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

93–424 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 113–574 

INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey, Chairman

BARBARA BOXER, California 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

JEANNE SHAHEEN, New Hampshire 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

TOM UDALL, New Mexico 

CHRISTOPHER MURPHY, Connecticut 

TIM KAINE, Virginia 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

BOB CORKER, Tennessee 

JAMES E. RISCH, Idaho 

MARCO RUBIO, Florida 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JOHN McCAIN, Arizona 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

DANIEL E. O’BRIEN, Staff Director

LESTER E. MUNSON III, Republican Staff Director

(II)

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Allen, Ernie, president and chief executive officer, International Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children, Washington, DC ............................................ 17 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 19 

Braden, Patrick, chief executive officer, Global Future: The Parents’ Council 

on International Children’s Policy, Los Angeles, CA ........................................ 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Information Provided by Global Future, the Parents’ Council on International Children’s Policy ............................................................................ 89 

Web Links to Additional Information on Parental Child Abduction ............ 93 

Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee .................................................. 2 

Goldman, David, cofounder and director, Bring Sean Home Foundation, 

Lincroft, NJ .......................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 26 

Hunter, Noelle, Ph.D., parent of an abducted child, Morehead, KY ................... 37 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Jacobs, Hon. Susan, Special Advisor for Children’s Issues, Bureau of Consular 

Affairs, U.S. Department of State, Washington, DC ......................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 5 

Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from New Jersey ...................................... 1 

Responses of Special Ambassador Susan Jacobs to questions submitted 

by Senator Robert Menendez ....................................................................... 50 

Responses of Ernie Allen to questions submitted by Senator Robert 

Menendez ....................................................................................................... 54 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Responses of Ambassador Susan Jacobs to questions submitted by Senator 

Edward J. Markey ................................................................................................ 62 

Additional statements: 

Senators Benjamin L. Cardin and Barbara A. Mikulski ............................... 64 

Edeanna M. Johnson-Chebbi ........................................................................... 65 

Lauren Thorley ................................................................................................. 69 

Brian Stephen Childers .................................................................................... 69 

Dennis Burns .................................................................................................... 71 

Peter Thomas Senese ....................................................................................... 72 

Paul Toland, Jeffery Morehouse, and Randy Collins .................................... 94 

Paul Toland ....................................................................................................... 94 

Jeffery Morehouse ............................................................................................ 95 

Stanley Charles Thorne ................................................................................... 96 

Bindu Philips .................................................................................................... 103 

Review of Acculturation Psychology Research ...................................................... 105 

(III)

(1) 

INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL 

CHILD ABDUCTION 

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, Washington, DC. 

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:15 a.m., in room 

SD–419, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Robert Menendez 

(chairman of the committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Menendez, Boxer, Corker, and Johnson. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW JERSEY 

The CHAIRMAN. Good morning. This hearing will come to order. 

Let me welcome our panelists. Thank you for being here to help the 

committee better understand the scope and nature of the tragic 

problem of parental child abductions around the world and what 

we can do to change the dynamic. We look forward to your perspective on the international implementation of the 1980 Hague Convention on Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and on 

the effectiveness of our government’s efforts to bring these children 

home. I am particularly interested in what we can do to help the 

parents of these children and what new tools may be available to 

prevent more abductions in the future. 

Each year over a thousand children are abducted from American 

homes and taken to a foreign country. Too often, they are permanently out of reach of U.S. law and are never returned. It was 

David Goldman’s extraordinary 5-year battle to bring his son, 

Sean, home from Brazil that helped highlight the horrendous problem of international parental child abduction. David Goldman, who 

will be on our second panel, is from New Jersey, which brings this 

close to home for me. But far too many parents have waited far too 

long for the return of an abducted child and David has helped focus 

the world’s attention on the heartbreak of child abduction. 

As a parent, I can only imagine the emotional toll of having a 

child abducted and taken abroad, and being helpless to try to bring 

the child back. That is why we are here today: to learn what more 

we can do to bring these children home. 

Also today with us from New Jersey is Bindu Philips, who lost 

her twin sons, Albert Philip Jacob and Alfred William Jacob. Their 

father, Sanil Jacob, took the family to India on an impromptu vacation and kept them there against their mother’s wishes. For 5 

years Bindu Philips has fought legal battles, and the case has been 

pending for 4 years before the Supreme Court of India. The New 

2 

Jersey Supreme Court has given Bindu Philips legal and residential custody, but the court’s requests have been ignored. The fact 

is India is not a signatory of the Hague Convention. As of now, the 

case has not been resolved. 

The U.S. Senate ratified the Hague Abduction Convention to create a civil framework for the quick return of abducted children. 

But, though the Convention has helped to return many children, it 

is by no means foolproof. In countries that are a part of the Hague 

Convention, 73 percent of abducted children are returned. 

But if a child is abducted to a country that does not participate 

in the Convention, the rate of return of children is 27 percent. And 

at the end of the day, the rate of return of abducted children 

should be 100 percent. 

Today we hope to gain insight into how we can move toward that 

mark, how we can do more to prevent there from being safe havens 

anywhere in the world for those who abduct children, and how we 

can better assist parents in bringing abducted children home, 

where they legally and rightfully belong. 

As part of that effort, this committee is looking at legislative options and is now reviewing language. My hope is that we can make 

the House-passed Goldman bill even better by bolstering prevention options so that children are less likely to be abducted in the 

first place. 

With that, let me turn to Senator Corker, the distinguished ranking Republican on the committee, for his remarks. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM TENNESSEE 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In particular, I like 

the way you ended your comments there. I think there are some 

preventative things that can be done and I appreciate the way all 

of us are thinking that way, and especially your comments and for 

having this hearing; and to our witnesses, who I know have very 

compelling stories today. 

Child abduction is a difficult emotional issue by itself, but the 

challenges of international child abduction, where a parent is responsible for the abduction, make it both heartbreaking and very 

complicated to address through diplomatic and legal channels. The 

United States has ratified, as the chairman mentioned, the Hague 

Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. 

And while I believe the State Department is willing to recognize 

that it is effective to some degree, my understanding is the Department also sees some real limits to the Convention. 

Both the State Department and the Justice Department have 

their respective ways for addressing these abductions. The State 

Department has diplomatic tools to engage foreign governments, 

and the Justice Department has law enforcement tools to bring 

law-breaking parents back to the United States. These methods 

have their limits and we have some experts and parents here today 

who can talk us through some of the limits and how we in Congress might address them. 

I hope this committee will take a sober, 360-degree view of the 

broader problem of international abduction and see how we can 

3 

better use the tools we have and consider adding tools that we 

might also need to bring more kids home. 

Thank you very much. I know a number of the witnesses today 

have been pushing this weekly and I thank them for their diligence 

and understand their great concern. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Our first panel of the day is Ambassador Susan Jacobs. She is 

a leading voice on this issue and is the Special Advisor for Children’s Issues at the State Department. So, Ambassador, welcome. 

We look forward to your insights. Your full statement will be included in the record without objection and we would ask you to 

summarize it in 5 minutes or so, so that we can proceed to a dialogue with you. With that, Ambassador, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN JACOBS, SPECIAL ADVISOR FOR 

CHILDREN’S ISSUES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you very much, Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, Senator Johnson. Thank you very 

much for this opportunity to explain the Department of State’s 

work on behalf of children and families affected by international 

parental child abduction. As you well know, there are not many 

issues in which there is consensus in Washington. However, on this 

issue the Department of State and the Congress share the goals of 

preventing international parental child abduction, expeditiously returning children to their homes, and strengthening and expanding 

the Hague Abduction Convention. 

Every abduction case is difficult and extremely painful for all of 

those involved and I am lucky to have a terrific team solely dedicated to this issue. However, we know that the status quo is not 

enough. We are constantly identifying new ways to strengthen our 

bilateral relationships in an effort to resolve individual cases and 

to generate changes that will positively impact all future cases. We 

welcome additional tools to help us resolve abduction cases and we 

look forward to continue working with you on legislation to this 

end. 

I was appointed special advisor for Children’s Issues in 2010 and 

I have to say that one of the most heartbreaking issues that I work 

on involves children who are abducted and wrongfully separated 

from a parent. I know that many Senators have tried to help parents in their States reunite with an abducted child and we have 

all seen the frustration and the pain firsthand and we all want to 

help. 

There is no one way to resolve an international parental child abduction. We are working to address a problem that is viewed and 

handled differently based on the country involved and its laws pertaining to child custody. 

The hardest part of my job is when parents have tried everything 

to effect the return of their child with no success. My experience 

in working with these cases is that the Hague Abduction Convention is the best way to resolve them. The Convention is a critical 

tool that deters abductions from taking place, provides a civil remedy for resolution, mandates prompt action, and encourages voluntary solutions. 

4 

Since the treaty entered into force for the United States in 1988, 

the Department has aggressively promoted ratification of, and accession to, the Convention throughout the world. In the last 2 years 

the Department has reviewed and the government has accepted 

four new Convention partners: Singapore, Morocco, Trinidad and 

Tobago, and the Republic of Korea. 

In addition, we are very pleased that on January 24 of this year 

Japan took the final steps to ratify the Convention and will become 

a treaty partner on April 1. This is a critical step in the effort to 

ensure that future abductions to Japan have the possibility of resolution through the Convention. Our discussions with the Japanese 

about the Convention have led to some positive changes in their 

government’s engagement in abduction matters across the board 

and we will continue to engage them on resolving the existing cases 

in the spirit of the Convention. We have made it clear to the Japanese that these cases will continue to be a priority for the United 

States Government. 

While we continue our work to expand the Convention, we are 

also closely monitoring our current treaty partners to ensure that 

they are meeting their responsibilities under the Convention. We 

utilize several diplomatic tools to address compliance concerns. We 

have the highest number of cases with Mexico and Mexico has 

transformed in the last few years from a very problematic country 

to a productive Hague partner. This is the direct result of Departmentwide efforts to cultivate relationships with key Mexican Government officials, and due to these efforts in each of the past 4 

years more than 150 abducted children have returned from Mexico. 

This is significantly higher than in any previous year. 

For non-Hague countries, where there are generally no laws that 

would compel the return of an abducted child, we pursue highlevel, intense, sustained diplomatic engagement to communicate 

the U.S. position on abductions and to press for the return of abducted children. We also ultimately want these countries to join the 

Convention so in the future there can be a direct path to resolving 

these difficult cases. 

Because non-Hague countries lack the legal framework that 

judges need in order to return a child, parents do not have as many 

good options. Without the Convention providing this legal framework, there is very little that foreign governments can or will do 

to return children absent a court order from that country. We have 

found that diplomacy is the most effective strategy for shifting cultural and political ideologies that are necessary to engender 

changes in the law. In countries that are not yet treaty partners 

under the Convention, diplomacy remains the most effective means 

of generating greater bilateral cooperation. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, distinguished members 

of the committee, the Department supports efforts to strengthen 

prevention programs, enhance diplomatic efforts, and speed up the 

resolution of these cases. We look forward to working with you on 

achieving our shared goals and giving these children and their families the support they deserve. I will be very happy to answer any 

of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Jacobs follows:] 

5 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF AMBASSADOR SUSAN S. JACOBS

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and distinguished members of the 

committee, thank you for the opportunity to address you today regarding international parental child abduction (IPCA), a matter of critical concern affecting the 

well-being of many children and families. 

The Department of State (the Department) appreciates the ongoing interest and 

support on this issue from Members of Congress, and we look forward to working 

with the committee to identify new ways to strengthen relationships with other 

countries to expeditiously resolve these difficult cases. We appreciate the efforts and 

interest of Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and the many Members 

who advocate in support of their constituents. 

The shared goals of the Congress and the Department are to prevent IPCA, return children expeditiously to their countries of habitual residence, and strengthen 

and expand membership in the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of 

International Child Abduction (the Convention) worldwide. We appreciate the committee’s willingness to collaborate with the Department to achieve these objectives. 

However, we know the status quo is not enough. We would welcome additional tools 

to help us resolve abduction cases, and look forward to continue to working with 

you on legislation. 

