end. Japan’s family law system lacks strong enforcement power 

and contempt can be identified in many cases. 

The warning was issued to Hitomi with no result. Hitomi lost her 

appeal in Japan’s Supreme Court later in February. I thought for 

sure this would be the end and our children would soon be heading 

back or I was going to pick them up. 

Again, not even close. The next enforcement step was filing for 

indirect enforcement—financial penalty. Hitomi appealed this and 

eventually lost this appeal too. The impactful portion of this indirect enforcement is the per diem fine due the petitioner, me in this 

case. 

HItomi was ordered to pay me a per child fine every day until 

the children are returned to the U.S. Hitomi, of course, is in contempt of this order and refuses to acknowledge or pay the debt that 

had been accruing since March 21, 2016. Japan even lacks enforcement powers over their own enforcement powers. 

The next step to enforcement is direct enforcement. Hitomi had 

appealed the direct enforcement decision and lost. 

I have never heard of an abductor being able to appeal enforcement of a dually rendered court decision. I’m submitting for the 

written record in my testimony a translation of the Japanese 

64

Hague implementation articles relating to the enforcement and to 

save time let me quickly summarize or give a quick interpretation 

of what’s allowed. The court bailee can use whatever force is required to enter the house in pursuit of children. 

Once in the house, the bailee can restrain or remove any adult 

persons that are physically capable of restraining the children. 

At this point, the bailee’s power only extends to requesting the 

children to voluntarily come with the bailee. Neither the bailee nor 

I are allowed to touch the children in the act of enforcement. 

Imagine this scenario as viewed by a child. Loud knocking at the 

door and the quick look outside reveals court personnel and possibly law enforcement. Panic ensues in the adults, particularly your 

mother. The knocking gets louder and the door may have even 

have been broken down to gain access to the house. 

With a broken down door and a screaming hysterical mother, the 

official-looking person enters the house. Once inside the official or 

police officer physically removes your mother from holding onto you 

and she is pulled away. 

This person that just tore your mother away from you now asks 

you if you will come with him to see your father who is waiting outside to take you away. What do you think the child will say? Yes? 

If the bailee determines that the children will never agree to 

come voluntarily then the enforcement attempt is unsuccessful and 

ended. This has happened in another Hague case. 

Yes. All it takes is for children to persist in saying no to foil direct enforcement. I am now 51 weeks into this process and both my 

attorneys in Japan and the Department of State are telling me to 

spend the time, emotion, expense, and hope to make this attempt. 

Their collective advice in the event of most certain failure is to 

try again and again and again and again. Why does Japan require 

such a traumatic event for a child in enforcement? 

In our case the Japanese courts have deemed that the children 

should be returned. A high court order with the Supreme Court declining to hear the case and no further appeals permitted. This 

flawed enforcement process should not be a reason or a means for 

Japan to evade its international obligation to comply with the 

Hague Convention on international child abduction. 

Quite simply, this should not prevent the return of our children 

to their rightful home with their father in the United States. I implore our government to address this issue with the appropriate 

Japanese authorities without delay, distraction for ambiguous diplomacy. 

The final step of my Hague process may be habeas corpus proceeding if direct enforcement fails. This step is not part of Hague 

convention. It is a patch to fix the known direct enforcement problems systemic in Japan. 

The Goldman Act report just released this week addressed the 

direct enforcement problem and states the non-compliance of Japan 

on page 32. I followed the process, endured the extraordinary slowness, received favorable court decisions in every instance been 

without our children and them without me this whole time and 

then at the end of this I am left to rely upon a highly traumatizing 

act as my path to returning our children. 

65

As Japan has designed it, I must remove our children under the 

Hague Convention in full view of their hysterical mother and that 

being the lasting image in their minds. Why make our children or 

any child suffer even more for the actions of their parent? This is 

beyond cruel and inhuman. Hitomi’s wealthy parents, Yukinori and 

Hiroko Arimitsu, have been paying her legal bills and harboring 

her and our children in contempt of multiple court orders and in 

violation of international treaties their country ratified and acceded 

to. 

Mr. Yukinori Arimitsu’s company, Hiroko Arimitsu, Arimitsu Industry Company, Limited, of the Higashinari-ku area of Osaka, 

Japan, I have been told has influence within Japan, and I cannot 

determine the degree to which the company has been complicit in 

the abduction. 

I was told of one special favor gained many years ago by an employee at the direction of Mr. Arimitsu to manipulate official government records to benefit Hitomi by allowing her to remain eligible for government benefits despite being married to a foreigner. 

