U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

67–603PDF 2011

IMPROVING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE HAGUE

CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF

INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 28, 2011

Serial No. 112–101

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

VACANT 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

KAREN BASS, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Susan Jacobs, Special Advisor for Children’s Issues, Bureau 

of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State .................................................. 7

The Honorable Kurt Campbell, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of East 

Asian and Pacific Affairs, U.S. Department of State ........................................ 17

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Susan Jacobs: Prepared statement .............................................. 10

The Honorable Kurt Campbell: Prepared statement ............................................ 21

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 42

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 43

The Honorable Susan Jacobs: Written responses to questions 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, and Human Rights ............................................................................. 44

The Honorable Russ Carnahan, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Missouri .............................................................................................. 55

(1)

IMPROVING IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 

HAGUE CONVENTION ON THE CIVIL ASPECTS OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION 

THURSDAY, JULY 28, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3 o’clock p.m., in 

room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. 

Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order, and good afternoon. First of all, let me apologize to our very distinguished witnesses and to all of you. We had eight votes in succession, and they 

began exactly at 2:00, so I apologize for that. 

I want to thank you for joining us this afternoon for this second 

hearing in our series focusing on the deeply disturbing and seemingly intractable problem of international child abduction, which 

occurs when one parent unlawfully moves a child from his or her 

country of residence, often for the purpose of denying the other parent access to the child. I believe it to be a major global human 

rights abuse, a form of child abuse that seriously harms children, 

while inflicting excruciating emotional pain and suffering on leftbehind parents and families. 

On May 24th, at the first hearing in this series, this committee 

heard from six left-behind parents: One success story and five stories of deep and continuing agony and separation. Michael Elias, 

a combat-injured Iraq veteran from New Jersey told our subcommittee of his anguish after his ex-wife, Mayumi Nakamura, 

used her Japanese consulate connections to abduct little Jade and 

Michael, Jr., after the New Jersey court had ordered surrender of 

passports and joint custody. Ms. Nakamura flagrantly disregarded 

those valid court orders, telling Michael Elias, ‘‘My country, Japan, 

will protect me’’; and of course she was right. Although Japan is 

reportedly prosecuting her for abusing her consulate connections, 

they will not return the children. 

Michael Elias told us that ‘‘As a father who no longer has his 

children to hold in his arms, I cannot deal with this sorrow, so I 

try my best to stay strong and keep fighting for their return. All 

my hopes,’’ he went on to say, ‘‘and dreams for their future now lie 

in the hands of others.’’ He continued, ‘‘I am begging our GovernVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:50 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\072811\67603 HFA PsN: SHIRL
2

ment to help not only my family but hundreds of others who are 

heartbroken as well to demand the return of our American children 

who are being held in Japan.’’

We then heard from Joshua Izzard, who explained to us that his 

only child, 2-year-old Melisande, was torn away from him and everyone and everything she had known from birth in one cruel, selfish moment and abruptly plunged into a strange world of darkness, 

mental illness, and danger in Russia. His daughter, an American 

citizen, was taken out of the country using temporary travel papers 

supplied by the Russian Embassy. He told this committee that 

‘‘Our great country must stop this constant bleeding of its most important resource, its citizens.’’ As a Nation, we need to put in place 

effective, preventive mechanisms to ensure that our citizens are not 

subjected to the daily unbearable sorrow that comes in the wake 

of an international parental kidnapping. 

We then heard from Carlos Bermudez, who has been battling for 

custody of his son, Sage, in the Mexican courts for 3 years, facing 

every delay tactic in the book. He expressed his frustration with 

the courts, but, with all due respect, also with the Office of Children’s Issues, which from his experience was like dealing with ‘‘the 

DMV.’’ He explained that when he requested government records 

of his son’s entry and exit from the United States, OCI told him 

that it didn’t have the information and asking them for it was like 

asking a plumber to fix his electrical. He told them that he felt it 

was more like asking a general contractor to work with the plumber and asked for their help to interface with other U.S. Government agencies that would only tell him to work with OCI. Other 

parents at the hearing and since have echoed his frustration with 

OCI. 

Colin Bower, whose two young sons, Noor and Ramsay, were abducted by his wife to Egypt 2 years ago with the assistance of the 

Egyptian Government after his wife lost custody because of her 

drug use and psychological problems, conveyed to this committee 

his frustration over the lack of priority abduction cases receive in 

foreign policy. He questioned why the United States was giving billions of dollars to Egypt in aid when Egypt was flagrantly violating 

valid U.S. court papers, preventing him from seeing his sons, and 

otherwise aiding and abetting a kidnapping. 

I would note parenthetically on Friday I chaired a hearing in the 

Helsinki Commission on an ever-worsening problem that has not 

been focused upon the way it should be, and that is the abduction 

of Coptic girls who are then forced to become Muslims and then are 

forced into marriage, usually on or after their 18th birthday. 

Dr. Michele Clark, who is a leading expert on human trafficking, 

told us that there are thousands of these cases every year, and 

nary a whisper of discontent can be heard anywhere in the world 

about it. So we began to change that on Friday; and I do hope, 

while this panel will not address that, I did talk to Michael Posner 

earlier today, the Assistant Secretary for Democracy, Human 

Rights, and Labor, that this country and all countries need to 

speak out robustly on that horrific human rights abuse. 

Sara Edwards told us—again getting back from the situation 

with Egypt—that her nightmare began 2 weeks—this is Turkey, I 

should say—2 weeks into her son Eli’s vacation to Turkey with his 

3

father. She allowed the vacation based on a shared parenting 

agreement she and her estranged husband had negotiated together 

but soon realized that her husband had used the agreement as a 

pretext for abduction. 

Turkey allowed him to divorce Ms. Edwards and gave him full 

custody of the son without Sara Edwards being present or notified 

of the proceedings. Turkey, as we know, is a party to the Hague 

Convention, and Ms. Edwards has opened an application but faces 

the daily threat from her estranged husband that he will run with 

the child to Syria. So he dangles that over her head, that she will 

never see her son again. 

She explained an experience that is much like that of many other 

parents, stating, and I quote, ‘‘The obstacles I face fighting the abduction of my son are great. I am essentially on my own to fight 

a court battle in a foreign country where I do not know the language or understand the culture.’’

Douglas Trombino, whose daughter Morgana was kidnapped to 

Colombia in November, testified and echoed the feelings of many 

left-behind parents when he said, ‘‘Families must remain families. 

The family unit is critical to the success and growth of a child.’’ He 

went on to say, ‘‘I want to be Morgana’s dad. I want to touch and 

smell her and love her and interact with her and just love my 

daughter. Not through a computer screen,’’ he went on. ‘‘I don’t 

want to blow bubbles to her via Skype, I don’t want to send Easter 

baskets via FedEx, and I don’t want to have to go through customs 

for a mere 24 hours of daddy-daughter time. That to me is not 

being a father. I want to be Morgana’s dad, her hero, her go-to 24/

7 best friend,’’ he concluded. 

Finally, we heard from David Goldman, who is here with us 

today, and he was the only parent who could tell of success. And 

although the Hague Convention requires return of children within 

6 weeks, David’s arduous struggle was 51⁄2 years in the making. He 

told this committee that for years he ‘‘lived in a world of despondency and desperation with a searing pain throughout my entire 

being. Everywhere he turned he saw an image of his abducted 

child.’’

I would note that David Goldman never quit, just like the current group of left-behind parents who have drawn inspiration from 

David Goldman’s success as well as his courage and his love, and 

I hope he provides a pathway for all of us on how we can replicate 

that success and bring American children home. 

Indeed, the lessons learned from David Goldman’s brave journey 

have been incorporated into H.R. 1940, the International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act of 2011. Specifically, the bill 

calls to establish an Ambassador-at-Large wholly dedicated to 

international child abduction, not unlike what we have done with 

trafficking and very similar to what we have done with international religious freedom issues, to establish a robust and fully 

resourced office. People in the office are doing a good job. They 

don’t have enough resources, I would argue, and enough people 

dedicated to do this work. 

It would also prescribe a series of increasingly punitive actions 

and sanctions the President and the Department of State may impose on a nation that demonstrates ‘‘a pattern of noncooperation’’ 

4

in resolving child abduction cases. Diplomatic overtures and admonishing words are simply not enough. 