The Department continues to make great strides in engaging foreign governments 

both bilaterally and multilaterally to foster diplomatic relationships. These efforts 

and these relationships have proven critical to achieving the successful return of 

internationally abducted children. In the past 2 years, the Department has reviewed 

and the U.S. Government has accepted four new Convention treaty partners: Singapore, Morocco, the Republic of Korea, and Trinidad and Tobago. In addition, on January 24, 2014, Japan deposited its instrument of ratification of the Convention; the 

treaty will automatically enter into force between the United States and Japan on 

April 1, 2014. The Department welcomes Japan as a treaty partner, and we look 

forward to continued progress with the Japanese Government on resolving existing 

cases in the spirit of the Convention. 

We have found that the Convention is the best tool for resolving IPCA cases. It 

is a multilateral treaty that provides protection for children from the harmful effects 

of abduction and wrongful retention across international borders. However, I want 

to be clear—the Convention is not a tool for custody determinations. It provides a 

legal framework for securing the prompt return of wrongfully removed or retained 

children to the countries of their habitual residence where a competent court can 

make decisions on issues of custody. 

With more countries joining the Convention, the Department is committed to 

ensuring all current and future treaty partners meet their responsibilities under the 

Convention. We look forward to working with Congress to identify the means to do 

so. 

EFFICACY OF THE 1980 HAGUE ABDUCTION CONVENTION

The United States played an active role in drafting the Convention with the objective of facilitating the return of internationally abducted children. The Convention 

entered into force for the United States in 1988. Since then, the Department has 

aggressively promoted ratification of, and accession to, the treaty and the effective 

implementation of the Convention. We now have 72 partner countries. 

In 2013, more than 1,000 children were reported abducted from or retained outside the United States. In the Department’s experience, the ability of a parent or 

legal guardian to secure a court-ordered return is much greater in a country that 

is a Convention partner. For example, in 2013, 113 children returned from Convention partner countries as a result of a court order in a Hague proceeding. From nonHague countries during the same period, the Department is aware of only two children, in the same family, who were ordered returned to the United States as a 

result of court proceedings under the domestic law of that country. An additional 

402 children returned from both Convention and non-Convention countries as the 

result of a voluntary agreement between the parents. 

In a recent case, a mother abducted her child to the United Kingdom in October 

2013, and the Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs’ Office of Children’s Issues 

worked with the left-behind father to forward his Convention application to the U.K. 

Central Authority (UKCA). The UKCA assigned a solicitor to the case within 48 

hours of receiving the application, and a Hague hearing was held in November 2013. 

After the hearing, the court ordered the return of the child to the United States, 

and the Office of Children’s Issues coordinated the logistics of the child’s return with 

the UKCA. This child returned to the United States within weeks of filing the 

Hague application with the UKCA. 

6 

The Convention entered into force between Singapore and the United States in 

May 2012. In a case last fall, a concerned father contacted the Office of Children’s 

Issues in September 2013 to report that the taking parent no longer planned to 

return to the United States with their child as originally agreed. The father’s attorney in Singapore filed a Hague petition in the Singapore Family Court, requesting 

the prompt return of the child to the United States. The Office of Children’s Issues 

was in close contact with the father and provided him with timely information and 

resources during this difficult time. Simultaneously, we worked closely with the 

Singapore Central Authority during each step of the process. The U.S. Embassy in 

Singapore also remained engaged. Utilizing the Convention framework, the court 

ordered the child’s immediate return to the United States within weeks, and the 

father and child were reunited in November 2013. Prior to the establishment of a 

treaty relationship, cases with Singapore took years to resolve, if they were resolved 

at all. This is the result we hope we can bring to more and more cases as we continue to grow our relationships with other countries. 

MEXICO: AN EXAMPLE OF EVOLVING COMPLIANCE

Decades of experience demonstrate that the Convention is the most reliable and 

expeditious tool to return abducted children because it provides a uniform, civil 

legal framework for parents to seek the return of their children. While some countries initially struggle to implement the Convention effectively, we find that persistent diplomatic engagement, combined with technical assistance, improves implementation. The country where we have the highest number of cases is Mexico, 

which has transformed over the past few years from a problematic to a productive 

Hague partner and a model for other countries in the Western Hemisphere. The 

Department did not cite Mexico as ‘‘not compliant’’ in the April 2012 or 2013 Convention Compliance Reports to Congress for the first time in 13 years. The problems 

in Mexico during this period included lengthy delays in court proceedings, a lack 

of ability or commitment by law enforcement to locate missing children, and significant delays in processing Hague applications by the Mexican Central Authority. In 

order to spur improvement in Mexico’s compliance, the Bureau of Consular Affairs 

led a Department-wide effort to cultivate relationships with key Mexican government officials and encourage them to put in place measures to ensure better compliance. The U.S. Embassy, including the Ambassador, was actively engaged in these 

diplomatic efforts. Mexican authorities committed additional resources to their 

chronically understaffed Central Authority, giving them the capacity to improve 

case management. At the working level, we have transformed our relationship from 

one involving irregular formal correspondence to a cooperative relationship with 

country officers communicating daily with their Mexican counterparts to move cases 

forward. 

Mexican authorities now locate more children and courts have shown marked 

improvement, processing Convention cases more quickly. More children are being 

returned to the United States by court order or voluntary arrangements than ever 

before. In each of the past 4 years, more than 150 abducted children have returned 

from Mexico (including 250 in 2010). This is significantly more than any previous 

year. More than 200 of these children returned by court orders in Hague Convention 

cases. By contrast, during the previous 4 years, only 85 children returned from Mexico pursuant to a Hague Convention court order. 

We are working with our Mexican counterparts to make progress on resolving 

longstanding cases. While in years past Mexican law enforcement agencies were 

uncommitted to locating missing children, Interpol Mexico has now begun focusing 

on these cases, with positive results. In each of the last 3 years, there has been a 

reduction in longstanding unresolved return applications cited in the Compliance 

Report to Congress. We anticipate that this will be true for the 2014 report as well. 

The focus on resolving older cases has resulted in at least 30 cases of courtordered returns in the last 3 years in cases where the children had been retained 

in Mexico for more than 3 years. Mexico has also made progress in handling new 

cases more efficiently. The Mexican Central Authority now processes cases internally in days or weeks instead of taking several months to move cases on to the 

courts. Courts are also improving; during the past 3 years, we have seen 12 cases 

where the time from sending the Hague application to Mexico and the return of the 

children by court order was less than 10 weeks. 

Overall, in the Office of Children’s Issues, the number of open international child 

abduction cases to Mexico has dropped by more than 50 percent in the last 4 years. 

In June 2010, we had 566 open cases in Mexico. Today, we have less than 260. The 

number of abductions to Mexico reported to the Office of Children’s Issues is down 

by about 35 percent since 2008. This is due not only to enhanced prevention efforts 

7 

but also to our improved bilateral relationship with Mexico that has made addressing compliance concerns a top priority. 

Despite these improvements, we have not lost focus on the fact that children continue to be abducted to Mexico every week and many parents still must wait far 

too long to be reunited with their children. We will continue committing significant 

resources to Mexico, and will keep working to build on the gains of the past 4 years. 

THE CHALLENGE OF NON-CONVENTION REMEDIES

In cases where the return remedy of the Convention is unavailable, the Department believes that diplomacy is the best strategy for pursuing the return of the 

child and for encouraging ratification of or accession to the treaty. 

Many foreign courts do not recognize and enforce U.S. court custody orders. We 

are prohibited by federal law from providing legal advice in individual abduction 

cases and therefore we always encourage parents to consult with an attorney before 

taking any action. However, our country officers work closely with parents to provide them information about options they have to pursue custody in a foreign court 

or to otherwise encourage a parent to return a child, including use of visa ineligibility and law enforcement channels. Although the Department routinely requests 

assistance from foreign governments to facilitate the return of abducted children or 

to assist consular officers in verifying the well-being of children, most governments, 

including the U.S. Government, are limited legally in what they are permitted or 

obligated to do. The Convention helps define those permissions and obligations. We 

find that developing strong diplomatic relationships with governments is the best 

way to obtain assistance to our requests to the furthest extent allowed by the country’s laws. 

THE ROLE OF DIPLOMACY

We saw the diplomatic process work with Germany in the late 1990s in response 

to the Department’s determination that Germany was noncompliant with the Convention. The Bureau of Consular Affairs headed a major effort to engage bilaterally 

with Germany, with Presidents Clinton and Bush raising the issue with the German 

Chancellor. As a result, Germany revised its domestic laws, ensuring its courts 

could better comply with the Convention and law enforcement could better enforce 

Hague return orders. Today, Germany is one of our strongest bilateral partners and 

a model for other countries. 

We meet regularly with our Convention partners to exchange information and to 

advocate for effective treaty implementation. Across the board, we have achieved 

positive results that impacted existing and future cases, mutual understanding, and 

strong partnerships for seeking resolution to the international problem of child 

abduction. 

Diplomacy is the most effective strategy for generating the cultural and legal 

reform needed to institute changes in countries’ domestic laws that will successfully 

address IPCA. In countries that are not yet treaty partners under the Convention, 

diplomacy remains the most effective means of generating greater bilateral cooperation that can lead to a country’s accession to or ratification of the Convention or 

to resolution of an abduction case. The contacts that the Bureau of Consular Affairs 

develops through consistent diplomatic interactions and greater awareness about 

the Convention have also resulted in increased attention, including from the Congress, to the existing cases that fall outside the Convention framework. 

Without the Convention providing a legal framework for parents to seek the 

return of a child, there is very little foreign governments can do to return a child 

abducted across an international border absent an order from a court in that country. In nations with independent judiciaries, including our own, the executive 

branch generally has no power to compel the courts to take specific action in individual cases. We look forward to working with the committee on better tools to help 

resolve more cases and generate better compliance. 

Thanks to Congress and the good work by this committee we have increased our 

staffing—the Office of Children’s Issues is now able to focus on bilateral, multilateral, and policy work aimed at encouraging cultural, political, and legal changes in 

nonpartner and partner countries to facilitate progress toward joining and improving compliance with the Convention. These include the very bilateral relationships 

that proved so crucial to our success in addressing compliance concerns with Mexico 

and Germany. 

When the Convention is unavailable, the Department exhausts all appropriate 

steps to seek the return of these children. In these instances, the Office of Children’s 

Issues works closely with left-behind parents to provide information about domestic 

and foreign resources that may help parents to resolve their children’s cases. We 

8 

raise individual cases with foreign governments, requesting through diplomatic 

channels that they help to facilitate the return of abducted children to the United 

States and assist parents to obtain access, confirm their children’s welfare, and 

understand their options. We monitor legal proceedings as a case unfolds in court, 

attend hearings when appropriate, engage child welfare authorities, advocate for 

consular and parental access, coordinate with law enforcement authorities when 

competent officials choose to pursue criminal remedies, and work day-to-day to 

explore all available and appropriate options for seeking abducted children’s return 

to their countries of habitual residence. We know this is extremely difficult for the 

families so we do everything we can to keep them informed of our efforts and the 

different tools we use to return their child. 

IPCA COUNTRY STRATEGIES: OUR VISION FOR THE FUTURE OF IPCA

The Office of Children’s Issues realizes that concentrating only on individual cases 

will not generate the necessary systemic changes in foreign legal systems that promote the return of abducted children. To ensure that actions and outcomes in individual cases inform how we interact bilaterally with the foreign government on 

future cases and on policy matters, we have initiated a country-by-country review 

of political, social, and legal structures to identify the barriers that currently 

obstruct our efforts to return abducted children—or, in some cases, to identify those 

policies that are working and worth emulating in other countries. Crafting longterm strategies to influence the behavior of foreign government officials allows us 

to address common trends of noncompliance and noncooperation that often run 

throughout multiple cases in a particular country. By strategically planning how we 

will pursue the removal of these obstacles, we have also rendered our individual 

case management efforts more productive and moved forward with our policy 

objectives. 