I am concerned the same meddling is going on or is possible to 

circumvent enforcement. The JCA must not allow this type of 

cheating to continue if Japan wants to be respected internationally. 

Mr. Yukinori Arimitsu, Hitomi Arimitsu are a threat to Japan’s 

integrity internationally. 

Section three—my written testimony goes into greater detail but 

I will mention some concepts to consider. Unlike the U.S., Hague 

decisions are not public in Japan. So each case has to proceed blind 

of any precedent unless experienced attorneys are willing to cooperate and receive permission from their clients. 

I recommend the Department of State provide a resource that 

catalogues the successful and unsuccessful individual cases in order 

to build the case law outside of Japan. 

Data privacy concerns can be managed with redaction of sensitive information. Additionally, I recommend a summary of the 

successful arguments and circumstances be compiled and be made 

available to left-behind parents in the process. I imagine that the 

National Center of Missing and Exploited Children could fulfill this 

role very well if chosen. 

Another point—the Goldman Act enumerates powers or actions 

available for enforcement with the recalcitrant country. I would 

like to suggest that these powers be made enforceable on a case by 

case basis instead of a global annual review that we have come to 

be seen can be held, influenced and manipulated. Resolution of the 

larger issue will come one victory at a time. 

Let’s have enforcement and sanctions at the individual case level. 

This committee and the greater Congress can come together to 

tighten the vague language in the Goldman Act and remove much 

of the Department of State’s discretion in imposing sanctions. 

Allow the Department of State to use their diplomatic efforts to 

inform and impart legislative decisions instead of allowing diplomacy to mitigate or avoid consequences. 

I recommend the chairman order the delivery of the original 

version of the Goldman Act report that was completed by April 30, 

2016 deadline. All edits to the original must be attributed and explained if the released versions differs from the original. 

66

In conclusion, I eagerly want the quickest proper return of our 

four children by the least traumatic means to their home in Minnesota, U.S., their habitual residence, their legal home state since 

birth. Then we can rebuild our relationships and resume our lives 

as a family together. 

Thank you, Chairman Smith, for this opportunity today and your 

continuing efforts to address this form of human rights violation. 

Your staff has been very helpful and I want to recognize their efforts publicly. A special level and type of thank you to all the leftbehind parents and their aggregated efforts to move the issue to 

this point. It’s on their collective shoulders I stand before you 

today. I am very sorry we all know each other in this way. To all 

left-behind parents watching this hearing, every one of our victories leads a path to the recovery of your children. You are not 

alone. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:]

67


20751d-1.eps
68


20751d-2.eps
69


20751d-3.eps
70


20751d-4.eps
71


20751d-5.eps
72


20751d-6.eps
73


20751d-7.eps
74


20751d-8.eps
75


20751d-9.eps
76


20751d-10.eps
77


20751d-11.eps
78

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Cook, thank you very, very much and I hope and 

pray that all of your children of all the left-behind parents are returned as quickly as possible and that someday they see not just 

what you did here and the love that you’ve exhibited for your children, all of you, and the others in the audience and others who are 

not here but all of the efforts. 

If ever there was a Herculean effort I have seen it time and time 

again from one parent after another who just have left no stone 

unturned in trying to bring their children home. 

So again, I want to thank you and for your very specific recommendations. They are excellent. 

Ms. Barbirou. 

STATEMENT OF MS. EDEANNA BARBIROU (MOTHER OF CHILD 

ABDUCTED TO TUNISIA) 

Ms. BARBIROU. Chairman Smith, thank you for committing your 

time today to address this issue of international parental child abduction, which I will continue to refer to as IPCA, for brevity, and 

the implementation of the Goldman Act. 

I would also like to extend my gratitude to Ms. Christensen, who 

testified earlier today. She also mentioned a case she wouldn’t 

name by name but that a lot of activity had been occurring a day 

after one parent had called and said activity was happening. 

That was my case. So I’d like to extend gratitude to her for 

knowing what was happening and explaining that. And also to my 

fellow parents who sit with me today. I have held back so much 

emotion on my own and for your own stories and your own children 

you just—you have touched my heart in so many ways, even knowing that I can clearly identify with everything you’ve been going 

through. So thank you for your testimony. 

And I offer that mine won’t differ very much because all of our 

stories have so many common elements. So with that, as many of 

you know the enactment of this legislation, the Goldman Act, is of 

vital importance to the thousands of children who become victims 

of IPCA in our country each year. 

For many parents seeking the return of their illegally kidnapped 

children abroad, the Goldman Act is a source of hope in the otherwise dim realities that our lives become after our children are 

snatched from our lives, and theirs, exposed to the horrors of a life 

on the run, often aided by the governments of the foreign lands to 

which they are kidnapped. 