I would note we would also chronicle the misdeeds or positive 

deeds of countries that have not been Hague signers so that we can 

get a better sense as to what they are doing and not doing. So the 

pattern of noncooperation would apply equally to Hague and nonHague countries alike. 

Finally, in reading Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell’s testimony—and I deeply respect him, and I thank him for being here—

I do remain concerned that, while expressing satisfaction that 

Japan may accede to the Hague Convention, the current 123 active 

cases involving 173 American children would not be covered by the 

treaty provisions. 

Patricia Apy, who testified at our May 24th hearing and was 

David Goldman’s attorney, has noted that Article 35 of the Convention provides, ‘‘This Convention shall apply as between contracting 

states only to wrongful removals or retentions after entry into force 

in those States.’’

So while I appreciate Secretary Campbell’s obvious empathy and 

compassion for the children and the left-behind parents and I am 

encouraged that efforts will be made by State to ‘‘resolve existing 

child abduction cases and allow parents currently separated from 

their children to reestablish contact with them and ensure visitation rights,’’ the exclusive emphasis seems to be only on ‘‘visitation 

and access’’ and not return. 

To that end, I and many others urge the Obama administration 

to negotiate a memorandum of understanding or a bilateral agreement with the Japanese to ensure that the 123 left-behind parents 

and counting, because that number is likely to go up, perhaps significantly, before it is ratified, are not left behind a second time, 

this time by treaty promises and provisos that won’t apply to them. 

Last week, I offered an amendment to the State Department reauthorization bill, backed by my good friend and colleague, Mr. 

Payne, and really the entire committee—Howard Berman spoke 

very positively of it, as did Chairman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen—that 

expressed a sense of Congress that ‘‘the United States by way of 

memorandum of understanding with the Government of Japan and 

through all appropriate means should seek the immediate return 

of all United States children wrongfully removed to or retained in 

Japan.’’

Delay is denial, and it does exacerbate the abuse of a child and 

the agony of the left-behind parent. Because the Hague Convention 

again specifically precludes its protections to all existing abduction 

victims, entry into force sans an MOU will likely produce or result 

in lost momentum and no return of current abducted American 

children. 

It is on behalf of left-behind parents and recognition of the extreme pain they suffer as victims and in recognition of our own 

duty as the U.S. Government that will bring these kids home that 

we hold this hearing today. 

Again, I want to thank our distinguished witnesses for being 

here, which I will introduce momentarily, but I yield to Mr. Payne 

for any opening comments. 

5

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Let me thank you for calling 

this very important hearing. 

I would also like to thank our distinguished witnesses for agreeing to testify here today. 

In May of this year, this subcommittee held a hearing entitled 

‘‘International Child Abduction: Broken Laws and Bereaved Lives.’’ 

During that hearing, we heard heart-rending stories from the parents of children who had been internationally abducted and who 

are still fighting for their safe return. This hearing follows up on 

the first by examining how we can improve the implementation of 

the Hague Convention on the civil aspect of international child abduction. 

As you know, the Hague Convention is the principal mechanism 

by the United States and other countries to enforce the return of 

internationally abducted children. A treaty of this nature has become increasingly important with the rise of both international 

travel and bicultural marriages. There are currently 86 parties to 

the Hague Convention, and in 2008 60 of these nations were parties to 2,326 cases involving 3,179 children. The overall return rate 

of these was 46 percent, with 27 percent court ordered. 

While the Hague Convention has served as an important tool in 

returning children to their legal guardians, there remains several 

areas in which the treaty inadequately or outright fails to protect 

the rights of parents. The most notable of these is the existence of 

nonsignatories to the treaty. These nations have made no commitment to respect the custody arrangements in other countries and 

therefore are unlikely to participate in the extradition of a child on 

those grounds. 

Japan, as the only Group of Seven industrialized nation to not 

sign the treaty, has become the focus of international child abduction cases in recent years. The United States has the largest number of children abducted in denial of access disputes with Japan, 

with a total of 123 cases involving 173 disputed children. Congress 

has recognized this problem and passed H.R. Res. 1326, which 

called on Japan to join the Hague Convention and to return American children. Both Ranking Member Smith and I were co-sponsors 

of that resolution, as has already been indicated. 

In May of this year, Japan announced that it would submit legislation to their Parliament to ratify the Hague Convention by the 

end of the year. While this is promising, Japan’s Parliament has 

been slow moving in recent years due to political turmoil, and because of the introduction of the legislation it does not necessarily 

mean that the legislation will be successfully passed during this 

session of Parliament. 

Should Japan sign the agreement, there will need to be changes 

in their domestic laws in order to reflect the values of the international community. In Japan, joint custody is not recognized, and 

it is almost always the mother that is given sole custody. Fathers 

often lose their right to access and are unable to contact their children. This practice will need to change if Japan were to follow the 

provisions of the Convention. 

While Japan is certainly receiving the bulk of the attention, of 

the 86 participating nations, only four are from East Asia—Hong 

Kong, Macau, Thailand, and Singapore. I am interested in hearing 

6

from the panel how Japan’s ratification of the Convention might affect the other nations in the region. 

Beyond the existence of nations that refuse to take part in the 

treaty are controversial provisions that do govern participating nations. For example, the Hague Convention makes an important distinction between the right to custody and the right to access. I look 

forward to hearing and learning from the panelists here today on 

how we can make the progress and the process of returning a child 

faster and more fair between States that have signed the treaty 

and how we approach cases where a nonsignatory State is involved. 

I look forward to hearing the testimony of the witnesses, and I 

will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Payne. 

Mr. Carnahan. 

Mr. CARNAHAN. Thank you, chairman and ranking member, for 

calling this hearing today, and to the witnesses. 

This is an issue that we need to be shining a light on. The 1980 

Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction is the principal international mechanism for the return of children. The Convention does not address the issue of child custody 

directly, but it does address how to determine the jurisdiction 

where a child custody dispute should be adjudicated. 

The American Bar Association and their Center for Children and 

the Law conducted a survey of parents whose children have been 

taken or retained by another country by another parent. The key 

challenges they cited that a parent faces when trying to locate and 

recover children abducted to foreign countries include lack of sufficient funds, difficulties with foreign laws and officials, difficulties 

with U.S. laws, judges inexperienced in handling international abduction cases, and inadequate responses by law enforcement agencies. 

The State Department has given us some numbers about the 

scope and size of this problem, including both Hague Convention 

and non-Hague Convention cases. The State Department Office of 

Children’s Issues reports a total of 1,495 custody and access cases 

in 2010, involving a total of 2,123 children. So this is an issue that 

we need to be hearing more about, how we can get this process to 

work better, and appreciate what you all are here to do for us 

today. 

I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Frank. 

Mr. FRANK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and ranking member, for 

giving me the privilege of sitting with this panel. Because, as you 

know, I have a constituent, Colin Bower, who is particularly concerned about this; and, of course, it is an issue that I am supportive of in general. 

I would say that we sometimes, I think, hold back in using our 

legitimate moral authority because we worry about somehow alienating other countries. Now, I want America to be reasonable and 

fair in its dealings with other people, but, as a general rule, it does 

seem to me that most countries in this world need us more than 

we need them. I don’t want to abuse that, but I think we sometimes assume that we can’t press hard because people will get mad 

7

at us. Well, if I were many of these countries, I would be more worried about America getting mad at them. And, again, I don’t say 

that to the extent that we should be bullies or that we should be 

overly aggressive. I do think, however, that a reasonable assessment of what the relationships are should allow us to press cases 

on their merits and not be held back by some fear that we will 

somehow lose influence. 

I have to say, and we were all around during the days of the 

Cold War, that I might have had some plausibility back then. I 

think even then it was overdone, but in today’s world I do not see 

any reason why American citizens seeking justice, especially in the 

most sensitive possible area, parents seeking justice with regard to 

their own children, I cannot think of a diplomatic reason in the 

cases I have seen that ought to retard our efforts. 

So I thank you for the extent to which you both, on a bipartisan 

basis, have allowed us to press this very important moral cause. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Frank. 

I would like to now welcome our two very distinguished witnesses, beginning first with Ambassador Susan Jacobs, who currently serves as Special Advisor in the Office of Children’s Issues 

at the State Department. Ambassador Jacobs has had a long and 

distinguished career in the Foreign Service in which she has served 

around the world, including in Papua New Guinea, where she was 

the Ambassador. She has also held a number of senior positions 

with the State Department in Washington, serving as a liaison to 

both Congress and the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, Ambassador Jacobs has recently visited Japan and participated in an international conference on the Hague Convention; 

and, without objection, her full resume ́ will be made a part of the 

record and that of Dr. Campbell as well. 