Our country-specific strategies will be our roadmap for addressing future abductions. For example, Japan has been one of the most intransigent countries regarding 

IPCA cases for many years. Japan’s decision to ratify the Convention opens a new 

chapter in its approach to IPCA. Historically resistant to the idea that access to 

both parents is usually in a child’s best interest, Japan had a wide cultural and 

legal gulf to cross as it ratified the Convention. While Japan has demonstrated its 

intent to implement the treaty effectively, like most new Convention countries it 

will likely encounter cultural and legal challenges during the early stages of implementation. By fostering a close working relationship with Japan’s Central Authority 

and encouraging Japanese judges to seek training and technical assistance for 

applying the Convention, the Department looks to ensure that Japan will effectively 

implement the Convention. 

India is second only to Mexico in the number of outgoing IPCA cases open with 

the Office of Children’s Issues, and we believe it will continue to be a significant 

IPCA destination. Although India’s accession to the Convention remains a long-term 

goal, the Office of Children’s Issues is not idle in our relations with India. We have 

developed a long-term strategy of raising accession to the Convention with senior 

Indian Government officials to ensure that they continue to explore the Convention 

and make progress toward accession and implementation. Enlisting support from 

the Hague Permanent Bureau and working multilaterally with other Hague partners, the Department seeks to convince India of the benefits of Hague accession and 

implementation, as we were able to do in Japan. 

PREVENTION TOOLS AND THE HAGUE CONFERENCE ON PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW

The most effective means of stemming the growth of IPCA is to stop it before it 

occurs. We are dedicated to helping prevent abduction and look forward to working 

with the committee to explore additional steps that could be taken to help prevent 

these tragic events. Since 2011, the Office of Children’s Issues has broadened the 

efforts of its Prevention Branch, which is staffed by a team of experts who both 

manage the Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program (CPIAP), and conduct outreach and training for passport agencies and other domestic stakeholders to prevent 

IPCA. Furthermore, the Prevention Branch actively engages with domestic law 

enforcement agencies to stop abductions in progress. 

Our Prevention Branch exclusively administers CPIAP, which allows parents and 

legal guardians to enroll their children in a Department database to help protect 

against U.S. passport issuance without parental consent or notification. If a passport application is submitted for a child who is registered in CPIAP, the Department 

contacts and alerts the parent. The Prevention Branch is responsible for reviewing 

and resolving, in conjunction with Overseas Citizens Services’ Office of Legal 

Affairs, all child custody passport alert entries that produce ‘‘hits’’ during the passVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
9 

port application process. On average, the Prevention Branch reviews more than 300 

hits per month. In 2013, the Prevention Branch entered more than 5,500 children 

into our CPIAP database and has managed more than 10,000 CPIAP cases since 

November 2011. 

Congressional interest remains crucial to our success. Accordingly, the Department can identify concrete ways in which Congress can provide additional tools that 

will assist the Bureau of Consular Affairs in returning internationally abducted children. One of the Department’s highest priorities is to persuade other countries that 

have not ratified or acceded to the Convention to become party to the treaty. Once 

they have decided to ratify or accede to the treaty, the Department continues to 

work with that foreign country to help it pass laws to implement the Convention 

effectively under that country’s domestic law and create an effective Central Authority that promotes compliance with the Convention. The Hague Conference on Private International Law, often viewed by foreign governments as a neutral party, is 

an invaluable partner in this effort and is very effective at providing technical 

assistance. 

CONCLUSION

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Corker, distinguished members of the committee, your support remains a key element to our success in pressing for a tangible 

resolution to these cases and to furthering our bilateral relationships in support of 

preventing and resolving international abduction. We remain committed to achieving our shared goals to increase the number of children returned to their parents, 

to advocate for membership in this important international treaty, and to create 

safeguards that will minimize the risk of IPCA. We look forward to working with 

you on identifying other tools to achieve these shared goals. 

Thank you. I am pleased to take your questions. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. 

Let me ask you, Ambassador. The Hague Convention has been 

criticized as lacking effective mechanisms to compel compliance 

among participating countries. In your view, are the existing diplomatic tools to encourage cooperation sufficient for addressing patterns of noncompliance among Hague countries? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you very much for that question. 

One of the best diplomatic tools we have is the engagement of our 

Congress on these issues, so that when we are talking to our partners in The Hague we can say: You know, our Congress is looking 

very carefully at these issues and we really need you to do a better 

job of compliance. We do get a lot of support from the Permanent 

Bureau of The Hague Committee in urging countries, in training 

judges, in training prosecutors in how to proceed. 

So I think that the more tools we have the better off we are. But 

we have had a lot of success. Last year there were 522 returns of 

children abducted from the United States. Hague orders resulted 

in 113 of them, and of the voluntary returns most of those were 

from Hague countries, 73 percent of them. So I think that Hague 

does work. It can always be strengthened and we can certainly always strengthen our bilateral and multilateral efforts to get countries to do a better job of implementation. 

The CHAIRMAN. You just mentioned that the more tools we have 

the better we can succeed at our goal. So in this respect, what are 

the merits of applying sanctions, aid conditionality, or other forms 

of diplomatic consequence to what might be defined as noncompliant states—states that habitually have a large number of children 

that have been abducted, and are not responsive to the otherwise 

diplomatic overtures that you have just described? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you for that question. Fortunately, 

most of our Hague partners are susceptible to diplomatic pressure. 

It is in the non-Hague countries that we have much less compliVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
10 

ance, and with those countries we have established bilateral working groups. That is one of the ways that we and a number of other 

countries persuaded Japan to join the Convention. Intense diplomatic efforts with Mexico have made them a much more Haguecompliant country. 

We also have a compliance report that we use with Hague countries and the shaming value of that report has produced some results. 

The CHAIRMAN. It sounds like in general Hague countries perform much better, which I myself acknowledged in my opening remarks. So for non-Hague countries, do we think that, again, that 

the merits of applying sanctions or aid conditionality would be 

something to get them to move in the right direction? And you publish a report of those Hague countries that may not be performing 

well. Do you publish a report of non-Hague countries in terms of 

those where we find large numbers of children? 

Ambassador JACOBS. We do not publish a report on non-Hague 

countries that are noncompliant, because they are not in the Convention. What we do with those countries really is intense diplomatic efforts from the working level to the Ambassador to the Secretary of State and the President. The President raised—before 

Japan agreed to join the Convention, the President raised Hague 

accession with them any number of times. The two, Secretary Clinton and now Secretary Kerry, having served in the Senate, have an 

intense interest in this issue because they know about constituent 

services and how important this issue is to the people of the United 

States and to the Congress. 

So we demarche countries that are not cooperating. I visit them. 

We have intense talks. And we have had a lot of success. In addition to the four countries that we have just accepted as partners, 

there are five more countries under review and we are expecting 

good results from another couple of countries in Asia. This is due 

to diplomacy, bilateral, multilateral, congressional interest. 

The CHAIRMAN. I would take it a step beyond. I would say that 

I understand constituent service very well, but the safety and security of a nation’s citizens is probably job number 1 of any government. We normally think of threats as both internal and external, 

but I would add that when one abducts a child and they are no 

longer in their home, that the safety and security of that child has 

been affected. So it should be seen beyond constituent relations. It 

should be seen as a part of the security of those who are most vulnerable, at the end of the day, and I hope we look at it in that context. 

Ambassador JACOBS. And we do. We have no greater goal than 

returning every abducted child to his home. 

The CHAIRMAN. Two final questions. In the preventive role, can 

you tell me about the effectiveness of the child passport issuance 

alert program? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I am pleased to do that, sir. Last year we 

prevented 80 abductions through that program and also through 

the dual consent program we have, where both parents have to 

consent to the issuance of a passport for children under the age of 

16. 

11 

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything more that we can do in that 

context? Is this a widely known program? Is it something we can 

do a better job of letting parents know about? Are there any other 

tools that you do not possess that you would like to see the Congress give you in this regard? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I am sure there are a number of things that 

we would like to discuss with you in a different venue. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we look forward to that. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. I am not quite sure why it would not be in this 

venue, but I will trust that—— 

Ambassador JACOBS. I think part of it is that there are other 

things that we are doing, but if we mention them in public it will 

help abductors to succeed. 

The CHAIRMAN. We do not want to do that, so we will look forward to a classified session where we can have a thorough discussion, because our goal here is to achieve success. 

Finally, again on the program, on the passport issuance alert 

program, is that widely known? I did not know about it until I 

started preparing for this hearing. 

Ambassador JACOBS. It is on our Web site and we do talk about 

it. But I think there is probably more that we can do. It is advertised on our Web site, and we can talk to the passport people and 

see how we can do a better job of making it more widely known. 

The CHAIRMAN. It might be great to have public schools, all 

schools in the country, particularly at a secondary level, when 

these children enter of age for the possibility of a passport, to have 

parents know about the program as a more widely known—— 

Ambassador JACOBS. I like that idea. 

The CHAIRMAN. We look forward to working with you. 

Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here. I was just looking at the largest number of open cases, if you will, and sort of the countries that are involved. I notice that Mexico has the largest number of abduction 

cases that are still open. I assume that that is because of proximity 

and ease of ingress and egress. Are there any other factors that 

might make us more informed as to why that is the case? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I think you have hit the nail on the head, 

sir. But remember, the numbers that we are supplying are the 

numbers that are reported to us. So there might be more cases, 

there might be fewer cases, there might be more returns than we 

know about, because it is all self-reporting. So we can only put out 

the numbers of which we are aware. 

Senator CORKER. Let me ask you this. Again, I bump into people 

in the hallways that have had this happen to them and their families and it really is heart-wrenching. If you were to just be able to 

say, Congress, give me these tools to keep this from happening, 

what would those tools be? What would those additional tools be? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Well, I think part of the problem is that we 

could use better exit controls for children. We do not have exit controls in the United States and many other countries do have that. 

Perhaps if parents are traveling alone with a child they should 

have a court order or permission from the other parent. There are 

12 

things that we could do differently. The tools that we have work 

to a certain degree. We did prevent 80 abductions last year. I wish 

we had prevented every abduction from happening. But I think 

that we and DHS could come and talk to you and review some 

other ideas that we and they might have about how to do a better 

job on this. 

Senator CORKER. Well, it seems to me there is some momentum 

around this issue with the House having passed a bill, and it seems 

to me if we are going to address it we ought to address it in a real 

way and not a superficial way. So I would recommend that you 

come in and talk with both the majority staff and ours to figure 

out what tools you really need that could be effective and would 

stop this from happening. 

Let me ask you a question. We are going to ask witnesses in just 

a minute about their experiences. What would they say, do you 

think, when we ask them about what it is that the State—what is 

the most effective thing the State Department does with the existing tools to help us return our abducted children? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Well, thank you for that question. I hope 

that they would say that we work closely with them, that we provide information to them, a sympathetic ear, and our unfailing efforts to try to get their children back home. 

Senator CORKER. Would they say, do you think, that the State 

Department is the more effective effort or the Justice Department 

is the more effective effort? 

Ambassador JACOBS. From my point of view it is two different 

jobs that we each do. We are working on civil remedies and the 

Justice Department is working on criminal remedies. We work together. We work with DHS, we work with Justice, we work with 

our NGO partners, and we all work together to try to find the best 

resolution to each case. 

Senator CORKER. I heard you talking about demarches earlier. I 

guess I have sat with our Foreign Service officers as we issued 

demarches when we have concerns, for instance, about Pakistan 

maybe double-dealing with us relative to things that are happening 

in the FATA areas. Those are pretty serious issues that affect 

Americans and yet I do not really see a lot of impact that comes 

from those demarches. 

So is our diplomatic effort, the way you have described them, and 

basically calling out governments when they are not acting in appropriate ways, is that particularly effective? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you for that question. I think it is 

effective. On my many trips, I talk to countries about their performance, whether they are Hague or non-Hague, and often we get 

the result that we want and we have more children returned. Mexico is the perfect example. For 31⁄2 years we have focused a lot of 

efforts on compliance with Mexico. We meet with Mexico constantly. We pick up the phone, we talk to their central authority. 

And we are getting many more returns than we have in the past. 