It is a source of hope that finally the right tools will be utilized 

to secure justice for our innocent children, ensuring the full force 

of the American Government to secure their rights of protection as 

citizens to return home where they belong. 

That is the power, purpose and hope embodied in the Goldman 

Act that has brought us here today. I am honored to have been invited to testify today after having sat before this very committee 

for the same purpose just 1 year ago. 

I’m also terribly saddened, personally that I return and that my 

son, Eslam, remains illegally detained in Tunisia. I am also saddened for the thousands of children who remain abducted or detained as hostages in foreign lands around the globe. 

79

Exactly 4 years, 8 months and 3 days ago, my children, Eslam 

and Zainab Chebbi, were illegally abducted to Tunisia by their father, a Tunisian native. At the time of their kidnaping in 2011 I 

had full custody of both children and retained a judicial order preventing either of us from traveling outside of the United States 

with either child. 

In January 2012 I boarded a plane to Tunisia to be close to my 

children while I pursued the application of my U.S. divorce and 

custody documents in order to bring them home. 

At the time, I was promised by my then Tunisian counsel that 

I would be in Tunis for a total of 3 weeks and could return with 

both children to the United States in that time. It was 10 months 

before I could obtain a first ruling through the Tunisian judiciary 

upholding my rights of custody of Eslam and Zainab here in the 

United States. 

A few months later in May 2013 a Tunisian appellate court ruled 

for enforcement of Eslam and Zainab’s return to me in the United 

States. 

By August of that year, I was assured of pending enforcement 

and a return home with both children. In the face of what had by 

this time accumulated into extensive interventions by the Department of State, the Department of Justice and multiple Members of 

Congress, I chose to believe. 

Based on this belief, I decided to honor by daughter Zainab’s 

wishes not to return to her father following a weekend visit and to 

rely on the legal process for enforcement for our reunification with 

Eslam. 

I made that decision in September 2013 and Eslam has remained 

isolated from his sister and I ever since. Due to intentional interference by the Tunisian Government to prevent enforcement of its 

own court’s judicial order, Eslam remains illegally detained as we 

continue to seek enforcement of that 2013 appellate court judgment 

upheld by the Supreme Court of Tunisia in 2014, today. 

Due to illegal extrajudicial interference, Zainab and I last saw 

and hugged Eslam exactly 2 years and 15 days ago. She and I returned to the United States without Eslam in August 2014. 

Within the past 2 years, we received a second Tunisian primary 

judgment granting custody of Eslam and Zainab to me in the 

United States and a second appellate court ruling for enforcement 

of Eslam’s return home to our family in the United States. These 

are all Tunisian judgments. There are five now. 

In March of this year, the Tunisian Ministry of Justice informed 

the U.S. Consulate and Embassy staff that this judgement would 

be issued and enforced leading to Eslam’s return home to us in the 

United States by the end of May. 

Clearly, that timeframe has passed. The entirety of these 4 

years, 8 months and 3 days since Eslam and Zainab were kidnapped from our home, the State Department, the FBI and numerous esteemed Members of Congress have mounted incredible diplomatic and political efforts in support of our family with the Tunisian Government for its adherence to a rule of law and compliance 

with its new enacted constitution for enforcement of its court’s judicial rulings and Eslam’s return home. 

80

My family is ever grateful for these necessary and powerful 

steps. Yet while we applaud these great efforts we continue to accrue judicial order after judicial order. The Tunisian Government 

continues to provide baseless assurances and Eslam remains illegally detained in Tunisia. 

I wish to step away from our family circumstances for a moment 

and return to the Goldman Act and address you as an advocate for 

our innocent children, the true victims of this crime. 

According to the FBI, more than six children are reported as abducted by a parent in this country every day. Previous State Department statistics indicate that more than half of these children 

are kidnapped to foreign lands. 

In 2014, Congress unanimously voted and the President signed 

into law this powerful legislation that protects the rights of our abducted American children by ensuring that the strongest penalties 

will be rendered in the face of their prevented return to their 

homes here in the United States. 

Clearly, the U.S. Government fully believed that the powers embodied by the Goldman Act were varied, necessary, and sufficient 

enough to secure the immediate return of the thousands of American children victimized by IPCA each year. Yet, to this day, the 

Goldman Act has only been enforced to the least extent possible 

and mostly in demand and review of annual compliance reports. 

In turning to the 2015 compliance report, I would like to applaud 

the great strides that have been taken to present a clearer and 

more honest picture of what is occurring with our abducted children abroad. 