Dr. Kurt Campbell currently serves as the Assistant Secretary of 

State in the State Department’s Bureau of Asian and Pacific Affairs and has been in that position since June 2009. Dr. Campbell 

has broad experience working with the government, having served 

as an officer in the Navy, in the Defense Department, National Security Council, the White House, and the Treasury Department. 

The only thing left is to run for Congress. In his time outside of 

government, he has founded an advisory firm focused on Asia, 

worked on international security issues at the Center for Strategic 

and International Studies, and been a professor at Harvard. 

Ambassador Jacobs, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SUSAN JACOBS, SPECIAL 

ADVISOR FOR CHILDREN’S ISSUES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. JACOBS. Thank you very much. 

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Payne, and distinguished 

members of the committee, and Mr. Frank, thank you for holding 

this important hearing and for the opportunity to update you on 

the hard work of my colleagues in the Department of State in responding to this global threat to the well-being of children. I also 

want to thank my colleague, Assistant Secretary Campbell, for his 

deep personal involvement in this issue. 

8

The problem of parental child abduction is deeply important to 

Secretary Clinton, who demonstrated her commitment to children 

by appointing me as her Special Advisor for Children’s Issues last 

year. Tomorrow the Bureau of Consular Affairs and Assistant Secretary Janice Jacobs and Assistant Secretary Campbell will hold 

another town hall meeting with a group of left-behind parents, and 

this will be the sixth such town hall meeting to date. 

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Payne, your leadership and involvement 

in this area strengthens the U.S. Government’s message to foreign 

courts and central authorities in long-standing abduction cases. 

My written statement goes into detail about my role, the role of 

the Office of Children’s Issues, and the Department of State in general on this topic. Let me assure you that we are all committed to 

resolving current abduction cases, reuniting parents and children, 

and helping prevent future abductions. We strive to do what is in 

the best interests of children caught in these tragic situations. Case 

officers in the Bureau of Consular Affairs Office of Children’s 

Issues and Foreign Service officers at our Embassies and consulates overseas work hard to achieve this goal every day. 

Unless we succeed in returning a child to the United States, we 

have not been successful. As you know, we have abduction cases to 

both Hague and non-Hague countries. We work equally hard in 

both areas to return children to the United States. As this chart 

demonstrates, over the past 5 years, we are increasing our success 

in achieving returns from both Hague and non-Hague countries. It 

is interesting to note that the non-Hague return numbers have remained about the same, while Hague returns have steadily been 

increasing. Of course, the existence of the Hague Convention 

makes our work easier in some ways, but we often encounter other 

challenges. 

In non-Hague countries we rely on quiet diplomacy, knowledge of 

local conditions, and respect for local customs, and often less visible 

means to try to resolve an international abduction case. The Hague 

Convention remains our best hope of resolving international abductions. It is the first subject that I bring up with foreign governments during my travels on behalf of the Secretary. 

Parental abductions are tragedies that affect American families 

both in the United States and overseas. When a parent flees with 

a child across a State line, there is certainty that a court order 

from one State will be recognized in another. For a left-behind parent there may be stress and fear, but there is also belief in the 

American judicial system and the rule of law. 

When a parent takes a child across an international border 

under false pretenses, the left-behind parent is faced with the 

daunting task of navigating unfamiliar legal, cultural, and linguistic barriers. They suffer emotional trauma and face significant 

and long-term financial stress to reunite with their children. We 

are fully committed to serving left-behind parents and children who 

are the victims of this crime. 

Let me give you some highlights of what we have been doing 

lately. Today, the Office of Children’s Issues is one of the largest 

offices in the Bureau of Consular Affairs. We have almost a hundred people working on abductions. The growth of the office enables us to broaden our prevention activities, ensure consistently 

9

high standards of service, improve training, and engage more vigorously with other countries. It also allows us to monitor and improve our own compliance with the Convention. 

The Convention, although a successful operating agreement, is 

not a perfect instrument. Fostering compliance with the treaty is 

an ongoing challenge. Over the last few years, the Department has 

participated in numerous judicial conferences and met with officials 

from 23 countries. The efforts are paying off; and my written statement details improving relationships, but not perfect ones, with 

Mexico, Brazil, Switzerland, and Bulgaria. In non-Convention countries, examples of successful cases highlight how the Department 

of State can play an invaluable role in helping left-behind parents 

understand foreign laws and their options, and we can point to 

some recent successes in the Philippines and in Iraq. 

In conclusion, I want to assure you that we continue to develop 

programs and outreach to prevent abductions through increasing 

awareness of the issue. We work with other agencies, with nongovernmental organizations, we use social media in what we hope 

is a creative way, and we utilize our own consular affairs resources. 

Your support remains vital. We hope that Congress will extend 

visa ineligibilities for those who abduct or aid abduction to Convention countries as it now exists in non-Hague countries. We also 

hope that Congress will continue to support us in offering financial 

assistance to the Hague Permanent Bureau. Congressional interest 

remains crucial as we encourage other countries to join the Convention. 

Since accepting this challenging and rewarding position, I have 

met with many left-behind parents, some of whom are here today, 

and I have been deeply moved by their stories. I want to reiterate 

to them and to you that we will never forget our duty to serve each 

of our citizens and, most importantly our children; and I will be 

pleased to take your questions when appropriate. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Jacobs follows:]

10


67603a-1.eps
11


67603a-2.eps
12


67603a-3.eps
13


67603a-4.eps
14


67603a-5.eps
15


67603a-6.eps
16


67603a-7.eps
17

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Ambassador Jacobs. 

Dr. Campbell. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE KURT CAMPBELL, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF EAST ASIAN AND 

PACIFIC AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith; and let 

me join Ambassador Jacobs by just saying that we very much appreciate your compassion and your commitment to this incredibly 

difficult subject. Frankly, your activities have both motivated me 

and have given me a model for how to do my job. 

I also want to associate myself with my former Congressman, 

Congressman Frank. I think his perspective is at least the perspective that I try to use when undertaking the various aspects of this 

job. 

Let me just say that, as the Ambassador has indicated, this is 

a human tragedy that, unless you experience and have a chance to 

get to know these brave parents, it is just impossible to imagine. 

And I have been struck by their commitment, by their compassion, 

by a patience to try to keep at it even when I just—I can’t imagine 

how they go on, to be perfectly honest; and every single one of them 

has demonstrated the kind of courage that I am not sure I myself 

would be able to summon in such a circumstance. 

The first time I had a chance to meet with the parents was on 

a previously scheduled meeting with the parents. I had just been 

confirmed in my job, and I remember sitting down with them. We 

had our team at the State Department, and after about 15 minutes 

into the meeting, I just had to say, I was just woefully embarrassed. We just had not done a good enough job. We were not organized. We had not brought to bear the full capacities of the U.S. 

Government; and, frankly, we just apologized there on the scene 

and just said we have got to do a better job. 

That was about 21⁄2 years ago. Since then, we have put together, 

working very closely with my colleagues and in consular affairs, 

probably one of the most substantial task forces we have inside the 

U.S. Government that involve key officials from the White House, 

from the Justice Department, the Department of Homeland Security, various other legal groups around the U.S. Government, every 

aspect of the State Department, also linking in with my colleagues 

on a very regular basis in Tokyo. 

I will also say, Ambassador Jacobs’ job is primarily global. Mine 

is in Asia. The two countries we have worked most on over the 

course of the last 3 years are Japan and South Korea. And I am 

very pleased to say, although it has not come up, South Korea in 

January of this year agreed to accede, and they are well along in 

implementing language. And I will tell you that the steps they 

have taken are very impressive, and we often highlight them as a 

model for what we would like to see with respect to Japan. 

So I just want to underscore that we take this extraordinarily seriously. Every single meeting that Secretary Clinton has with her 

counterparts this comes up, every single meeting. Every meeting I 

have, this has come up. I have met with almost all of the key officials in Japan on numerous occasions, and I think, as has been 

pointed out, Congressman Smith, the most senior officials in the 

18

Japanese Government have indicated that they are going to sign 

the Hague Convention. 