So I think that this is a very good thing. 

Senator CORKER. Listen, I appreciate you being here today. I 

know that it must be a very frustrating job that you have, to know 

the seriousness of the problems that families are having in this regard and the lack of tangible tools that sometimes are at your disVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
13 

posal. I do hope you will come in and see us and talk with us in 

a setting that you feel comfortable talking in to help us figure out 

a way to help you and the families that are impacted in this way. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you. We will do that. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Boxer. 

Senator BOXER. First let me say, thank you, both of you, because 

I am so happy to see this bipartisan spirit on an issue that is so 

tragic and so important. I want to apologize for this quick entrance 

and exit. I have responsibilities as chairman of a different committee and I trust my two friends here to press on this. I want to 

just say publicly that I want to work with you. 

I want to say, Ambassador Jacobs, thank you to you, because you 

have been terrific when I have called you on adoption cases and 

other things, and thank you so much. A lot of your work just goes 

unnoticed, but there are families all over America who are grateful. 

What a painful loss for a parent, for the left-behind parent, and 

what a painful loss for a child, deprived of two loving parents. Certainly these abductions put the child at risk for serious long-term 

trauma. I know today you will hear from three left-behind parents 

who will share their experience and one of them is my constituent, 

Patrick Braden. After his daughter Melissa was abducted by her 

mother to Japan in 2006, Patrick became a passionate and unrelenting advocate on the issue. Nearly 8 years later, Melissa still 

has not been returned home to her dad. 

But unfortunately, this situation is not unique. According to the 

State Department, Japanese courts have never ordered the return 

of an abducted child. That just does not add up. In fact, there was 

no legal framework in place to secure the return of children abducted to Japan because Japan was not a party to the Hague Abduction Convention. But due to the tireless efforts of left-behind 

parents like Patrick to keep a spotlight on this issue and sustained 

United States pressure, last month, as we know, Japan announced 

it will finally join the Convention. 

Well, we all hope it is a turning point for Japan. Ambassador Jacobs, you have stated that Japan has been one of the ‘‘most intransigent countries’’ on this. How can the United States work to ensure that Japan’s decision to join the Hague Abduction Convention 

results in real progress in securing the return of abducted children? 

In other words, it is not just checking the box and saying, I will 

get those people off my back. But how can we make sure they 

mean what they said when they joined the Convention? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you very much for that question. 

This is something that we continue to work on. So what we are 

going to do is to continue to engage with Japan to monitor every 

case, to talk to them about every case, and to make sure that they 

are complying with the Convention. I am optimistic that they will 

do it. I think that the effort that we and a number of other countries, the left-behind parents, and the Congress put into persuading 

Japan to join the Convention has to have positive consequences. 

Senator BOXER. Ambassador Jacobs, do you have any sense of 

how many left-behind parents there are where the child was abducted from the United States and lives in Japan now? Can you 

give us a sense of it? What are we dealing with? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I can. 

14 

Senator BOXER. That would be great. 

Ambassador Jacobs: There are currently 80 children representing 

58 cases who—these are open cases with Japan. 

Senator BOXER. Eighty children? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Eighty children, fifty-eight cases. 

Senator BOXER. Okay, so some siblings in there. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes. 

Senator BOXER. So we say 58 cases. 

Ambassador, I am wondering whether it might be useful—the 

only reason I am focused on Japan—believe me, it is not to the exclusion of anyone, but just because of Patrick. I know what he has 

gone through because I have seen him over the years in this tormented situation. Fifty-eight cases. Now, we know Japan joined the 

Hague Abduction Convention, which is not retroactive; it is forward. But do you think there is a way that we could work with 

you, all my colleagues, to put pressure on Japan to show that they 

are serious by looking back and helping us resolve some of these 

existing cases? Do you think there is a way we could work together 

on that? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I certainly think we can work together, and 

we have stressed to the Japanese how important their performance 

is going forward, but also that we have not forgotten the cases that 

still exist, and we will not be satisfied until all of those children 

are home where they belong, and we look forward to working with 

you on finding ways to ensure that that happens. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

Well, Mr. Chairman, what I would like to do is, just because I 

have been working for this for so long on this particular case, 

maybe there is a way we can hone in on this and just say to the 

Japanese, and do it in our way—with the Ambassador, we can just 

have a multipronged effort, where you talk to your people, we talk 

to our people, and the parents continue to do their work—and we 

can say: You have signed this Convention, wonderful; but now you 

need to bring justice to these cases. So you will work with us on 

that? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I think that that sounds like a terrific plan. 

Senator BOXER. Great. 

Ambassador JACOBS. And we look forward to working with you. 

I cannot tell you how important the interest of the Congress is in 

the work that we do. 

Senator BOXER. Good. 

Ambassador JACOBS. It really makes a difference overseas when 

I can walk into a meeting and say the Congress of the United 

States cares about this issue. 

Senator BOXER. Well, Ambassador, you know you can. 

Mr. Chairman, I am so grateful to you for this. I think maybe 

we can get some results. Senator Corker, I was just suggesting that 

we work on a multipronged plan. There are 58 existing cases—the 

reason I am saying Japan is because they just signed the Hague 

Abduction Convention, but it is not retroactive. So if we can say to 

the Japanese, we are very happy you did this, but can you please 

reopen these 58 cases, and we work in our way and the Ambassador works in her way, parents work in their way. I look forward 

to working with both of you on that. 

15 

Senator CORKER. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. And thanks again. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Senator Boxer. We look forward to 

having your—when I am in a fight, I like Barbara Boxer with me. 

It always works wonderfully. 

Senator BOXER. We will do it. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just add to that and then one final question. If you could provide our staff with the leading countries that 

have the greatest number of children abducted, and for which we 

have not had a great deal of success. It might very well be that the 

chair, maybe working with the ranking member, will consider convening a group of members—excuse me—a group of ambassadors 

from those countries and having a discussion directly on this issue, 

so that they know the interest and intent of the Senate in that regard. That might be a very positive force to get their attention. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you. We will be very happy to provide that to you. 

[The written answer from Ambassador Jacobs to the requested 

information follows:] 

The countries with which we have established a treaty relationship under the 

Hague Abduction Convention yet about which we remain concerned with respect to 

compliance issues include Costa Rica, Honduras, Guatemala, Brazil, and the Bahamas. Non-Convention countries with which we have a high number of abduction 

cases and limited success in effecting the return of abducted children include India, 

Egypt, Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Jordan, Lebanon, Indonesia, the Philippines, and Japan. In Japan, the treaty will enter into force on April 1, 2014. Parents of children abducted to or wrongfully retained in Japan before April 1, 2014, 

will not be able to apply for return under the Hague Abduction Convention. However, we will continue to press for resolutions to these cases. 

We welcome the opportunity to collaborate with the committee in maintaining 

international parental child abduction as a policy priority in our bilateral relationships and to press for a tangible resolution to these cases. 

The CHAIRMAN. Then finally, with reference to—and we look forward also to meeting with you on the exit controls and other possibilities for preventative efforts. 

So we are out there pushing countries to join the Hague Convention, which is a treaty. Do you get any pushback that the United 

Staes does not sign certain treaties and countries along the way 

who say: ‘‘why should we sign that treaty if you do not sign X treaty’’? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you for that question. I am often 

asked why we have not signed the Convention on the Rights of the 

Child. My response is that I will put the laws of the United States 

up against the laws of any other country in the way we protect 

children. 

No one has ever used the Abduction Convention to hold us up to 

sign something else. I think that as the Convention spreads around 

the world we have better arguments. When it first came into force 

for us, most of the countries were in Western Europe. But if we 

look at it now, Japan and Korea have joined. China is very interested. Philippines is putting together their legislation. They should 

be a partner soon. So the treaty is really spreading to Asia, Latin 

America, Europe, the United States. 

We need to work on the Middle East and we need to work on Africa. A number of African countries have signed onto the Convention, but they have never written any implementing legislation. So 

16 

we want to work with them, either alone or with bilateral partners 

or with The Hague Permanent Bureau, to help them write the legislation so that they will be able to implement it properly. 

That is a long answer to a short question. I am sorry. 

The CHAIRMAN. I asked you because when I was in Mexico this 

past recess the Mexican Senate asked me the question on the Convention on the Rights of the Child: Why do you not adopt it? So 

we were going back and forth. As I listened to Mexico being a large 

number, it sort of tickled my thoughts about whether people push 

back on us because of the nature of this. 

Senator CORKER. I will say, I very much enjoy the relationship 

we have and especially your answer on the treaties issue, because 

I will put our treatment of children, of women, of disabled, up 

against any other country in the world. The answer you gave was 

the right answer, so thank you so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. And we just look to spread that high standard 

throughout the world by getting others to join treaties, including 

ourselves, to promote those. 

Ambassador JACOBS. What I try to tell them is, you know, anybody can sign a treaty, but implementing it and living up to its 

ideals are something that we take very seriously. 

Senator CORKER. We may be debating another treaty later on 

and I would like to call you to be a witness. Thank you so much. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Which one is that, sir? [Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN. I think the State Department will talk to you before then, so—— 

[Laughter.] 

The CHAIRMAN [continuing]. Seeing no other members 

present—— 

Senator CORKER. We have the honest answer today, thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. On a singular focus. But in any event, with the 

thanks of the committee and with a followup that we will be having with you, Ambassador, we will excuse you at this point. Thank 

you very much. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you very much. It was a pleasure to 

be here today. Again, we really appreciate the support that we get 

from you. Thank you so much. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

As the Ambassador is excused let me introduce our second panel 

this morning. Many of them are parents who have had a child abducted—some have had the success of bringing their child back and 

others have not. Mr. Ernie Allen, the parents and Chief Executive 

Officer of the International Center for Missing and Exploited Children; David Goldman, cofounder and director of Bring Sean Home 

Foundation of Lincroft, New Jersey; Patrick Braden, a parent of an 

abducted child and CEO of Global Future: The Parents’ Council on 

International Children’s Policy, of Los Angeles; and Dr. Noelle 

Hunter, also the parent of an abducted child, of Morehead, KY, 

whose story is another reason why we are here today. 

Thank you all for joining and providing insights for us. All of 

your statements will be fully included in the record. I would ask 

you to summarize it for about 5 minutes or so, so that we can enter 

into a conversation, as we just did with the Ambassador, which 

sometimes gives us our greatest insights. With that, we are going 

17 

to ask you to present your testimony in the order that I introduced 

you. So, Mr. Allen, you are first. 

STATEMENT OF ERNIE ALLEN, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING AND 

EXPLOITED CHILDREN, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Corker. I am honored to be here. Mr. Chairman, in your opening remarks you talked about the extent of the problem, the numbers. 

What I would like to focus on briefly are the challenges that we are 

seeing regarding international parental child abduction. 

Our organization funded research recently for the Hague Convention on the implementation of the Convention. It was conducted 

by our board member, Professor Nigel Lowe, of the Cardiff Law 

School in the United Kingdom. The conclusions of that research 

were troubling. First, we discovered that there has been a significant increase in the number of applications, up 44 percent since 

the last time it was surveyed. 

Secondly, that there were fewer returns of children. The overall 

return rate was 46 percent, which was down from 51 percent 5 

years earlier, and just 27 percent of those returns were judicially 

ordered. 

Third, we found that the process is taking longer. The key element with regard to the Hague Convention is speed. The longer it 

takes, the lower the likelihood there is of successful resolution. In 

fact, there is an incentive to create delays, making it more likely 

that a court will find that a child is now settled and that it is not 

in his or her best interests to be returned to their country of habitual residence. 

The standard is 42 days or 6 weeks. Our research found that the 

average time it took for a court to order the return of the child was 

four times that, 166 days, and that compared to 125 5 years earlier 

and 107 10 years earlier. In some countries, including the United 

States, judges may receive and handle a Hague case who have 

never handled one before and are unfamiliar with the Convention. 

There are nearly 10,000 State judges in the United States. In the 

United Kingdom, just 17 judges handle Hague cases. 

Now, we have made great progress in this country through judicial training and through a judicial liaison function, but it is a 

challenge. 