In it, we have a stronger glimpse not only of what actions have 

been taken in each country where American children have been 

kidnapped, but also of the recommended steps toward improved 

resolution of abduction cases in the future. 

Sadly, not only was this report delivered late but it also leaves 

the same alarming concerns regarding the enactment of this law 

that I addressed before this subcommittee just 1 year ago. 

After reviewing the 2015 report, I have no clearer understanding 

of how many children have been kidnapped internationally by a 

parent from the United States and whether there has been an increase, decrease or no change in the incidence of this crime. 

Simply providing an accounting of cases without identifying a 

total number of children affected does not bring us any closer to an 

understanding of the breadth of this crime on the American public. 

By my count, it takes an average of 5 years to secure the return 

of a child who has been abducted by a parent internationally, if a 

return ever occurs. 

Previous State Department statistics indicate that only 18 percent of IPCA cases result in a return. Considering that the average 

age of abduction is between 6 months to 6 years, we must understand the devastating reality that for those lucky enough to return 

home they will have spent half of their lives as captives on the run. 

As Ms. Abbi’s testimony exemplified, having every available statistic about the number of children impacted by this vicious crime 

is imperative to every prevention and return effort embodied in 

this act. 

81

Second, not once did any of the descriptions of actions taken with 

any of the cited countries or the recommendations for future action 

incorporate any of the prescribed options three through eight as required to be taken with respect to noncompliant countries per Section 202(d) of the Goldman Act. Here forward, I’m going to refer 

to these as the 202(d) actions for brevity. 

In fact, I have not witnessed one instance where any agency 

within our Government has utilized the authorities of actions 

granted through the Goldman Act to implement any of the 202(d) 

actions to be taken with respect to noncompliant countries. 

Respectfully, our children’s lives do not rest on the actions of one 

governmental department but on the collective action and escalating action of all government agencies wielding both their combined and independent powers. 

There has to come a point where every representative of the U.S. 

Government becomes accountable for the implementation of 202(d) 

actions to secure the immediate return of abducted American children. 

As Dr. Brann has already stated, Sean Goldman himself was not 

reunited with his father on U.S. soil based on the actions of any 

one agency within our Government. It took coordinated interventions across multiple agencies and congressional action to prevent 

a financial exchange with Brazil to secure his return home. 

It is my understanding that the lessons learned from the Goldman case were embodied in this act with the implicit intention of 

securing immediate returns for other abducted children abroad, not 

as an opportunity to reengage in or intensify long-term diplomatic 

efforts. 

Given the Goldman example and the authorities granted under 

this law, I and thousands of other seeking parents rejoiced at the 

hope that enforcement of the Goldman Act would result in the immediate return of our illegally detained and abducted children. 

Sadly, today, you can stare but I stare at times—we had a photo 

of my son here when he was 5—thank you so much. Yes. So when 

I stare at my 5-year-old son, Eslam, and wonder—I wonder how I 

could look him in the eye when last we embraced which was 2 

years and 15 days ago and explain that the Government of the 

United States will enact a law granting authority to publicly condemn Tunisia for failing to uphold its new Constitution and rule 

of law, to delay or cancel any of the two official visits that Tunisian 

leadership has enjoyed at the White House since your abduction or 

to withdraw, limit or suspend any of the billions of security and development assistance paid for in U.S. tax dollars to the Tunisian 

Government, but that no one will act upon it. 

I wonder if any of us could tell our children with a straight face 

that we are fully aware of the psychological, emotional and maybe 

even physical abuse that they are likely to incur as a result of 

being parentally abducted but that politics and diplomacy take 

precedence. 

I wonder how Stan Hunkovic, father of Gabriel and Anastasia 

who were abducted to Trinidad and Tobago by their mother in 

2010, could look his children in the eye when last the embraced 4 

years, 7 months and 16 days ago and explain that the United 

82

States could take strong immediate action that could secure their 

return home but simply won’t. 

Chairman Smith, esteemed members of the subcommittee and 

guests, what I need, what Eslam needs, what Gabriel and 

Anastasia need, what all of our children kidnapped abroad need is 

every representative of our Government to take every opportunity 

as it arises to put our children first. 

We need every 202(d) action authorized by the Goldman Act, 

most specifically actions three through eight, to be enforced at 

every opportunity whether within a committee of Congress, 

through the Federal budget with respect to foreign aid distributions to countries cited as persistently failing to return abducted 

children home, through a policy of consistent issuance of extradition warrants in all IPCA cases and persistent pursuit of their 

enforcement or by the refusal of official state visits and the suspension or withholding of development security or any other form of 

foreign assistance. 