Now, you know, I can understand why certain friends would say, 

well, that is a step, but it is not that impressive. You have no idea 

how hard it was to get to this point. And I will also underscore—

and you mentioned it a little bit in your testimony—it would be 

very hard to describe some of the cultural challenges that we face 

in a variety of different countries. It is not unusual in Japan after 

a divorce that a father will rarely, if ever, see their children. So 

this is an issue that is not simply a source of great concern for the 

United States, but I must tell you it is an issue that is gaining momentum in Japan as well, and we actually hope to use this campaign to help people understand what we believe are some of the 

deep problems associated with separating families in this way. 

So I just want to underscore that we did not do a good enough 

job, but what we are trying to do now is make sure all of our databases are completely up to date, very regular communications. 

When we get specific information about where we have dropped the 

ball—that is why they call it government, after all—we try to follow up, make sure that we are taking the appropriate steps to be 

responsive to these particular issues. And, to be honest, if I ever 

hear of someone at least that I have some responsibility over or I 

work with that doesn’t treat one of these parents with respect and 

doesn’t understand the nature of the tragedy that they are dealing 

with, we often will immediately look for a new assignment for that 

person. 

So I just want to underscore—and if I could suggest, Congressman, if you would like, we are going to have a long meeting tomorrow afternoon. I would welcome if you would like to come to part 

of that or a member of your staff. We would welcome it. Some of 

that is going to be—some of that will be just on executive business, 

but I would love for you to come, perhaps speak, and I have—I 

would welcome it. I think it would be a great thing; and, frankly, 

I need to underscore that bringing attention to this issue is important. 

I don’t want to go on too long, but I just want to make a couple 

other points, if I can, before we open it up to questions. 

Our most important relationship in Asia by an order of magnitude is with Japan. The U.S.-Japan security relationship is of utmost importance, and I stand really next to no man in terms of my 

commitment to this relationship. I will do anything to preserve a 

strong relationship between the United States and Japan because 

I believe it is in our mutual interests. 

One of the greatest sadnesses that I have in this relationship—

I have been to Japan over 200 times in the last 25 years, and I 

have talked to innumerable Japanese friends about this matter. 

Japanese people are a compassionate, wonderful people, and when 

they are educated and know about a topic, you can count on them 

to do the right thing. But I am struck again and again and again 

and again when we meet with Japanese friends and talk about 

these issues, the level of misunderstanding on these issues is profound, deep, and sometimes almost uniform. There is a view that 

these families are divided because of abuse, and there is not a deep 

19

recognition of some of the legal challenges that, frankly, we are 

coping with. 

And so no matter what we do going forward, and this will be an 

important part of the effort associated with the Hague Convention 

is an education campaign, and the area where I would like to see 

more support not only from the families and others, but I want 

very much for Japan to have a better sense of the human dimension here, and I am doing what I can to support this. 

I must just take a moment for kudos. The Ambassador that I 

have worked the most on this with is Ambassador Roos. No one has 

done more on this issue than Ambassador Roos, and he has made 

it his personal commitment and has met with all the organizations, 

many of the legal groups inside Japan to support this. 

And I will say that in many cases it is very hard to determine 

progress in life. We work on things for a long period of time, and 

it is hard to see progress. I have to honestly and modestly suggest 

that we have made real progress in the last 2 years. There is a big 

change under way in Japan, and we anticipate when the Japanese 

leader visits in September that we are going to see a big step forward, and that would not have been possible, frankly, without your 

leadership, Congressman, and without the passion and commitment of the parents behind me. 

I also want to say that there are a couple of people, young people, professionals, Todd Campbell and others, who have been relentless on this and who have also been seized by the importance 

of this. 

The signing of the Hague Convention, as you have indicated, 

Congressman, is in no way a first—just simply a first step or a last 

step. It has to be part of a process, and we have underscored in 

all of our conversations with Japanese interlocutors at the highest 

level that what we are concerned by is not just cases going forward, 

not just improving practices going forward, but retroactive, cases 

that came before or that come before the signing of the agreement. 

But here I must underscore to you—and I appreciate the information that has been provided to you—there are actually many 

cases globally where countries, particularly in Europe, once having 

signed the Hague Convention, then implement legislation or laws 

that allow us to deal with preexisting cases, and that we have 

made very clear with Japanese colleagues is important from our 

perspective. 

Now, the truth is we need a legal framework. We need an understanding of this issue that is global as a necessary first step. This 

is not easy work. It is painstaking. I also understand and appreciate the profound impatience. You want to get to this and try to 

see immediate progress on these specific cases. 

We have tried to underscore to Japan that even during this difficult period when they have some confusion in their government—

we have some of that ourselves—they are still determined to take 

the necessary steps. The legal changes in their canon of laws are 

quite deep, but their government appears prepared to take the necessary steps. And I must tell you, quietly, we have had a very significant dialogue with them about what we expect in the implementing legislation and how we will not rest until we see the kinds 

of changes that are necessary and that we will certainly not abide 

20

by loopholes or other steps that will, frankly, somehow negate or 

water down the essential provisions of the legislation as a whole. 

I would also like to say this very carefully and directly. We have 

not ruled out any other legal process. We have not ruled out anything in our overall approach. And I will also say quite directly, we 

have also explored certain aspects associated with the extradition 

process. I am not going to talk about that any more directly. I want 

to just simply underscore that we view every tool on the table with 

respect to resolving this important issue. 

I still think the process has gone too slow. I would like to see it 

speeded up. And, frankly, one of the most important things that we 

can do on this issue is to increase awareness in Japan and to make 

clear that Americans are a patient people, but we also have our 

limits, and that while our preference is to solve these issues in a 

way that deeply respects the national dignity, the cultural sensitivities of all involved, we do reach points in struggles where we 

have to look at other means, and we are approaching that situation. 

So I am hopeful that we are going to see the necessary steps very 

shortly. We are looking forward to a deeper process with respect to 

Japan on implementing language, and we also want to see specific 

progress on particular cases. 

With that, and I am sorry to go on so long, Congressman, I thank 

you for your opportunity to appear here today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Campbell follows:]

21


67603b-1.eps
22


67603b-2.eps
23


67603b-3.eps
24


67603b-4.eps
25


67603b-5.eps
26

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Campbell, thank you very much. 

And thank you both for your—and I said this in the outset—the 

strongest possible empathy and concern. There is no doubt about 

that. 

The key is how do we work out the best resource thing; and I 

know, Ambassador Jacobs, you mentioned some 100 people working, which leads to one I guess we call it oversight question. Back 

in 2000, I was the prime author of the Admiral Nance and Meg 

Donovan Foreign Relations Act of 2000. Section 201 of that Act directed the Office of Children’s Issues to report to each parent who 

has requested assistance at least once every 6 months on the current status of the abducted child’s case and the efforts by the State 

Department to resolve the case. Is that being done? Perhaps it is 

being done even more robustly than that. 

And, secondly, what is the average case count per Foreign Service officer? 

Ms. JACOBS. Thank you for that question. 

I am pleased to tell you that we are talking to the parents at 

least twice a year and more often when there is a change in the 

case. And, also, thanks to congressional oversight which limited the 

caseload to 75, most officers only have a caseload of about 65 cases, 

but we have teams of officers working on abductions with case assistance. 

So what you have done for us is to make it possible for us to 

have more information about the cases, to continue to do training 

to improve our professionalism, and to just keep on top of all of the 

issues that are involved. So I thank you for that. 

Mr. SMITH. One of the amendments that we were able to get into 

the foreign ops bill—it got pared down a little bit in conference, 

and the final wording was still, I think, very good—and that was 

to ensure that the left-behind parents knew that one good advocate 

or one course that they might choose if they wanted to opt in would 

be to contact their Congressman or Senators, or both, and I am 

wondering how that is being implemented. Are members being systematically advised, you know, observant of Privacy Act concerns 

and the like, when they have somebody in their district who is a 

left-behind parent? 

Ms. JACOBS. As far as I understand, when we open a case and 

the first time we talk to the left-behind parent, we tell them that 

they might want to contact their Senator or Congressman. Because 

we fully believe that your engagement really helps us. When Congressmen visit overseas and they raise these cases, it helps us tremendously to keep the momentum going forward in seeking a resolution to the cases, and we appreciate your help. 