The challenges in non-Hague countries. Obviously, many nonHague countries have deeply held and long-maintained traditions 

that result in a more rigid concept of what is in the best interest 

of the child. The challenges are enormous. That is why we are encouraged by the development of bilateral agreements with individual countries, and the United States has made great progress in 

that area. 

The fourth conclusion from the research is that there is a growing tendency of courts in other parts of the world in return cases 

to undertake in-depth welfare inquiries before return is contemplated. The Hague Convention is about conflicts of law. It is 

about where the proper determination should be made. What we 

are finding is that a growing number of courts are saying: We do 

not care what the Convention requires; we are going to undertake 

18 

an in-depth examination of the entire family situation and consider 

a wide range of factors before ordering the child’s return. 

This is a problem, and it is a growing problem globally. There 

are some instances in countries in which they are even retrying 

custody issues in the country to which the child has been taken. 

So the use of the exceptions under the Convention appear to be increasing as judges find new reasons not to return children. 

Of particular interest is the domestic violence exception. More 

abducting parents are alleging domestic violence by the custodial 

parent. Obviously, this is important. It requires thorough investigation. But it is clear from the research that, at least for some abducting parents, this appears to have become a strategy whether 

there is a factual basis or not. 

Finally, there is no greater challenge under the Convention than 

simply providing access for the left-behind parent. Access applications are taking longer than ever before; an average of 338 days 

compared to 188 days for return. This is a problem. 

Let me briefly summarize what we think needs to be done. First 

of all, we believe we need to reaffirm the importance of the Hague 

Convention and continue to persuade countries to become signatories. 

Secondly, we believe that U.S. officials need to become stronger 

advocates for left-behind parents, add tools and resources to help 

them utilize the influence of the U.S. Government to bring about 

more resolutions. We think the State Department and Ambassador 

Jacobs are doing extraordinary work, but your question about are 

there enough tools, the answer is we think we need to add more 

tools. 

Third, we believe we need to increase the speed with which these 

cases are addressed and resolved. 

Fourth, we think a significant problem is enforceability of orders. 

Even in countries where courts order returns, there is a lack of enforcement of those returns and the children still do not come back. 

Fifth, we need better data. We are going to undertake and fund 

additional research at the Hague to try to measure these trends. 

Sixth, we need serious investigation of the impact of these recent 

court decisions, particularly by the European Court of Human 

Rights, which risk undermining the core premise of the Hague 

Convention. 

Seventh, we think there needs to be serious attention to the lack 

of uniformity in the interpretation of the exceptions under the 

Hague Convention’s article 13. 

Eighth, we believe there needs to be more indepth investigations 

into the issue of domestic violence and the impact of those allegations on the work of the Convention. 

We need to evaluate how the Convention is working in these 

early Islamic states which have become signatories, like Morocco 

and Turkey, and then try to replicate those lessons in other Islamic 

countries. 

We need to improve judicial training. 

And finally, we think there needs to be far greater attention to 

the support for the victim families. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Allen follows:] 

19 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERNIE ALLEN

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the committee, I welcome the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the challenges of international parental 

child abduction. We are deeply grateful for the cCommittee’s concern and leadership 

on these issues and its longstanding commitment to children. I also want to express 

my thanks to Ambassador Susan Jacobs for her leadership and for the State Department’s expansion of its Office of Children’s Issues and its commitment to become 

more engaged in these cases than ever before. 

The International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (‘‘ICMEC’’) is a notfor-profit corporation, supported entirely by private funds and resources. ICMEC 

leads a global movement to protect children from exploitation and abduction. We 

have 

• Trained law enforcement in 121 countries; • Reviewed laws in 200 countries and worked with parliaments in 100 countries 

to enact new law on child pornography; • Reviewed laws in 200 countries, developed model law on child sexual exploitation, and worked with parliaments and international bodies to change national 

legislation and international conventions; • Created a research institute, the Koons Family Institute on International Law 

& Policy, to examine child abduction and sexual exploitation and launch policy 

initiatives with world leaders; • Built a Global Missing Children’s Network, now including 22 countries; • Worked with Belgium, Romania, South Africa, Russia, Belarus, and others to 

establish national centers on missing & exploited children; • Created a regional center, the Southeastern European Center on Missing and 

Exploited Children, serving 13 countries in the Balkan region; • Entered into formal partnerships with Interpol, the Organization of American 

States, the Hague Conference on Private International Law, and others; • Hosted international conferences, including a 2009 meeting of 400 Arab leaders 

in Cairo which produced ‘‘The Cairo Declaration,’’ an agreement on child protection; a 2010 conference of judges from 15 countries at the U.S. State Department to examine cross-border transportation of children, resulting in the ‘‘The 

Washington Declaration,’’ now cited in case law worldwide; and a 2011 forum 

in Rome in partnership with the Vatican, the Mayo Clinic and Il Telefono 

Azzurro, which produced ‘‘The Declaration of Rome’’ on children’s rights; • Managed private sector financial industry and technology industry coalitions to 

address child sexual exploitation; • Launched a Global Health Coalition of pharmaceutical companies and health 

care institutions to attack the problem of child sexual abuse and exploitation 

not just from a legal and law enforcement perspective but as a public health 

crisis; • And there is much more. 

We created ICMEC in 1998 in large measure because of growing concerns about 

international parental child abduction and the operation of the Hague Convention 

on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. In 1998 I joined with Lady 

Catherine Meyer, the wife of the then-British Ambassador to the United States, Sir 

Christopher Meyer, to cochair the International Forum on Parental Child Abduction, which brought together a global working group of experts in Hague Convention 

practice. 

The attendees of that forum identified a series of problems including the lack of 

systematic data on the operation of the Hague Convention; wide variations in outcomes among the various Hague Convention countries; undue delay in reaching resolutions in cases; difficulty in locating children who are the subject of a Hague 

Application; lack of adequate support for victim families; varying competence and 

experience of attorneys and judges handling abduction cases within individual 

States; lack of uniformity in the interpretation of the Hague Convention particularly 

with the ‘‘exceptions’’ under Article 13; improper use of narrowly defined exceptions 

to return; lack of enforceability of some return and access orders; and much more. 

Even with all of the progress that we have made, it is striking how the challenges 

we face today are much the same. 

In 2000 we held the Second International Forum on Parental Child Abduction. We 

concluded that the treaty itself should not be modified, and that its original intent 

was more important than ever before, but that we must do far more to support and 

assist signatories, helping to ensure that the true intent of the Convention is realized. The attendees adopted a resolution urging the Hague Permanent Bureau to 

produce and promote Practice Guides to assist in the implementation and operation 

of the Convention. 

20 

ICMEC proposed that the practice guides address the operation of Central 

Authorities, enforcement of orders, access and prevention. The production of these 

guides would build upon recognized best practices under the Convention, and provide a framework for applying the Convention. The good practices identified in the 

guides would not be legally binding upon signatory countries, but would serve as 

guidance to countries based upon the research and advice of experts in order to help 

ensure the most effective process possible. 

To illustrate the kind of process we were recommending, in partnership with 

world-renowned expert, Professor Nigel Lowe of the Cardiff University School of 

Law in the United Kingdom, a member of the ICMEC board, ICMEC itself produced 

customized practice guides for 13 nations. 

ICMEC formally proposed that this process be adopted at the Fourth Special 

Commission meeting at The Hague in March 2001 and implemented for all signatory countries. At that Special Commission meeting ICMEC successfully advocated 

for member states to support its proposal to create Guides to Good Practice to help 

implement the Convention. The proposal was adopted and ICMEC committed to 

assist in this effort. 

In April 2003 at the Peace Palace at The Hague, ICMEC and the Hague Permanent Bureau entered into a formal Memorandum of Understanding to work together 

on these issues. Since then ICMEC and the Hague Permanent Bureau have collaborated on the creation of Guides to Good Practice to help existing and new Contracting States organize their judicial and administrative systems to effectively 

implement the Convention. And ICMEC has assisted the Hague Permanent Bureau 

in many other ways, including funding research on outcomes among member countries. 

In October 2004 at The Hague ICMEC hosted a forum on International Child 

Abduction and the 1980 Hague Convention. We convened experts from across 

Europe and the United States. Out of this meeting came a number of questions and 

recommendations for ICMEC to explore in preparation for the 5th Special Commission meeting. 

Among those questions was: Are Good Practice Guides alone enough to guarantee 

change?’’ We concluded they were not and agreed to explore methods for monitoring 

the implementation of Good Practice in all Contracting States. 

We discussed the need to improve transfrontier access/contact between parents 

and children, and identified a series of challenges including the operation in some 

states of procedures which are both insensitive to the special features and needs of 

international cases and are the cause of unnecessary delays and expense; an inadequate level of international cooperation at both administrative and judicial levels; 

and the absence of firm legal provisions to enforce access. 

We discussed the importance of providing support and assistance to newly contracting states. There was caution among existing member states about accepting 

treaty relationships with newly acceding states they believed ill prepared to fulfill 

their obligations. This trend gave rise to the question—‘‘Are we doing enough to 

ensure the acceptance of newly acceding states?’’ 

To help advance this engagement with non-Hague states, in 2006 I participated 

in the Hague Conference’s Malta process, in which judges from Islamic countries 

and other non-Hague states came together in Malta to meet with judges and experts 

from other parts of the world to explore the challenges associated with international 

child abduction and seek solutions. 

Our most recent joint conference with the Hague Permanent Bureau was the 

International Judicial Conference on Cross-Border Family Relocation, held at the 

U.S. State Department in March 2010. More than 50 judges and experts from 14 

countries gathered to develop a framework for handling these cases. 

At the conclusion of the 3-day meeting, the judges and other attendees adopted 

and issued the ‘‘Washington Declaration on International Family Relocation’’ which 

is a framework outlining the issues that should be considered by all judges to standardize how these types of cases are handled. The Declaration is already being used 

and cited in case law worldwide. 

ICMEC is also active in promoting the ratification of the Hague Convention in 

nonsignatory states. We are pleased that the total number of Hague signatories has 

climbed to 91 with its adoption by South Korea and Kazakhstan in 2013 and by 

Japan in 2014. 

We are particularly hopeful about its adoption by Japan. To the best of our knowledge no U.S. child has ever been returned from Japan as a result of the actions of 

a Japanese court or the Japanese Government. I have met with, talked to, and tried 

to help many left-behind U.S. parents whose children were abducted to Japan. However, absent some ability to mediate or reach an agreed-upon settlement, the leftVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
21 

behind U.S. parent simply does not get their child back. Cases go unresolved for 

years. 

For the United States, Japan has the largest number of parental abduction cases 

of any non-Hague country, and is third in new cases following only Mexico and Canada among all Hague and non-Hague countries. 

In 2009 ICMEC sent its Senior Policy Director to Japan to advocate for change. 

She addressed audiences of elected officials, Diet members, journalists, religious 

organizations, attorneys, NGOs and community activists. She participated in a press 

conference with diplomats from the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom 

and France, all of whom shared our concerns. In 2010 the Ambassadors of 12 countries, including the U.S., U.K., Australia, and Germany, signed a joint statement 

urging Japan to adopt the Hague Convention. 

The then-Japanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said, ‘‘We have been condemned by the USA, Canada, the U.K., and France over this and I firmly believe 

we need to change things. The effect will be Japan coming into this century. We 

need to be clear though, these changes will take time. A very strong cultural change 

shifting from maternal primacy over the children is needed as well. I think we have 

already seen the beginning of this, but a change in laws is not the sole solution.’’ 

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discussed this issue with Japanese leaders, and 

President Obama raised it to the new Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe. We are delighted 

that Japan has now ratified the Hague Convention and put implementing legislation in place. We are hopeful that Japan’s action signals a new day of cooperation 

on these issues. However, Japanese leaders have told us that full implementation 

of the Hague Convention will take time and that fundamental legal and cultural 

challenges must be addressed. 

In my quarter century of work with leaders of the Hague Conference, I have 

learned over and over again that a country’s ratification of the Convention does not 

guarantee implementation. Our efforts to produce good practice guides and undertake research to monitor the extent of compliance demonstrate that there are Hague 

signatories which still do not meet the letter and spirit of the Convention. 