The opportunities to secure our children’s immediate return to 

their families in the United States are limitless. We and our abducted children care not from where within our Government action 

is initiated. 

We care only about the result and our children’s return home. 

What I need from my Government to secure Eslam’s return home 

is the immediate and uninhibited enforcement of 202(d) actions 

three through seven with respect to Tunisia, specifically a public 

condemnation and the suspension of all foreign aid until Eslam is 

returned to our family in the United States. 

I end my testimony with a reiteration of my statements before 

this subcommittee 1 year ago. To be clear, the Goldman Act as it 

is written is a fair and powerful law that includes strong remedies 

which, if applied, will result in the return of our illegally detained 

abducted children abroad. 

It is my firm belief that with the application of any of 202(d) actions four through seven, Eslam Chebbi and Gabriel and Anastasia 

Hunkovic will be returned to their homes in the U.S. with immediacy. Diplomacy and politics have a place and purpose. 

But when a country persistently fails to return illegally abducted 

American children home swift and immediate action must be taken 

by all. As Secretary Kerry proclaimed, there can be no safe haven 

for abductors and all of the tools available must be used to help 

resolve cases of IPCA. 

Thank you for your time and consideration and for the honor of 

testifying before you today. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Barbirou follows:]

83


20751e-1.eps
84


20751e-2.eps
85


20751e-3.eps
86


20751e-4.eps
87


20751e-5.eps
88

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Barbirou, thank you very much for your testimony. Like the others that preceded you, it is moving. Welcome 

back. But I wish you weren’t here, frankly, except perhaps talking 

about a success which we’ve had in very, very few instances. So 

thank you again for your very candid and strong recommendations 

as well. 

Let me just say, and I’ll throw it out for any comments you might 

want to make, a few things. Ms. Abbi, you talked about why is the 

United States so powerless. I have asked myself that question. 

I authored the Goldman Act. It took 5 years to get passed. Ran 

into all kinds obstacles, executive branch as well as legislative 

branch, which to this day I find discouraging but motivating simultaneously because you can’t accept no for an answer in this job. 

You talked, Dr. Brann, about how Brazil has not responded to 

demarches. Last year’s report—because there is an action report as 

to what 90 days after the issuance of the report that has been now 

sent to Congress, which would take us to early October 90 days or 

through any time between that 90-day period actions by the executive branch can be promulgated. 

And frankly, last year I was gravely disappointed in both the report and the actions. I said so. I wasn’t the only one that said so 

very clearly. You know, a demarche is a first step but a very mild 

one. You then need the Goldman Act to make demarches in the 

past. The other sanctions that are prescribed in this, actions by the 

Secretary of State, are very real and powerful if they’re used. If 

they’re not used, as I said to Ms. Christensen, they become toothless. 

The countries quickly look at that and say oh, that’s just something that’s on a shelf somewhere—they don’t mean it—it’s just an 

exercise in duplication or the articulation of something that they 

have no intent of enforcing. 

So I think this year will be the test because the report has been 

improved. Not there yet, frankly, but it is improved. I wondered 

and I asked Ms. Christensen earlier, you might have noted, about 

these resolved cases. We have no idea what that’s all about. 

There’s no breakout as to was it aging out, what was the cause 

of these cases dropped off. That’s not a real resolution. Return of 

child is the resolution that we are indeed looking for even though 

there are some other criteria prescribed in the law for what that 

means. 

I thought, Mr. Cook, you made so many very—all of you did—

so many wonderful recommendations and observations and the 

idea of summary of successful tactics, for example, when the cauldron of having your child or children abducted is compounded by 

what do we do next, well, there is a series of best practices, effective strategies and the more that is shared the better and certainly 

the parents should be first to get that. I thought that, among many 

other ideas that you made, were excellent. 

And then Ms. Barbirou, the idea of full force—full force of Goldman, full force. These sanctions are very real and when they start 

getting meted out I absolutely guarantee countries will take notice 

if they are, again, enforced to the least extent possible, as you just 

testified. That means ‘‘hit me again—it doesn’t hurt.’’ The countries 

89

will not take us seriously and therefore they will not take your legitimate concerns and return of your children seriously. 

So it’s great when you’re dealing with an interlocutor or a country that really cares and many of the central authorities do, I have 

found. But when it gets to another level of government and even 

when you go to court, one of the biggest Achilles’ heel in all of this, 

as you all have noted, is the enforcement and as noted by the report. You know, Japan’s enforcement is tragically flawed. It just 

doesn’t work. I remember when David Goldman got his son back. 