Mr. SMITH. If you could maybe elaborate on that, how many Congressmen have been so notified. Because, again, members on both 

sides of the aisle—Mr. Frank is fighting tooth and nail to help his 

constituent. We all do that, and we think we do it well. We want 

to work in concert, as a team, to use your phrase, with the Department. But if we don’t know about it, we could travel to a country 

where somebody could be in the same city with an abducted child 

and have no clue unless we are somehow brought into the mix. 

Ms. JACOBS. As far as I understand the process, we tell the parents that they should contact their Congressman. We don’t do that 

27

directly, because, at that point, we don’t know if that is what they 

want to do. So if they do it and then congressional staff inform us, 

then we can track the case; and, if you are traveling, then we can 

give you points that you can use in these discussions. I mean, we 

want to be as helpful as possible, as transparent as possible, and 

give you the information you need. 

Mr. SMITH. What I am trying to get at is that—and the reason 

why I wrote the language which Nita Lowey accepted, and Kay 

Granger was actually the one who brought it to her at our request—was to say there is value added. We may be the other side 

of town and a coequal branch of government, but we do have caseworkers, and we do take this personally, and particularly members 

who, like Mr. Payne and I, on the Foreign Affairs Committee, the 

interface that we have with diplomats is every day, but if we don’t 

know about a case—so I hope it is being done very enthusiastically. 

Ms. JACOBS. It is done very enthusiastically, because we really 

need your help and support. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you a question with regards to reciprocity. One of the more disturbing issues is the lack of understanding that American judges rely upon with regards to reciprocity obligations in the treaty. How does an American judge 

know not to send a child for summer vacation, for example, to a 

country that has both been either noncompliant or exhibiting patterns of noncompliance? 

Ms. JACOBS. We have a network of Hague judges who do an 

awful lot of training, and I think that this is a concern that they 

would raise. Judges can also certainly call us, and we can provide 

information if they ask it. 

Unfortunately, we don’t always know when these cases are being 

held. So what we have to rely on is a lot of training, a lot of work 

with our Hague network of judges, and encouraging them to do a 

lot of training so that these issues are at the forefront. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask you, you know, I offered an amendment 

to the DOD authorization bill, and it largely came out of Paul 

Toland’s case, which I know you are well aware of, which is a 

heartbreaker and a very long case. He got very bad advice from the 

JAG. And I know there has been one meeting. Have there been additional meetings to get DOD in particularly Okinawa and some of 

the places where there is more likely to be this kind of abuse of 

children who have been abducted? 

Ms. JACOBS. Thank you for raising that. I appreciate it. 

We have been doing, since your amendment to the DOD bill, a 

lot of work on training with DOD. We have had meetings with the 

chief legal counsels of all five services, we have done some JAG 

trainings both in person and through webinars, and I think we are 

making some progress. And they have given us direct points of contact, as we have given them, so that they can communicate directly 

with us should they have any concerns about a case. Because I 

think military personnel are at risk for this. They are overseas. 

Mr. SMITH. Is this something that a status of forces agreement 

needs to incorporate? It seems to me that—and, Dr. Campbell, you 

very rightly point out in your testimony and orally—I mean, Japan 

is a great friend and strategic ally. They are key to both of our and 

their protection in that part of the world or security. And yet if, 

28

as is the case, several of our service members have had children 

abducted, and in the case of Paul Toland, he was in Yokohama 

when he was stationed there. It seems to me that the Japanese 

ought to be more forthcoming and say it is in their own interests 

to ensure that the courts are much more responsive than they were 

in his case and virtually every one of the other cases. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. One of the things that we have learned over the 

process—and, frankly, lots of help from the parents in this—is that 

I think in certain circumstances we have seen a culture of complicity in terms of providing passports sometimes in situations that 

were inappropriate, legal corners cut that would favor certain outcomes; and one of the things that we have tried to underscore is 

that we are looking carefully at every aspect of this. So one of the 

things that Susan has said is that, you know, there are the issues 

going forward and the issues that are pre-existing, and we are trying essentially to divide our time to ensure that we address both 

issues. 

For instance, changing the procedures under which passports are 

issued, Japanese passports in particular are issued, has been a 

source of enormous pressure that we are trying to bring to bear. 

Because, as it currently stands, although it is changing, it is possible to get a passport without appearing in person. 

Mr. SMITH. Yeah. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. And we have also indicated that steps that would 

somehow be taken that would facilitate such steps by someone with 

diplomatic privileges would be viewed very negatively by the 

United States, and we would lodge some formal and official complaints. 

Furthermore, the efforts that you are talking about, particularly 

in Okinawa and around Yokosuka, are well under way. There is 

much more knowledge and understanding, frankly, not simply for 

the Japanese but for American service members, who don’t often 

know the nature of their own legal rights and responsibilities. And 

so we have tried working with sort of Embassy consular and 

Janice’s good folks, working with JAGs, but not just JAGs, the 

leading commanders of our major bases both in Japan and Korea, 

so that there is a better understanding of the nature of some of the 

existing laws and some of the problems that a serviceman or 

woman might run into. 

Mr. SMITH. With regards to Michael Elias’ case, obviously, the 

Japanese Government said they were investigating. Had they concluded that investigation? Is she being held liable, criminally or 

civilly, in any way? 

I traveled with Michael Elias’ parents, and they would not even 

allow the taking parent for the grandparents to visit with Jade and 

Michael, Jr. The tears that were shed on that—and there are people in this room who have shed those tears every day, and it must 

be doubly hard at midnight to morning when the full weight of this 

abduction weighs upon their hearts. What can you tell us about Michael Elias’ case? 

And let me just say, and this will underscore, after I got involved 

with David Goldman’s case, people literally walked into my office—

Patrick Braden was one of those who is here as well, and his 

daughter Melissa was abducted. He remains very concerned about 

29

her welfare and well-being for reasons you know and I know as 

well, based on the case. 

We went over to the Embassy, couldn’t even get a meeting. And 

I will never forget this. It was her birthday that day, and a birthday cake was out, you know, on the sidewalk, candles were lit. We 

all sang happy birthday to his little daughter Melissa halfway 

around the world. 

The insensitivity was mind-boggling on the part of the Japanese 

Government. And you talked about sensitivity. Here is a man being 

deprived access to his daughter, and really custody ought to be 

given. 

The abducting case in, as we all know, Michael Elias, absolute 

fraud seems to have been perpetrated, duplicate set of passports 

created; and, of course, Toland and all the others, many of whom 

are here. I hope the Japanese Government gets that. This is not 

going away. It is only going to get worse in terms of congressional 

scrutiny. 

Two weeks ago, a group of parliamentarians were here from the 

Diet, and they asked that we withhold food aid to North Korea because of what? Abductions. And I am with them on the issue of abduction. Whether or not food aid is the proper way because of starvation that is massive in North Korea, I would argue it is not, but 

still their point about abductions, I agree 1,000 percent. Well, apply 

that equally to American left-behind parents. 

Let me ask a very specific question, two part, and then I will go 

to Mr. Payne for any questions he might have and then Mr. Frank. 

You point out that among the reasons that the court could reject 

the petitions, this is Japan, of course, and Dr. Campbell to you, 

would be—and I guess this is Article 33 B of the treaty—the taking 

parent has been abused or is likely to be further abused. I hope 

that we are insisting in our bilateral with them that this better be 

evidence-based and not just mere assertion. 

Secondly——

Mr. CAMPBELL. Of course, of course. 

Mr. SMITH. I am sure you are, but if you could just articulate, 

that would be helpful. 

Secondly, the taking parent faces criminal prosecution, and I 

know that very seldom is prosecutions—and you might want to 

speak to this—the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act 

does allow for prosecutions, but they are rarely done but you might 

want to speak to how often they are done. And it would be very 

helpful to know that and for Hague countries it is not done, but 

these are pre-Hague. 

And then the taking parent cannot make the financial cost of living in another country. It seems to me that is like a loophole that 

you could drive a Mack truck through. You can say I can’t buy a 

ticket, the taking parent, and it may cost too much and that becomes an opt-out. That would be rife with exploitation on the part 

of the taking parent if they were to be able to assert that. So I hope 

we are pushing back, and please speak to that. 

And finally, if you would, Dr. Campbell, if you could speak to the 

issue of a sidebar bilateral agreement and an MOU which, again, 

this committee went on record recently as last week calling for 

that. I hope that we do it on the full floor of the House. It seems 

30

that there may be no other way. I know your intentions are absolutely pristine and good, that maybe the atmosphere may open up 

the possibility. But I think the day that ascension occurs becomes 

a day that the left behind parents, whatever that number is on 

that day, is a day of mourning because it is more likely that the 

door just slammed right in their face. So if you could speak to that 

as well. 