So, what are the challenges for the future? The committee asked that I address 

several questions. 

1—The scope of international parental child abduction, challenges to seeking the 

return of abducted children in countries which participate in the Hague Abduction 

Convention and countries which do not, and issues of U.S. reciprocity. 

The State Department estimates more than 1,000 outgoing international child 

abductions reported to the Office of Children’s Issues each year. About half of the 

children abducted to Hague Convention countries are returned. About 40 percent of 

the abduction cases involve children taken to countries which are not signatories to 

the Hague Convention. 

Challenges/Disturbing Trends—ICMEC funded statistical research on the operation of the Hague Convention. This research was performed by Professor Nigel 

Lowe of Cardiff Law School in the U.K., a member of the ICMEC board. The 

research utilized 2008 data from member countries, and was presented to the 2011 

Hague Special Commission. The conclusions were troubling: 

There was a significant increase in the number of applications: There was a 44 

percent increase in the total number of applications made under the Hague Convention in 2008 as compared to 2003, with a 45 percent increase in return applications 

and a 40 percent increase in access applications. A British study found that cases 

in the U.K. have risen 88 percent in the past decade. 

There were fewer returns of children—The overall return rate was 46 percent, 

down from 51 percent in 2003 and 50 percent in 1999. Further, just 27 percent of 

the returns were judicially ordered, while 19 percent of the returns were voluntary. 

The data also showed that judicial refusals climbed to 15 percent, up from 13 percent in 2003 and 11 percent in 1999. In 2008 44 percent of the applications were 

decided in court, with 61 percent of court decisions resulting in a judicial return 

compared with 66 percent in 2003 and 74 percent in 1999. 

The Hague process is taking longer—The key element in ensuring success in the 

Hague process is speed. The longer it takes, the lower the likelihood of successful 

resolution. In fact there is an incentive to create delays, making it more likely that 

a court will find that the child is now settled and that it is not in his or her best 

interests to be returned to their country of habitual residence. 

Yet, the average time taken to reach a decision of judicial return was 166 days 

in 2008, compared to 125 days in 2003 and 107 days in 1999. A judicial refusal took 

an average of 286 days, compared to 233 in 2003 and 147 in 1999. Even for applications resulting in a voluntary return the average time was 121 days, compared to 

22 

98 days in 2003 and 84 days in 1999. The standard we seek in these cases is 42 

days or 6 weeks. 

The Hague Convention is not about child custody, it is about conflicts of law. Its 

stated goal is the prompt return of the child to his or her country of habitual residence. The longer the process takes, the less likely we are to achieve the kind of 

uniformity and consistency that we need across 91 countries. 

The focus of the Hague Convention is on ensuring that the right jurisdiction 

makes the determination regarding the custody of the child by rigorously applying 

the principles of return to habitual residence, unless there are valid Article 13b 

defenses or some other impeding circumstances for nonreturn. 

Based on the results of the survey, the 2011 Hague Special Commission emphasized the need for close cooperation between Central Authorities in the processing 

of applications and the exchange of information noting the principles of ‘‘prompt 

responses’’ and ‘‘rapid communication’’ as set out in the ‘‘Guide to Good Practice 

under the 1980 Convention—Part I—Central Authority Practice. 

An encouraging development is the emergence of liaison judges and the increased 

cooperation between the members of the International Hague Network of Judges 

and the relevant Central Authority resulting in the enhanced operation of the Convention. In some countries, including the United States, judges may receive a Hague 

case who have never handled such a case before and are unfamiliar with the Hague 

Convention. The ability to confer with an expert judge who is experienced in Hague 

cases is important and increases the likelihood that a case will be handled properly. 

Periodically, the U.S. itself has been accused by other countries of not observing 

reciprocity under the Hague Convention. There are nearly 10,000 state judges in the 

U.S. who could conceivably receive and handle a Hague case. In the United Kingdom just 17 judges handle Hague cases. Thus, judicial training and the judicial liaison function are of paramount importance in the U.S. The U.S. has made enormous 

progress in this regard. 

The Process in Non-Hague Countries—Many non-Hague countries have deeply 

held and long maintained traditions that have developed over centuries in such a 

way that they hold a more rigid concept of best interests of the child. It is often 

difficult to resolve differences over the issue of child custody between a parent from 

a religious legal system and a parent from a secular legal system. The challenges 

can be enormous. 

That is why we are encouraged by the movement to create bilateral agreements 

between Hague and non-Hague states. Such agreements provide a basis for resolution of these conflicts under the general principle of the Hague Convention—that 

is, by rigorously applying the principles of return to habitual residence, unless there 

are valid Article 13b defenses or some other impeding circumstances for nonreturn. 

Mediation between countries, particularly on access issues, has also met with some 

success. 

Some of the better known examples of bilateral agreements are U.S./Egypt, U.K./ 

Pakistan, France/Algeria, Belgium/Morocco, Canada/Lebanon, etc. 

There is a Growing Tendency of Courts in Return Cases to Undertake In-Depth 

Welfare Inquiries Before a Return is Contemplated—The purpose of the Hague Convention is to achieve the speedy, summary return of abducted children to their countries of habitual residence where the courts in those countries make the determination as to proper custody. 

Yet, there are a growing number of courts that are undertaking in-depth examinations of the entire family situation surrounding the child and considering a wide 

range of factors before ordering the child’s return. Their rationale is that they have 

an obligation to consider seriously allegations regarding ‘‘grave risks to the child’’ 

and make rulings regarding the full circumstances of the case. Thus, in some 

instances courts in countries to which the abducted child has been taken are effectively retrying the issue of custody in direct contravention of the underlying purpose 

of the Hague Convention. 

This was an issue in recent cases before the European Court of Human Rights. 

For example, in the 2010 ECHR decision in Neulinger & Shuruk v. Switzerland, the 

court held that ‘‘basic norms of human rights require (a) that courts in every case 

under the Hague Convention . . . must consider the best interests of both the child 

and the child’s family and (b) that a child should not be returned to its habitual 

residence, even if that is required by the Hague Convention, if it is not in its best 

interests to do so.’’ 

A second case considered by the ECHR was X v. Latvia in which the court initially held that ‘‘the Latvian courts’ approach in granting the return order lacked 

in-depth examination of the entire family situation and of a whole series of factors 

. . .’’ However, ultimately the ECHR permitted the return of the child to Australia 

per the provisions of the Hague Convention. 

23 

Obviously, a trend in which courts readjudicate what is in the best interests of 

the child potentially strikes at the heart of the Hague Convention. It is a concern 

of which policymakers in the U.S. and globally should be aware. ICMEC is consulting with policymakers in many countries, including European countries. It is our 

view that the Hague Child Abduction Convention, now 34 years old, represents far 

and away the best framework for resolving these complex, difficult cases, and that 

we need to preserve it as the primary instrument for handling these cases. 

A third case of significant interest is Lozano v. Alvarez, heard by the U.S. 

Supreme Court on December 11, 2013. The Lozano case examines one of the exceptions to the return of the child under the Hague Convention. Article 12 of the Convention provides an exception to the obligation to return a child if the petition for 

return is filed more than 1 year after the child’s removal and a preponderance of 

the evidence shows that the child is now settled in his or her new environment such 

that the return would not be in the child’s best interests. The question is whether 

a court may equitably suspend this 1-year filing period provision when the abducting parent has concealed the whereabouts of the child. 

The Use of Exceptions—The use of the exceptions allowed under the Hague Convention appears to be increasing, as judges find new reasons not to return children 

to their countries of origin. Of particular interest is the domestic violence exception. 

There are indications that more and more abducting parents are alleging domestic 

violence by the custodial parent. While this is an important factor and requires thorough investigation and consideration, it is clear that for some abducting parents, 

this appears to have become a strategy, whether there is a factual basis or not. 

Access for Left-Behind Parents—Perhaps there is no challenge under the Hague 

Convention that is greater than that of simply providing access to the other parent. 

In the Conclusions and Recommendations of the June 2011 meeting, the Special 

Commission noted that access applications were markedly slower to reach a conclusion than return applications, taking an average of 338 days as compared to 188 

days for return. 

2—What More Can Be Done to Achieve the Return of Abducted Children and Assist 

Their Left-Behind Parents? 

• We need to reaffirm the importance of the Hague Convention and work toward 

uniform, consistent global application and reciprocity, including pressing for 

more countries to become signatories. 

• We need U.S. officials to become stronger advocates on behalf of left-behind parents and utilize the influence of the U.S. Government to bring about resolutions. 

• We need to launch a global effort to increase the speed with which Hague Convention cases are addressed and resolved, reducing undue delays. 

• We need to address the lack of enforceability of some return and access orders. 

• We need to create more and better systematic data to measure the operation 

of the Hague Convention and evaluate the performance of individual countries. 

• We need to investigate the impact of key decisions of the European Court of 

Human Rights and other courts which seem to potentially risk undermining the 

core premise of the Hague Convention. 

• We need to address the lack of uniformity in the interpretation of the Hague 

Convention particularly with the ‘‘exceptions’’ under Article 13. 

• We need to conduct more in-depth investigation into the impact of domestic violence on international parental child abduction. 

• We need to build on the Malta process by evaluating how the Hague Convention 

is working in Morocco and Turkey, and seeking to replicate the positives associated with those experiences in other Islamic countries. 

• We need to improve judicial training and address variations in caseload and 

experience of Central Authorities and judges in many countries. 

• We need to provide greater support for victim families. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. Goldman. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID GOLDMAN, COFOUNDER AND 

DIRECTOR, BRING SEAN HOME FOUNDATION, LINCROFT, NJ 

Mr. GOLDMAN. I would like to express my appreciation to you, 

Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member Corker and members of 

the committee, for convening this hearing on the vital issue of 

international child abduction. Thank you for having us here today. 

24 

I am David Goldman and my son, Sean, was abducted to Brazil 

in 2004 at the age of 4 by his mother. Even after Sean’s mother 

passed away in 2008, his maternal grandparents continued to deny 

me any access, in further violation of the Hague Convention. The 

only reason I do not appear before you today with a broken heart 

and broken family is because the President of the United States, 

the Secretary of State, the Senate, the House, and a number of individual lawmakers intervened with the Government of Brazil to finally bring my family together and my son home. 

Although we will never regain, reclaim, those 6 lost years, my 

son is thriving, he is happy, and he is healthy, reunited with me 

and his family and loved ones back here in America. So despite all 

the heartbreak my son and family and I have endured, I am one 

of the truly lucky ones. 

Unfortunately, there are thousands of families like mine in 

America today, who have suffered the same as me, but have little 

or no hope of having their abducted children returned, as you will 

hear from Patrick and Bindu Philips behind me and thousands of 

other families who are suffering. Most left-behind families cannot 

secure the intervention of the President, Secretary of State, Senate, 

and House on their behalf, nor should they be expected to. 

These families should be able to rely on the U.S. Government to 

do that for them. 

But what we have learned year after year through administration after administration is that, no matter how well intentioned 

our officials are, those who are responsible for returning abducted 

American children lack the tools to convince the 80-some odd signatories of the Hague Convention to fulfill their treaty obligation 

and return abducted American children. 

These children are the voiceless victims. They have been stripped 

of half of their identities by the abducting parent and whisked 

away to a foreign country. They leave behind devastated families 

and friends and little more than memories of the place they called 

home for most of, if not all of, their lives. These abducted children 

can suffer severe psychological trauma caused by the abduction and 

the ensuing parental alienation they experience at the hands of 

their abductors, who seek to poison their memories and shatter 

their attachment to the left-behind parents. Child abduction is 

child abuse. 

It is crucial that Congress acts now to provide the Department 

of State and the White House the tools they need to return our abducted children. Time is not on the side of the abducted children. 

I read the testimony from a similar hearing held before this very 

committee more than 15 years ago in October 1998 on the issue of 

international child abduction. 