We were in the consulate in Rio de Janeiro and it was a terrible 

circus that was carried on by the other parties, walking him 

through the streets, and I was standing right next to him when he 

burst out in tears and said, ‘‘Look what they’re doing to my son,’’ 

similar what was said earlier about, you know, the scenario of 

breaking down the door or something. Very benign methodology 

can be employed to help bring this all about in a way that does not 

further traumatize a child or children. 

Any comments you might want to make? I plan on having another hearing—hearings, and I’m never going to stop as long as 

God gives me breath, but hearings on implementation of this. 

I do hope and I thank our friends from the State Department for 

staying here and hearing all of you. That is wonderful. I appreciate 

that. I know you know how important it is that you hear these 

cases and take it to heart. 

But Japan needs to really be on the list. I don’t know how they 

didn’t qualify. Everything but yet a pattern of noncompliance. It’s 

just inexplicable, in all candor. 

But so the idea of sanctions, if any of you want to weigh in on 

that. You already did, Ms. Barbirou. If you want to do it again that 

would be appreciated. Using all the tools prescribed by Goldman, 

and then the issue that I asked repeatedly, Ms. Christensen—I’ve 

been asking it. But even before the Goldman Act was enacted and 

that is the importance of MOUs. If they’re entered into in good 

faith and robustly carried out, especially by our side, they’ll work. 

Any treaty—any cooperative agreement only works if at least one 

side is pushing hard. The other side will take note, particularly 

when there’s an array of sanctions hanging over them like a sword 

of Damocles. 

So these MOUs are essential, and when I was in Japan, for example, I talked to our Embassy people there. They said the left-behind parents—the Hague folks are, now we know, are having trouble who are under the rubric of the Hague but those before the 40-

odd cases—I mentioned a few before—I just can’t even begin to 

fathom the sorrow and pain you all experienced. 

So I think the MOUs—because we don’t want deja vu happening 

all over again, to quote Yogi Berra, where India then agrees to the 

Hague and then it may be just as ineffectively implemented as 

Japan is doing right now, again, with enforcement being the weakest link and then all those who are grandfathered out from day of 

ratification. There has to be a simultaneous pursuit of that and 

whoever the next President is I can guarantee I will be at their 

door—I won’t be the only one—saying that we got to make Goldman work. 

90

MOUs need to be promulgated and sanction. If you don’t sanction, if you’re acting or have people hearing your pleas that are 

truly people—men and women of good will maybe you’ll get somewhere. But nothing sharp. It’s all of our civil rights laws always 

had the catch of Federal funds being proscribed whether it was 

women in sports, the Title IX, the Title VII—all these civil rights 

laws didn’t count on good will, not one of them. 

The Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which I also wrote, has 

strong, strong implementation factors to it in terms of not just 

naming and shaming. It is naming, calling out, and then sanctioning if the country is not doing what they ought to be doing. 

So if you want to make any final comments. All of your statements, because I know some of you, I’ve noticed, jumped through—

will be made a part of the record in their totality. 

I’m planning, hopefully, even if we’re not in session, writing a 

provision for it. October 9th would be the date, 90 days later pursuant to Goldman, that action has to be taken. Not later than is the 

way the law reads, but anytime before that. September 15th, whatever day of the choosing, Secretary of State Kerry, the administration, can say this is what we’re doing to Brazil, this is what we’re 

going to impose on India. Japan—again, they have not made this 

naming and I find that appalling. Tunisia, which is also on the list 

and the other countries as well. So it’s time to say we’ve got tools—

we’re going to use them. So if you want to make any comments on 

that please do. 

Mr. COOK. I was going to say, Representative Smith—Chairman 

Smith, the parts I didn’t elaborate too much in my statement but 

in the written testimony a larger thing, I guess I would say, because I’ve been working with Japan for 30 years and I don’t claim 

to know the Japanese mind or culture. But what I do know is—

or what I’ve experienced, I should say, is that any ambiguity is 

used to their greatest advantage. 

Any sort of ability to vacillate is used to their greatest advantage, and so I have had some people tell me that diplomacy has 

worked. Just in the same measure I will say that we have been 

able to cut great caverns in the Earth via the glacier, so the glacier 

works. But there are other more effective means of accomplishing 

what we want to accomplish and the one thing—one thing I know 

very well about the Japanese, just as we alluded to other, as in 

India, there have to be consequences—absolute firm consequences. 