Ms. JACOBS. Thank you for all those questions, and we will try 

to address them. 

In our discussions with the Japanese after they announced their 

intention to ratify the Hague Convention, we talked to them very 

specifically about taking reservations under section 139(b), which 

deals with domestic violence, and it was—I met with them. They 

sent delegation to the Special Commission of The Hague in June, 

and we had our side meeting with them about this and said how 

are you going to determine. And they said there would be a separate judicial hearing to talk about domestic violence before The 

Hague return hearing was held. And we made the point that there 

has to be provisions for the left-behind parent to be able to represent him- or herself at those hearings, and they agreed to that. 

I think that there will have to be significant changes in Japanese 

law. We just had one of our Hague attorneys visiting in Japan, 

doing training with them, and he made those same points, and 

they seem to understand it. So I am hoping that all of these things 

will—the efforts that we are making in training and discussions 

with them will make a difference and make the exceptions that 

they take livable. 

Now, many countries take exceptions to certain parts of the convention, as we did on providing free judicial assistance, and so we 

just have to make sure that the form of these reservations that 

they are taking doesn’t interfere with the real intent of the treaty 

which is to get the children back to the United States. 

Mr. SMITH. What about the other two provisions? 

Ms. JACOBS. Now, on the criminal aspect of it, the Hague Convention does envision civil remedies, and I think that if there is a 

return, I mean, that is the best way for it to be—I don’t know right 

now of any cases where—we are not—I mean, the State Department is not a law enforcement entity. So we have to rely on the 

FBI and then the FBI would have to go to Federal prosecutors to 

initiate a case. I am not aware that any cases are active right now. 

So I mean that—that isn’t to say that there could be cases that are 

in the works, and so that is not something that I can really respond to. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. If I could just be clear on that, Congressman, 

Ambassador Jacobs has been very careful here. I think that we 

would just simply say we are not ruling anything out and we have 

explored a lot of different options, and tomorrow in our private session we will be able to go over a little bit of that. But shall we say 

that we have looked at every case? 

We have also been involved in, shall we say, an education campaign. Some of the problems that we have, frankly, are local law 

enforcement who don’t fully understand some of the circumstances, 

and working with various regional law enforcement entities and judicial entities. We have explored a variety of options, and we just 

31

want to underscore—and in diplomacy, when you say you are not 

going to take something off the table, there is a very clear intent 

associated with that, and I would just like to stand by that if I 

may. 

Mr. SMITH. Here is the interesting thing, when you talk about 

the violence issue, if a court of competent jurisdiction in the United 

States had an enforceable order and allegations of violence were 

not asserted, of if they were, they were found to be infirm, does the 

court or would they contemplate that in Japan, they would take 

that all up like it is brand new ground or would, like in keeping 

with the spirit of the 1996 convention, look to enforce each other’s 

court orders? Because that is a major—otherwise it starts all over 

with a potentially false allegation of violence that has to be adjudicated all over again, and if you heard from David Goldberg’s case 

where there was no violence ever asserted but they used the courts 

or misused the courts for 51⁄2 long years and, you know, to the tune 

of $0.5 million on his part. 

Ms. JACOBS. The President signed the protection of a child convention in October, and we are exploring—I mean, we are working 

very actively with the Uniform Law Commission to figure out what 

implementing legislation we will need. This convention would be a 

great complementary convention to the abduction convention because it calls for recognition of foreign custody orders, and if there 

were a custody order, then we could present that and it would really eliminate so many problems. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. It is a huge deal. 

Ms. JACOBS. It would be done and so——

Mr. CAMPBELL. And that is our goal. That is our goal. Can I also 

say, Congressman, one other thing that we have tried to do—and 

again, thank the parents. Sometimes they come up with the most 

creative ideas and suggestions. And so in the immediate aftermath 

of this, you know, horrible tragedy, this, you know, tsunami, nuclear challenge that Japan has faced, some of the parents contacted 

us and said, look, you know, we are worried about the well-being 

of our family, of our children. And working closely with consular 

affairs, we made it so that every single one of those children could 

get a passport, American passport. Now, unfortunately that was 

not taken advantage of, but we are going to look to take creative 

steps both legal, procedurally, and the like. 

It is also the case, if I may say—and I want to be careful about 

this. We have, in the last many months, had a couple of other cases 

where we have made progress where the particular parent has 

been reluctant to put too much attention on it for fear that there 

will be backtracking, and so I do think we are starting to get a critical mass both inside the Japanese Government, certainly in the 

U.S. Government. 

And if I can just conclude with this one thing, Congressman. I 

mean, the biggest surprise in my job, when I was in the Pentagon 

at the lower level 10 years ago, I had a lot of people that were interested in foreign policy and a lot of, you know, issues. I don’t see 

very much of that today. I see a lot of insular congressional focus, 

even—and this is not just about American livelihoods, but it is also 

about how we interact with the world. 

32

I would love to have more people like you and Congressman 

Payne focused on this, but I don’t see as much as I would have anticipated. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, one way of doing that is reaching out to those 

Members of Congress, House and Senate, when there is an abducted—I mean, really tell them how much value-added that potentially could be. We would have more Members here, I think, if they 

had someone in their district who all of the sudden it becomes very 

real and very personal to them and if you could speak to—because 

you didn’t answer the question on that, the final question about the 

MOU. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yeah. I will say honestly, Congressman, almost 

every hearing is like this. So I don’t—I wish—I hope you are right, 

and I would like to see that, and I think we will take further steps, 

but I find in general—that is the general issue. 

We have had some discussions. From the Japanese perspective, 

it is a complete nonstarter, and the key here is the letter ‘‘U,’’ understanding. It requires a degree of partnership and engagement 

on the Japanese side. Their view is that we are going—we are addressing this according to your concerns. You have asked us to 

work on the issues associated with Hague. We have indicated that 

we need to see progress on existing cases, but on this particular 

issue, they are not prepared to go down this path. They said, look, 

we are better—we are better to focus on these other matters and 

think in many respects——

Mr. SMITH. Again, Madam Secretary, and Dr. Campbell, what is 

our position? Is it our position to push for an MOU in a bilateral 

agreement? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. If we could get an agreement with the Japanese 

Government to return these children, we would have gotten—we 

would have sought it years ago. 

Mr. SMITH. But are we pushing for that agreement at the highest 

level? I know we pushed for Hague, and kudos for that, but again, 

the day they sign is a bittersweet day for the left-behind parents 

because by definition they are excluded because it is often date of 

entry into force onward and the door closes behind them. I mean, 

the idea is that the Japanese should say all in, we are all in, we 

mean it, and it is a test of their sincerity, frankly. 

Ms. JACOBS. I think we have always pursued two tracks, both of 

which are incredibly important. One was getting these children returned to the United States and the other is Hague. And we are 

not going to give up on getting the children back to the United 

States, and we will figure out a way to do it. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. FRANK. Could I, Mr. Chairman, and I apologize but I have 

been—if you just give me 1 minute, Don. 

I have some questions I will submit in writing to Ambassador Jacobs because I can tell they are not going to be answered publicly. 

It has to do with law enforcement. I mean, I want to get to the 

issue—in some places, we have clear-cut violations of the law, and 

I understand you are not the FBI, but I am going to submit some 

specific questions both about extradition and about visa revocation 

for people who have been involved. 

33

But I would suggest, too, Mr. Chairman, I think probably this is 

an intracommittee thing, and I think it would probably be useful 

if this subcommittee, which has been the leader in this, would be 

to talk to our colleagues in Judiciary and have a joint confidential 

briefing of those of us who are interested, and let’s pursue the case 

of extradition. Let’s pursue the case of visa revocation letters. 

I understand I am not going to get public answers because I am 

talking about some period of actions against individuals, but I 

would be glad to participate, and I am sure our colleagues in Judiciary would, and we would ask for a private briefing so we would 

have no holds barred. And I just want to put people on notice, I 

want to know who you are trying to extradite and why not, if not, 

and what about visas and what about other very specific sanctions. 

Mr. Chairman and Mr. Payne, thank you very much for accommodating me. 

Ms. JACOBS. We would welcome that opportunity, sir. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. I know that there is a time 

constraint and the witnesses wanted to be out by 4 o’clock. So I see 

that if that is the case, I need to stop now, but I will be brief just 

in order for you to meet other commitments that you may have. 