Paul Marinkovich, a left-behind parent from California, testified, 

maybe in this room, maybe in the seat that I am in. He said: ‘‘We 

are here today with many other left-behind parents, questioning 

the lack of compliance of our Hague Convention by other countries. 

If we show these other countries that we are serious by our actions 

and our requests, then they start getting serious about the return 

of our children. If we do not treat the abductions of our children 

as a serious matter, then how can we expect those other countries 

involved to fight for our children’s return?’’ 

25 

The problem was best summed by the statement of then-ranking 

member and later chairman of this committee, Senator Joseph 

Biden, now Vice President of the United States: ‘‘The act of taking 

a child across international borders is a heinous crime which is extremely heart-wrenching for the parent left behind and for the 

child or children affected. It is timely for this committee to review 

the operations of the Hague treaty.’’ 

I am trying to go as quick as I can and I summarize most of my 

statement. 

The fundamental problem with the status quo is that there are 

no serious consequences or penalties for other nations who flagrantly, repeatedly, year after year, refuse or fail to return abducted American children. Go down the list of flagrant abusers and 

many are close allies to the United States. Yet concern for bilateral 

relations and instinct to put the relationship first keep successive 

administrations from sanctioning countries who are flagrant violators or even denouncing them publicly. Quiet diplomacy is always 

the first resort. But, as Bernard Aronson, former Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, who assisted me in securing my son’s return, testified in a December 2009 hearing in the 

Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission on this very issue, and I 

quote: ‘‘A diplomatic request for which there is no real consequence 

for refusal is simply a sophisticated form of begging.’’ 

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I submit to you 

today that very little has changed in the nearly 16 years since this 

committee’s last hearing on this issue. The names of the families 

have changed, but the stories are eerily similar in terms of how ineffectual our government has been because it has no serious tools 

to compel other nations to do their duty and there are few, if any, 

consequences if they refuse. 

In my case, significant diplomatic pressure was applied at all levels, by Chairman Menendez, Congressman Smith, and the late 

Senator Frank Lautenberg, who put a hold on the renewal of the 

GSP trading privileges for Brazil and dozens of other nations. The 

act would have hurt Brazil economically and, low and behold, Sean 

was returned home a few days later. 

Rather than having to resort to such extraordinary measures, 

should not Congress arm the U.S. Government with a menu of 

sanctions the State Department can apply at its discretion to flagrant abusers? That way, our diplomats can warn noncooperating 

nations of potential consequences and adverse congressional reaction and thereby increase the leverage available to our diplomats 

to return abducted American kids. 

Almost done. 

A second problem with the status quo is that—— 

The CHAIRMAN. Is that specifically in your notes? 

Mr. GOLDMAN. No, but I see my light blinking here and I am trying to go through it, but it is such an important issue and there 

is so much to say. Thank you for your patience and your time. 

A second problem with the status quo is the lack of accurate statistics and transparency concerning the dimensions of the problem 

and the record of other nations. We cannot properly analyze this 

problem without accurate data on abductions and returns. Yet 

these figures have become increasingly difficult to find. UnfortuVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
26 

nately, the State Department ceased publishing return figures 

starting in 2010. 

With regard to return rates of abducted children, overall return 

rates of abducted children appear to be holding steady in the 40 

percent range, although the rate is not higher for Hague Convention countries versus non-Hague countries. It is also worth noting 

that the return rates are not improving at a time when a higher 

percentage of overall abduction cases are to Hague Convention 

countries, 75 percent in 2012 versus 46 percent in 2007, suggesting 

that the Convention is not working the way it was designed. 

I believe we need to take an honest view of the failures of this 

reciprocal treaty and what should be done about it. What good does 

it do to encourage other countries to join the Hague treaty if it will 

not lead to an increased number of returned children? That is the 

only way we can measure the success, is by the returns of the children. 

When the International Parental Crime Act was passed in 1993, 

the number of abducted American children was estimated to be 

10,000. We know that in the last several years the number of abducted children registered with our State Department is between 

1,000 and 1,500 per year. Okay, so historically now several hundred children per year are returned, which suggests that every 

year we have an increased net number of roughly 800 to 1,000 children. Yet they say the active cases right now are only 1,035, involving 1,453 children. So the cases are increasing every year by 1,000, 

yet the number of open cases are still less than 2,000. It does not 

add up. We need some more transparency with that. 

So in my closing, as you guys know, legislation just passed the 

House of Representatives last December in a rare show of bipartisan support, 398 to zero, to support these victims. I urge this 

committee to build on that strong foundation and pass this vitally 

needed legislation as soon as possible, and not risk having it 

bounced back and forth between the Senate and the House. The 

families of abducted children have no time to waste. So I really 

hope that we can get something passed to help these folks right 

away because time is the enemy. Every day that a child is abducted is a time away from their family and more suffering and a 

continuing crime. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DAVID GOLDMAN

Before I begin my testimony, I would like to express my appreciation to Chairman 

Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and members of the committee for convening 

this hearing on the vital issue of international child abduction. 

My name is David Goldman. My son, Sean, was abducted to Brazil in 2004 at the 

age of four by his mother. Even after Sean’s mother died in 2008, his maternal 

grandparents continued to deny me access, in further violation of the Hague Convention. (For a more complete description of the details of my case, I refer you to 

my December 2009 testimony at the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission hearing on International Child Abduction: http://bringseanhome.org/DavidlGoldmanl 

testimony.pdf.) 

The only reason I don’t appear before you today with a broken heart and broken 

family is because the President of the United States, the Secretary of State, the 

Senate, the House, and a number of individual lawmakers intervened with the Government of Brazil to finally bring my son home. Although I will never reclaim those 

6 lost years, my son is thriving, happy and healthy, reunited with his grandparents, 

aunts, and loved ones. So despite all the heartbreak my son, my family, and I 

27 

endured, I am one of the lucky ones. Unfortunately, there are thousands of families 

like mine in America today who have suffered the same as me but have little or 

no hope of having their abducted children returned. 

Most left-behind American families can’t secure the intervention of the President, 

Secretary of State, Senate, and House on their behalf. Nor should they be expected 

to. These families should be able to rely on the U.S. Government to do that for 

them. But what we have learned, year after year, through administration after 

administration, is that no matter how well-intentioned our officials are, those who 

are responsible for returning abducted American children lack the tools to convince 

the 80 signatories of the Hague Convention to fulfill their Treaty obligations and 

return our abducted children. 

These abducted children are the voiceless victims here. They’ve been stripped of 

half of their identities by the abducting parent, whisked away to a foreign country, 

and confronted by a language and culture many do not understand. They leave 

behind devastated families and friends, and little more than memories of the place 

they called home for most, if not all of their young lives. 

Child abduction is child abuse and should be treated as a serious human rights 

violation by our country’s leaders. These abducted children often suffer severe psychological trauma caused by the abduction and the ensuing parental alienation they 

experience at the hands of their abductors, who seek to poison their memories and 

shatter their attachments to the left-behind parent. 

This is why it is crucial that Congress acts now to provide the Department of 

State and the White House with the tools they need to return our abducted children. 

I say that because time is not on the side of abducted children. As I prepared to 

testify, I went back and read the testimony from a similar hearing held before this 

very committee more than 15 years ago, in October 1998, on the issue of international child abduction. 

Paul Marinkovich, a left-behind parent from California, testified: ‘‘We are here 

today with many other left-behind parents questioning the lack of compliance of our 

Hague Convention by other countries. If we show these other countries that we are 

serious by our actions and our requests, then they start getting serious about the 

return of our children. If we do not treat the abduction of our children as a serious 

matter, then how can we expect those other countries involved to fight for our children’s return?’’ 

Thomas Johnson, of Virginia, whose daughter Amanda was abducted to Sweden 

in 1994 and never returned, said: ‘‘A decade after U.S. ratification of the Hague 

Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, there is still no 

Central repository of reliable information and expertise in the executive branch that 

can quickly and effectively supply accurate basic data on the legal system, child custody institutions, law enforcement system, social welfare system, legal aid program, 

and Hague Convention performance of the abductor’s country. The left-behind American parent thus has little basis for evaluating the options available.’’ 

But the problem was best summed up by the statement of the then-ranking member and later chairman of this committee. Senator Joseph Biden, now Vice President 

of the United States, said in 1998: ‘‘The act of taking a child . . . across international borders is a heinous crime, which is extremely heart wrenching for the parent left behind and for the child or children affected . . . it is timely for this committee to review the operations of the (Hague) Treaty.’’ 

In my work at the Bring Sean Home Foundation I interact every day with parents 

whose lives have been turned upside down by the abrupt abduction of their children. 

I feel their pain, because I have walked in their shoes. I advise them that the path 

ahead is long and painful, full of emotional ups and downs and, all too often, very 

few tangible results—often running up legal bills well into the six figures and risking bankruptcy for the left-behind family. I warn them that for all practical purposes, the State Department does not view its role as one of vigorous advocacy, but 

rather to provide assistance in making sure that the left-behind parent gets their 

day in court in the foreign country where their children have been taken. Sadly, 

having your day in court often does not result in the return of these children. 

That is because the Treaty is easily manipulated to block or delay the return of 

the child, often by judiciaries subject to local political pressure and even outright 

corruption. An abducting parent need not ultimately win the legal case over the fate 

of the abducted child, but by using the appeal process to endlessly delay the legal 

proceedings long enough so that the abducted child can grow up, the abducting parent’s case is strengthened solely based on the passage of time. 

Sometimes this happens because judges lack an understanding of the principle tenets of the Treaty, and other times it happens because those same judges don’t want 

to send the child home, perhaps because of gender bias or nationalistic reasons. To 

28 

remove these structural and political obstacles is precisely why the Hague Convention was negotiated and ratified by 80 nations. 

My foundation has been assisting a father by the name of Devon Davenport of 

North Carolina, whose daughter Nadia was abducted to Brazil in 2009, just a few 

weeks after her birth. Mr. Davenport has fought admirably to bring Nadia home. 

In September 2010, a federal court first ordered her return to the U.S. Since then, 

the return order has been upheld by numerous appeals courts and the legal case 

is effectively over, yet Devon is still waiting, as I did, for the Brazilian courts to 

enforce their own return order and put Nadia back on a plane to the U.S. Our government should be demanding, not asking, that Nadia be returned. 

The fundamental problem with the status quo is that there are no serious consequences or penalties for other nations who flagrantly, repeatedly, year after year, 

refuse or fail to return abducted American children. Go down the list of flagrant 

abusers and many are close allies of the United States, yet concern for ‘‘bilateral 

relations’’ and the instinct to put ‘‘the relationship first’’ keep successive administrations from sanctioning countries who are flagrant violators or even denouncing them 

publicly. 

Quiet diplomacy is always the first resort, but as Bernard Aronson, former Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, who assisted me in securing 

Sean’s return, testified at a December 2009 hearing in the Tom Lantos Human 

Rights Commission on this very issue: ‘‘a diplomatic request for which there is no 

real consequence for refusal is simply a sophisticated form of begging.’’ 

Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I submit to you today that very 

little has changed in the nearly 16 years since this committee’s last hearing on this 

issue. The names of the families have changed, but the stories are eerily similar in 

terms of how ineffectual our government has been because it has no serious tools 

to compel other nations to do their duty, and there are few, if any, consequences 

when they refuse. In my case, significant diplomatic pressure was applied at all levels by Chairman Menendez, Congressman Chris Smith, and the late Senator Frank 

Lautenberg, who put a hold on the renewal of GSP trading privileges for Brazil and 

dozens of other nations. The act would have hurt Brazil economically, and low and 

behold, Sean was home a few days later. 

Rather than having to resort to such extraordinary measures, shouldn’t Congress 

arm the U.S. Government with a menu of sanctions the State Department can apply 

at its discretion to flagrant abusers? That way our diplomats can warn noncooperating nations of potential consequences and adverse congressional reaction and 

thereby increase the leverage available to our diplomats to return American kids. 

A second problem with the status quo is the lack of accurate statistics and transparency concerning the dimensions of the problem and the record of other nations. 