One of the things I just threw out there, and I have no idea if 

it’s at all—and I wrote in my written testimony I have no idea if 

it’s even doable is dictating, so to speak, to Japan and say part of 

your implementation as United States and stay on our good side 

is that—I can’t remember, recite it from memory now—but a 

Hague case to a first decision will not take any more than 10 

weeks. In the event it takes more than 10 weeks, the—I’m trying 

to remember—the left-behind parent will be reimbursed 100 percent of all expenses and costs to that point and going forward until 

there’s an ultimate conclusion. 

Second, in the event that there’s a favorable—and there’s a order 

of return, then the taking parent has 30 days to return the child. 

In the event that that 30 days lapses then the 30-day onus goes 

upon Japan. 

91

In the event that that lapses—and this is the part where it gets 

maybe way beyond what we can do—that—so after the country, 

Japan, basically violates what they said they were going to do by 

signing the Hague then they’re giving implicit consent for the U.S. 

to go in and complete the enforcement by any means, methods, or 

personnel possible and they have the task—then also the country 

Japan would hold harmless on behalf of their citizen any sort of 

legal legislation, violations of laws, norms or whatever that they 

may throw upon the taking parent—or the left-behind parent—that 

sort of stuff. And just have it be absolutely this is it. I mean, this 

is how it rolls out. In the event you don’t do this, this is what happens. In the event you don’t do this, this is what happens. 

And another larger point, because I’d like to divest a lot of the 

discretion for enforcement from the Department of State and give 

them a narrower field in which to play and say these are—as the 

Department of State you’re the face of us around the world. It 

would be great for you to go and explain to the world this is how 

we run things, this is how we are going to do it rather than saying 

what do you think about our policies. 

Then they’re just toothless and they have no point because—and 

I’ll say specifically with Japan you never give them an opportunity 

to negotiate anything because they will take every opportunity to 

gain ground and then that is ground acceded and that’s the point 

from which our negotiations start again anew. 

There is no—and it sounds strict to say this—they are quite 

often incapable of negotiating in good will. There always has to be 

the stick, so to speak. And so that’s my point on that. 

Ms. BARBIROU. Thank you for the opportunity to respond again. 

I did just want to note, you mentioned there are people who care 

in these other governments in these other nations. 

It is not that it is full of people who are uncaring and in fact in 

this room is a member of the Tunisian Embassy who is a very caring and committed individual to the law and the rule of law whom 

I believe would like to see our case resolved. So to him and to other 

members of the Tunisian Government who are attempting to act in 

good faith I appreciate that. 

But that does not dispel the fact that the government itself has 

ultimate authority over the enforcement of the law in all of these 

countries. And so the recommendations of the Goldman Act or the 

actions within the Goldman Act are not personal and they are absolutely necessary, as you stated, for the actual enforcement of the 

return of our children, which is the whole goal and purpose. 

And so I stand by that but also thank all of those who do care 

and who are acting in their best efforts to ensure that there is resolution to our case. 

In terms of what Mr. Cook just said, it’s interesting. We had 

similar thoughts. And so in my recommendations, in my written 

testimony I provided a copy of drafted legislation that I wrote that 

offers a means of providing punitive damages to parents that are 

paid for by the countries that are found to have a persistent—to 

have a pattern of noncompliance in persistently failing to return 

American children. 

There is that second definition of what noncompliance means, 

and when a country is persistently failing, clearly, even if verbally 

92

they are saying we are going to try and we are doing our best, then 

by action they are actually outrightly refusing. 

And so if our children are illegally abducted in those lands then 

they are taking on the onus and responsibility of the parent who 

has illegally kidnapped them there. And when parents are devastated financially in this country, doing anything and everything 

that they can, wielding legal fees and translation fees and sometimes going into bankruptcy, doing travel exchanges, all of those 

things at our own cost, it’s not fair. 

And I think at some point I am hopeful that we see additional 

legislation that provides an opportunity for a pot to be made that 

benefits the parents in a way that we are not so financially devastated by this crime. 

I also just want to ask that, again, as I stated last year and stated also in my testimony that one of the recommendations I have 

is that the act contain an explicit requirement of accountability for 

the total existing cases of IPCA by a country including newly reported cases and the total number of children involved in each case 

represented in future compliance reports under the act. 

I know that that may seem like a minimal thing. This report, as 

far as I could see, says there is more than 600 children who were 

abducted abroad. That is not a solid number and in this country 

where we have no accountability to the total number of children 

who are impacted by this crime it is vitally important that we have 

at least a basis of understanding of how many children we’re talking about here because when the net widens then the opportunities 

for others to get involved for prevention and return widens as well. 

I have other recommendations I hope that you’ll review and I 

thank you so much. 