I just might ask you, Ambassador Jacobs, as you note in your 

testimony, the Office of Children’s Issues in the U.S. Central authority for incoming and outgoing applicants pursuant to the 

Hague Convention. In 2010, the State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues reported 1,495 international custody and access cases 

involving 2,123 children. This is twice the number of cases reported 

in 2006, and if indeed we start to really circulate memorandums 

or Dear Colleagues asking Members of Congress, do you have any 

concerns and issues, we would certainly assume that there would 

even be a quantum leap in the number of cases. 

So my question is how is the budget, and as you may know, there 

are proposed cuts in this area. And do you—one, do you have the 

ability to handle the number of cases now in this U.S. Central authority to the children’s issue group, and with the expectation that 

there will indeed be a bump up just by virtue of their being more 

attention paid to this issue? We don’t want to raise expectations 

and then you be unable to handle the load. I just wonder if you 

could deal with that for a moment, Ambassador. 

Ms. JACOBS. Thank you for that question, sir. Because of the congressional limit on the number of cases that each officer can handle, we are able to hire to meet demand. The cases that are open 

are an accumulation from the last—these are all the open cases. 

The 1,491 children are the total cases that are still open over the 

years, and some of them—most of them are active and we try to 

talk to the parents, call them, make sure that they are still interested in pursuing a return. 

But we always—you know, if we had more money, we could do 

more training. We could do more outreach. I mean, there are a lot 

of good things that we could do with additional funding, as could 

the permanent bureau of The Hague. So we welcome your interest 

and we will call on you to help us. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. PAYNE. All right. Just another quick question. 

Although the United States, Ambassador Jacobs, criminalizes 

international parental child abductions, we know other countries 

34

do not, including several of the Asian Pacific region and that area. 

According to the State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues 

Web site, examples include Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, 

and Thailand. So I guess my question is, to what extent, in your 

opinion, criminalization, or criminalizing international parent-child 

abduction an important policy tool and what are merits and limitations as an effective means to prevent, combat, and punish international parental abduction? 

Ms. JACOBS. Thank you for that very difficult question. I think 

that I can understand why we have criminalized international child 

abduction. It is a crime. Other countries don’t do it that way. In 

discussions, for example, that I had in India, I was told that it is 

impossible for a parent to abduct their child. And if countries 

would join The Hague, then we could work on civil remedies. We 

would be able to use diplomacy in order to get these children back. 

Having the criminal remedy on the table, I think, makes it difficult 

for some countries to cooperate with us, but that doesn’t mean that 

we don’t keep pushing them to do what they ought to do. 

Mr. PAYNE. In that same regard, you know, evidently there are 

certain cultural differences around the world. That is an understatement. In some cultures evidently, the maternal part of the 

view of the family, just in general, that—or maybe just that a 

mother is the natural—if there is one parent, the natural movement is for it to be the mother. They are more compassionate supposedly; they will do a better job. It is the culture, in many instances, and so do—and either one of you could handle that. How 

much do you feel that there are just honest beliefs that their culture—I mean, I am not talking about criminality or anything, but 

just a normal divorce case, so to speak, in India or Malaysia, that 

culture would, do you think, have a way of creeping into the decisions, even if it is not intentional but it is just a matter of the culture? 

Ms. JACOBS. Thank you for that. I do think it is cultural, and I 

suggest to people that they watch Kramer v. Kramer which shows 

that a father can be a loving, caring parent, and can do just as 

good a job raising a child as a mother can. 

Mr. PAYNE. Even here in the United States in parental custody 

cases, you have almost got to be a Lady Simon Legree to not get 

the custody in a lot of instances. 

Ms. JACOBS. Unfortunately, I think there is that bias and it still 

exists in many countries. In the Middle East, it is assumed that 

the mother will raise the child until a certain age, and then the 

custody goes to the father, and that can be another difficulty. But 

there are biases and that is why we like The Hague because it 

eliminates gender bias, and it is based on habitual residence of the 

child and eliminates a lot of those issues. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Just two things, Congressman. These are excellent questions, but first, on the issue of the legal status associated 

with child abduction—and I think Ambassador Jacobs is clear that 

sometimes in certain circumstances, that it has created some challenges with other countries. But it is also the case that almost all 

countries have specific jurisdictional issues and assignments associated with kidnapping, and it is those set of issues on which we beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 14:50 Feb 23, 2012 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\072811\67603 HFA PsN: SHIRL
35

lieve that we can make substantial progress. That would be the 

first point. 

The second is that, would that it be just maternal issues. In 

truth, in many societies, it goes even further than that. There are 

both maternal issues and there are also ethnic issues that come to 

play sometimes that overcome maternal issues. And so these are 

very complicated, very deep seated and hard to tease out and also 

hard to confront sometimes. 

And to be perfectly honest, as the Ambassador indicates, there 

are many aspects of Hague that you would say, well, imperfect, but 

overall, it is a remarkably effective tool to address an issue that is 

going to grow in magnitude because the number of cross-national 

marriages has increased dramatically in the last decade, and will 

again in the next decade. 

Mr. PAYNE. Well, thank you very much. I think that it is important that we support international organizations like this, and I 

think that The Hague is the type that we would agree, although 

we are seeing somewhat of a growing move on some folks’ philosophies that we withdraw from international groups. And so I think 

that if that trend tends to continue, we are going to find ourselves 

at a disadvantage with things like The Hague, and in my opinion, 

most international organizations tend do much more good than 

some other times when they are not as effective as we would like 

them to be. 

But because of your time, I yield back and the chairman may 

have some other questions. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Just a few follow-ups. I thank you very, much, Mr. 

Payne, for your questions. If I could ask a couple of final questions, 

and I know you do have to leave, and I thank you for your patience. 

Left-behind parents have received conflicting reports as to 

whether their specific cases have been raised by name with Japan. 

One left-behind parent received a response to his inquiry that 

states the following, and I will just quote it. It is from an e-mail. 

We have the e-mail.

‘‘The State Department has not formally demanded the return of any abducted children. As you know, one of the challenges inherent in resolving parental child abduction cases is 

overcoming the differences in law between sovereign Nations. 

The policy of the United States Government is to use bilateral 

relations to press for ratification of, or compliance to, the 

Hague Convention and for non-Hague countries, such as 

Japan, to assist left-behind parents in obtaining access or return of their children.’’

Is this e-mail accurate? Do we raise specific cases with the Japanese, and do we then report to the left-behind parent as to what 

it is that was gleaned from those conversations? 

Ms. JACOBS. Yes, sir, we do. We do raise individual cases with 

the permission of the parents, and then we report back to them. 

Mr. SMITH. Is that done for each parent? 

Ms. JACOBS. It is up to the parent. I think some of the parents 

have asked us not to raise their individual cases. 

36

Mr. SMITH. So everyone who wants their case raised by name 

with the Japanese Government, and who are your interlocutors? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I am not a consular official, but I have been in 

many, many, many, many, many meetings where cases have been 

made directly at very high levels, and so it is very hard—I don’t 

know who that e-mail is from. I don’t know what it is referring to. 

All I can tell you is I have sat watching either our Ambassador in 

Japan or a consular official go through the particulars of a particular case, not with a—you know, with a legal person but a higher level political person in Japan in order to make an important 

point that these are not just faceless people, you know, just statistics, that we have real people behind these cases. 

Mr. SMITH. The person at OCI is Courtney Houk, and I am not 

sure what she means by has not formally demanded the return of 

any abducted children. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I don’t—I don’t know. I can’t——

Ms. JACOBS. We will find out, and we will get back to you. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I don’t know what she means. 

Ms. JACOBS. We will get back to you on that. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me, if I could, in your testimony, you point out 

123 active abductions involving 173 children. That is 17 more children just than just 21⁄2 months ago. Is that because more children 

have been abducted or new cases have just come into the office or 

what? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I think I can answer that, but one of the things 

that I think we found generally when we started looking at these 

cases is that the database was not uniform. A lot of cases had sort 

of fallen off, and so Janice’s organization, consular affairs, all of our 

people in Tokyo have made a concerted effort to contact every single person we can and try to figure out what are the active cases. 

It is my belief that those cases reflect a greater precision of what 

the nature of the existing pool is, not new cases in the last 3 

months. 