Ms. ABBI. I kind of missed covering that in my testimony before. 

I wanted to bring your attention to the Ministry of Women and 

Child Development’s draft that was recently posted on June 22, 

2016, and that draft bill is on its Web site and I have linked it to 

my testimony. And that would implement Hague abduction convention accession to Hague Convention in India. 

While I personally welcome this development, I’m really concerned given the MWCD’s dual missions and track record which 

has been kind of mixing up IPCA, which is a child’s right issue, 

with women’s issue in India. 

For the progress on IPCA in India will really require clear and 

unwavering commitment from the Government of India including 

MWCD to ensure all IPCA cases are treated fairly regardless of the 

abducting parent’s gender, nationality, and ethnicity in a timely 

manner. 

That draft is linked to my testimony, but one gap I wanted to 

bring to your attention is its lack of applicability to pre-Hague 

cases, and this not only concerns me but also the left-behind parents who have pending cases in India. 

So I really urge both nations to ensure that victims of IPCA in 

India whose cases are pending must be resolved on an urgent basis 

with the bilateral framework. I know we have talked about it before with Department of State, but that really has to be implemented prior to India’s ratification to Hague abduction because we 

don’t want to be in a situation where they would accede to Hague 

93

Convention but we are still high and dry here, you know, hanging 

between hope and despair and it’s mostly despair most of the time. 

So I really just wanted to call out. Thank you so much. 

Dr. BRANN. And I have one recommendation. I’ll be brief. Regarding Brazil, there is a simple way to change the Government of Brazil’s approach to this issue. Brazil benefits from the Generalized 

System of Preferences program that provides nonreciprocal dutyfree tariff treatment to certain products imported from certain 

countries. 

Brazil is the third largest beneficiary under the program with its duty-free imports at $2.3 billion annually. Interestingly, 7 percent 

of all—that’s 7 percent of all imports and that authorization expires next year. 

So the idea that we don’t have any leverage in the near term is 

ludicrous. We have this ability and in fact we actually have no obligation to provide this duty-free treatment of Brazilian goods. 

If Nico and the other abducted American children aren’t brought 

home then we should just simply revoke Brazil’s benefits under 

this program. Facing a loss of more than $2 billion annually, which is a free 

benefit we just give away, I’d be shocked if the Government of 

Brazil doesn’t find a way to fix its laws so that courts here decide 

convention cases in 6 weeks or less. 

Now, when the Government of Brazil determines a child was 

wrongly abducted and they don’t comply with that within the timeframe, those are issues that are perpetuated at each level of the 

court above, right. 

So it’s the first level, then the second level and the third level 

and the fourth level. One of the other things we could ask the Brazilian courts to do is at each level honor the 6-week commitment, 

meaning if the first level doesn’t make that decision within 6 weeks 

we can at the very least ask that the next level try to expedite it 

and honor that 6-week commitment and if they don’t then we continue to offer alternative solutions such as the one that I just offered. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Just for the record, I would like to ask unanimous 

consent that Elijah Jackson’s letter regarding the abduction of his 

child to Namibia be made a part of the record and a letter from 

Congressman Jim McDermott regarding the case of Jeffrey Morehouse whose son was abducted to Japan be also made a part of the 

record. Without objection, so ordered. 

I just want to thank you so much. As I said, we will have a next 

hearing in September or October. Hopefully the administration will 

move robustly on the sanctions part, the second shoe that now 

drops, and we will stay tuned. 

But we will have a hearing to talk about that, to see what it is 

that they are doing. I plan on initiating a letter to the Secretary 

of State, taking many of your comments today. 

I thought the idea of saying enforced to the least extent possible 

was a very strong sense of we want more. You deserve more and 

the law gives you far more than that has been deployed 11⁄2 years 

or so to date. 

So this is a great opportunity to make this Goldman Act work 

and so we’ll initiate a letter to the Secretary. I’m sure both sides 

94

of the aisle members will want this signed, saying come on, Mr. 

Secretary, now is the time—let’s do it. And so that’ll be something 

as soon as we get back. Obviously, everybody is out to their planes 

now because we just ended session for 6 weeks. 

But—well, longer than that, but looking forward to that next 

hearing and we do look forward, I do, and hope that the administration will really be very strong because I think now is the time 

to draw that line in the sand that says we’re not kidding. 

Hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:41 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(95)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

96

f


20751n.eps
97

f


20751m.eps
98

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


20751f-1.eps
99

f


20751f-2.eps
100

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

f


20751g.eps
101

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

f


20751h.eps
102

Æ


20751i.eps