It is also the case that there are some families, some separated 

families that were not aware of some organizations, not aware, and 

because of publicity, again a good thing, that they have joined in 

this overall effort. So I think that is the primary—I don’t believe 

there has been any new cases of note over the course of the last 

3 or 4 months, not that I am aware of. 

Mr. SMITH. Just two final questions. Michael Elias’ ex-wife has 

denied any welfare or whereabouts—visits with the children. In 

that case, or in any other like it, what do we do next? He doesn’t 

even know——

Mr. CAMPBELL. I totally understand. I completely understand. I 

mean, there is several—I mean, very difficult case like this, Congressman, the truth is you have to work on many fronts. The first 

front is, again, try to establish the larger overarching legal framework, which is The Hague, establish the framework and then work 

on the corresponding implementing language. 

We press Japanese authorities who are in touch with various 

taking parents to very assertively make the case about—yes, can 

I just tell you I have just been informed and I apologize for this, 

that the nuclear crisis did cause some left-behind parents to get 

back in touch and we reopened some of those cases. So that—I 

37

think—that I think is what I was trying to say in terms of these 

are cases that have already been—that have been in the works or 

had been around for many, many years, but they are reopened because of the nuclear case, but I don’t think there has been anything 

new—not a new abduction. 

Mr. SMITH. Were the children minors throughout? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. I don’t know the nature, but I did want to give 

you accurate information on that. 

So let me just say that it is also the case that we find that many 

of the taking parents have legal counsel in Japan. There are a 

group of lawyers that specialize in Japanese law, what their rights 

are and how to use aspects of Japanese law. Almost all of the most 

difficult cases we have found, or many of them, involve legal advice 

that while technically accurate within the Japanese context is 

frankly extraordinarily unhelpful, and we have also asked Japanese authorities to look carefully at some of these activities as a 

whole. 

The truth is, Congressman, cases like this are just a tragedy and 

we are applying—I think we are trying to make clear to you—we 

are trying to apply every possible tool, including some legal issues. 

Now, the truth is we have made clear to Japanese colleagues and 

friends that we are going to look carefully at all avenues and that 

they need to understand the urgency and that outrage is growing 

on Capitol Hill, indignation, not just among the parents but a 

much broader group of the American people and the electorate and 

in the executive branch. And they have a chance to do this under 

the right conditions, right, in the spirit of partnership, of humanity, of a strong bilateral relationship. 

But ultimately, I come down where Congressman Frank indicates, that in a case where the clear-cut needs of American families 

come to play, then we are going to have to take a very hard look, 

and I must say, I am not ashamed about the steps that we have 

taken in support of the Japanese abductees, but I think our parents have a right to say, look, let’s expect the same thing in return. 

And we make that point in almost all of our meetings, very different circumstances obviously, but we want the same compassion 

and commitment from Japanese colleagues. 

Mr. SMITH. I will just conclude with this and throw it at you one 

more time on the bilateral agreement as to whether or not you 

would consider establishing a special court that would adjudicate 

these cases? I mean, this is a festering sore that will only grow, 

and I hope the Japanese Government understands it. We are close 

friends and allies, but this is a human rights abuse against American children and American left-behind parents. 

I will continue to push hard for H.R. 1940, and it is a matter of 

when and not if that I believe we will get that enacted, and I say 

that because there needs to be penalty phase. Friends don’t let 

friends commit human rights abuses whether it be human trafficking, religious freedom, or any other abuse. It is the Hague Convention, and its genesis shows clearly parental abduction is child 

abuse. It hurts the child, more than anyone else injures the leftbehind parent, but it hurts the child. I know you know that and 

I know you know that well. 

38

I do believe there needs to be a penalty phase at some point for 

a country, ally or not, that continues its obstinacy with regards to 

this. So I would ask you to—I am not sure who has made the decision to accept no as no, but if the Secretary of State, President 

Obama, if you, who deal with this issue every day, could work it 

to try to turn that no to a yes for a bilateral agreement, otherwise 

I have a sense of fright—and I talk, like you, to the left-behind parents. They sense when that door closes it will not create an atmosphere that will resolve the older cases. They will be grandfathered 

in as older cases, cold cases that don’t get resolved. 

There may be an exception somewhere, but I think human nature being what it is, time and delay is denial. Those children will 

grow. They will be 21, 30, who knows what it will be, they will get 

to see Mom or Dad then, but these are these years that are irreplaceable. 

So I ask you, please, push for that bilateral agreement, special 

court, call it whatever you want, or whatever modality you choose, 

but there needs to be a process and an agreement between our two 

countries. Otherwise, there needs to be a penalty phase, and because they are getting away with abduction. So if you want to respond to that. 

Ms. JACOBS. I don’t think the door’s ever closed to trying to reach 

an agreement on this. I think there are a number of ways that we 

can try to do it. One of them is in changes in Japanese domestic 

law that they will need to make anyhow in order to join—to ratify 

the convention, and we can encourage them to include the older 

cases in this ratification. 

Mr. SMITH. But, again, I would hope that President Obama 

would talk to the Prime Minister and say solving these cases—and 

it will take, I think, a mechanism—it won’t happen by just, say, a 

wave of the arm or the wand. So make that, you know, his major 

talking point in his next meeting. 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Let me just say we have had great success in—

Secretary Clinton has made this a major issue with her various 

meetings with the Japanese foreign minister, and we do agree that 

this has to be an issue that is raised at the highest level in our 

Government. It is also the case, frankly, that we underscore to 

Japan what a success story looks like, and the most recent one was 

really in the Clinton administration. 

We had a huge problem with Germany, lots of pressure. President Obama—President Clinton went, worked with the German 

Government. We now have a much, much better situation, and I 

will underscore that many of those preexisting cases were dealt 

with. 

And so we understand—I don’t know how else to say this, Congressman—that it is not enough just to work on going forward. It 

has to be—it has to involve the existing. When you say ‘‘preexisting 

cases,’’ it sounds so antiseptic—the ongoing crisis and the enormous challenge that these families are facing right now, and we expect that those issues will be dealt with. I don’t know how else to 

say it, and frankly, I really—every single possible thing we are 

doing right now, we are doing, at least at my lowly level I am 

doing. 

39

Mr. SMITH. As you know so well, every day of continued unlawful 

retention is another day of abuse. Mr. Payne. 

Mr. PAYNE. Just a quick closing comment. We have heard, and 

you talked about the great success breakthrough finally in Germany. We are at loggerheads here and Japan. So evidently, the 

countries where we have the largest number of these cases are 

countries where we have had military installations and marriages 

between U.S. GIs and the current population. 

Since we are having a 10-year war in Iraq and less than that in 

Afghanistan, I just wonder whether, is the nature of these rotations and wars and the manner in which war is conducted today 

different, and therefore, we don’t necessarily have to anticipate 

that 2 or 3 years from now we are going to see two additional countries where we are starting to come up with a lot of clashes and 

loggerheads? How is the current conflicts we find ourselves in, in 

your opinion, leading to the situation whether because of the difference in the manner in which we—war is waged, we may not 

have the same problem? 

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yeah. First of all, just two things, Congressman 

Payne. In truth, most of the abductions are to Canada and Mexico, 

just as a starting point; and secondly, the nature of the conflicts 

in Iraq and Afghanistan are such that there is not the kind of, you 

know, off-time fraternization mingling that we see in circumstances 

where you are at peace but living, you know, in another country 

and out on the economy. So I don’t anticipate this problem in many 

places, for a variety of reasons, in the Middle East. Okay. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. I want to thank our distinguished witnesses, Dr. Campbell and Ambassador Jacobs, for your testimony. 

Look forward to working with you going forward. 

I do ask unanimous consent that members of the subcommittee 

have 5 days to revise and extend their remarks and submit—and 

we will submit some additional questions. Mr. Payne might have 

some additional ones as well on a number of other countries that 

we have concerns about. So I thank you and this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:35 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(41)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

42

f


67603n.eps
43

f


67603m.eps
44


67603c-1.eps
45


67603c-2.eps
46


67603c-3.eps
47


67603c-4.eps
48


67603c-5.eps
49


67603c-6.eps
50


67603c-7.eps
51


67603c-8.eps
52


67603c-9.eps
53


67603c-10.eps
54

f


67603c-11.eps
55


67603d-1.eps
56


67603d-2.eps
57


67603d-3.eps
58

Æ


67603d-4.eps