We cannot properly analyze this problem without accurate data on abductions and 

returns, yet these figures have become increasingly difficult to find. Unfortunately, 

the State Department ceased publishing return figures starting in 2010. With 

regard to return rates for abducted children, overall return rates of abducted children appear to be holding steady in the 40 percent range, although the rate is not 

higher for Hague Convention countries versus non-Hague countries. It’s also worth 

noting that return rates are not improving at a time when a higher percentage of 

overall abduction cases are to Hague Convention countries (75 percent in 2012 

versus 46 percent in 2007), suggesting that the Convention is not working the way 

it was designed. I believe we need to take an honest view of the failures of this 

reciprocal treaty and what should be done about it. What good does it do to encourage other countries to join the Hague Treaty if it won’t lead to an increased number 

of returned children? 

When the International Parental Crime Act was passed in 1993 the number of 

abducted American children was estimated to be 10,000. We know that in the last 

several years, the number of abducted children registered with our State Department is between 1,000 and 1,500 per year. Historically, several hundred children 

per year are returned, which suggests that every year we have an increase in the 

net number of children abducted by roughly 800 to 1,000. Yet in 2013, the number 

of active cases according to the State Department was only 1,035, involving 1,453 

children. The reason, I’m afraid, is that cases are closed by the State Department 

for a long list of reasons in addition to an actual return of the abducted child. Some 

are instances in which the parent simply runs out of money to fund his litigation 

in the country where their child has been taken. Shouldn’t you, as the peoples’ representatives, and left-behind parents, have an accurate accounting of the dimensions 

of the problem and confidence that no child’s case will be written off prematurely? 

My hope for this hearing is that members of this committee and all Senators will 

reach out to your colleagues in the House to work together to strengthen the capacity of the U.S. Government to return abducted children with real sanctions and 

29 

tools, and also to ensure that information about cases and reports is transparent 

and available to the public along with the performance of individual countries. 

As you know, legislation which does just that passed the House of Representatives 

last December 398–0 in a rare show of bipartisan, unanimous support for these victims. I urge this committee to build on that strong foundation and pass this vitally 

needed legislation as soon as possible, and not risk having it bounced back and forth 

between the Senate and the House. The families of abducted children have no time 

to waste. 

My fear is that if this committee and the full Senate don’t take up this cause 

quickly and mid-term elections start to loom, this committee will convene yet 

another hearing, perhaps years from now, and we will hear the same heartbreaking 

stories from a new group of parents making the same urgent requests for help, with 

even more families shattered by the loss of their children. 

As I conclude my remarks, I would like to share with you a quote by former Congressman Barney Frank, who said at a July 2011 congressional hearing on international child abduction: ‘‘We sometimes 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 at us . . . 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.’’ 

In other words, it’s time for America to lead on this issue. Time is the enemy here 

and for left-behind families and their children, those lost years can never be recovered. We face a rare political moment where we have a unanimous, bipartisan consensus in the House on this issue. Let’s not let the perfect be the enemy of the good. 

Now is the time to act. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you. 

Mr. GOLDMAN. I am sorry for taking too much time. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me just make a quick observation before I 

call on Mr. Braden. I was not on the committee, nor was I the 

chairman 15 years ago. I can assure you that we are not going to 

have another hearing like this in the future, because we are going 

to have an action item, working with the ranking member, to build 

upon the House-passed bill. 

I agree with you, time is of the essence. Also, we are not going 

to get multiple bites at having the type of legislation that we collectively want to see. So we want to build upon what the House does, 

particularly work on some preventive measures, like exit controls, 

that I think are going to be very important. So we are going to 

work expeditiously to get there and we are going to have action. 

Mr. Braden. 

STATEMENT OF PATRICK BRADEN, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, GLOBAL FUTURE: THE PARENTS’ COUNCIL ON INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN’S POLICY, LOS ANGELES, CA 

Mr. BRADEN. Thank you, Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member 

Corker, and the rest of the members of the committee, for inviting 

me to testify. I think pretty much everybody on your side of the 

dais knows there is nothing more important to me. 

I ask that my full statement be included in the record along with 

the supplemental reference materials. 

The CHAIRMAN. Without objection. 

Mr. BRADEN. Thank you, sir. 

I wanted to agree with you, we are not going to get another bite 

at this apple probably for another 7 to 10 years. It seems like legislation takes that long to create around here and get passed. On 

that thought, I would love to see, if this body is going to create a 

30 

piece of legislation on this issue, let us make it a meaningful piece 

that really does stop abductions, prevent them, and return the children that are already abducted like my daughter. 

I want to tell you a little bit about my daughter’s case. I do not 

have time. You guys probably know much about it, but I want to 

tell you a little bit about what my organization’s done over the last 

8 years, Global Future: The Parents’ Council on International Children’s Policy. I want to tell you about exhaustion of remedies. We 

also have some excellent ideas for consideration of solutions, including one that 2 years ago had 10 members of the Senate Judiciary Committee ready to move through in the form of an amendment to another bill and, unfortunately, that bill was supposed to 

be a clean bill, so it sort of stopped, and I have not really pressed 

it much in the last couple of years. 

But that bill will stop 98 or 99 percent of all outgoing international parental child abductions and it will save billions and billions and billions of dollars. I have gone through this with economists, the Judiciary Committee, and a number of people, and I 

would like to maybe talk about some of those things later, because 

I want to tell you a little more about some of the other stuff. 

In my daughter’s case, I asked the court for travel-restraining orders in an effort to protect her from the same abuse her mother 

suffered in her youth. Despite a bunch of confusing maneuverings 

by Ryoko’s attorney, Mr. James Kelso Lindsay, everything went 

right in court for my daughter, Melissa. Custody and protective orders, passport surrender orders, travel ban orders, shared custody 

orders were all in place, and that gave me comfort and I really did 

not think anything could happen to my daughter. 

Pressure from her attorney, her parents, and a Japanese attorney who helped plan the criminal abduction of Melissa caused 

Ryoko to cave in. A genuine Japanese passport in a false name was 

used for Melissa and Ryoko simply got on a plane with our daughter on March 16, 2006, and covertly left the United States with our 

daughter. Once the All Nippon Airways plane left the airport, all 

legal protections and rights were effectively stripped for Melissa. 

This is not a case where I somehow consented or acquiesced to 

any foreign laws, customs, or jurisdiction. I availed myself of every 

possible legal protection and prevention under U.S. law to prevent 

those risks. It was a criminal kidnapping. Within days, local and 

Federal arrest warrants were issued. 

I later sued Ryoko’s Los Angeles attorney, Mr. Lindsay, for malpractice by aiding and abetting an international parental child abduction. I fought the case alone because malpractice attorneys do 

not like to sue other attorneys. I won the demurrer and the motion 

for summary judgment in pro per and eventually won the whole 

case. I have been told that I was the only person ever in America 

to successfully sue opposing counsel for malpractice arising out of 

a family law action and win, and I am not a lawyer. A few years 

later I worked with another New Jersey constituent of yours, Mr. 

Chairman, and he won his case as well. 

31 

The issue of a child’s separation from a parent is rarely as simple 

as it seems at face value. Abduction case facts are complicated. Not 

all cases are abductions. If we are to create legislation on this subject, we need to first understand the language and categories of all 

cases. 

The most egregious kinds of cases will be U.S. jurisdiction cases 

where foreign nationals broke U.S. law on U.S. soil. They include 

abuses of human rights, have bases and remedies available in 

criminal, civil, and family law. 

By contrast, foreign jurisdiction cases are defined by transgression of human rights for which there may only be a civil or diplomatic remedy. The U.S. Government simply cannot unwind the 

legal facts and legal distress in every case. Jurisdiction is the primary foundational element which dictates the appropriate venue 

where any remedy or relief can be found. The legal facts determine 

what areas of law can or cannot be used. Potential remedies are 

controlled by the facts and careful responsibility should guide our 

usage of the descriptive words. 

For example, the use of and the definition of the word ‘‘abduction.’’ In U.S. law it has very specific meaning. Misuse of these 

words creates dangerous and damaging misperceptions. I want to 

give you a quote here from Jeff Slowikowski, a good friend of mine 

and General Holder: ‘‘Misperceptions about family abduction can 

potentially cause further trauma to the abducted child. These 

misperceptions can also lead to an increase in the incidence and 

duration of family abductions.’’ I want to repeat that: ‘‘These kinds 

of misperceptions can lead to an increase in the incidence and duration of family abductions.’’ 

In our work we have seen immediate—and everywhere in America—we have seen immediate and robust law enforcement responses, like investigations, interviewing accomplices, tracking 

cellphone and credit card data, issuance of amber alerts, arrest 

warrants, quick extradition of the abductors. But that takes place 

in domestic child abductions. That is the Federal response in domestic child abductions. 

In international child abductions, there is never such an urgent 

response. In fact, I was met after my daughter’s abduction, I was 

met with the same phrase over and over and over again, from my 

Congressman, the judge, the law enforcement, the FBI. They all 

said to me: Without the further cooperation of the Government of 

Japan, there is nothing more we can do for you. 

I just do not believe that. I know so many people up here—I see 

that my time is up and I just want to say, exhaustion of remedies. 

I have spent 800 days of my life in these buildings. I have met with 

former Presidents, every single living Secretary of State, Vice 

Presidents, maybe 40 or 50 foreign dignitaries, 1,600 staffers on 

the Hill here I have met with. I have met with virtually every single Senator in office today. And I wake up every morning and I do 

not know what more I can do, that I did not do yesterday, to bring 

my daughter back. 

32 

I just want to say, thank you for holding this hearing and I will 

look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Braden follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICK BRADEN

I want to thank you Chairman Menendez and Ranking Member Corker and members of the committee for inviting me to testify. Sincerely, nothing means more to 

me than working out the problems on this issue that my daughter faces, so thank 

you very much. 

I ask that my full statement be included in the record as well as some supplemental reference materials. 

First, I want to tell you just a little about my daughter Melissa’s case and what 

I and my organization, Global Future, The Parents Council on International Children’s Policy have done over the last 8 years. I’ll include ideas about working 

through the challenges and problems throughout. Then I’d like to offer a series of 

ideas for consideration as solutions, and discuss some of the recent developments 

and special challenges that Japan presents us. 

It is my sincere belief that the only meaningful solutions to international parental 

child abduction, in terms of remedy and prevention, will be found primarily in the 

Judiciary and under law enforcement. We have seen in domestic kidnappings an immediate and robust law enforcement response with regard to investigations, interviewing accomplices, tracking phone and credit card data, issuing Amber Alerts and 

arrest warrants, quick extradition of perpetrators, and heroic recoveries of children, 

without hesitation. 

In international parental kidnappings there is never such an urgent response. 

Instead, in a very high percentage of cases children remain abducted, and here we 

are at another hearing on the same subject, the same as in 2004 and the same as 

in 1998 going over the same old ground. Therefore, the Federal response to international parental child abduction (‘‘IPCA’’) must more closely match the successful 

model of the Federal response to domestic parental child abductions. Otherwise, 

these children will continue to be denied equal justice under the law, and be 

deprived of their civil and constitutional rights. (Please see the attached Global 

Future New Parents Primer #1.) 

In addition to the Judiciary component, future success on the IPCA issue must 

include Foreign Relations and Homeland Security components. None of these three 

aspects can be by-passed, if we want to honestly represent to American Families 

that meaningful progress on this issue has been achieved. Some of the real changes 

will have to be (1) a stronger priority on enforcement of existing laws and treaties; 

(2) more streamlined and real-time direct communications between family courts 

and law enforcement, especially at border crossings; (3) implementation of exit controls; and (4) developing and maintaining a more closely aligned, truly shared 

respect for the laws and judicial orders between all global partner nations. 

Action by the Foreign Relations channel is subject to limitation by sovereignty, 

diplomatic considerations, U.S. and international law, and international treaties. 

Departmental creep and stove piping the work by each of the three Departments 

over a long time has contributed to the current state of a failed and incoherent Federal response for all of these children. 

Melissa’s case started when her mother Ryoko, was pressured by her parents to 

return to Japan with our daughter, shortly after her birth. I was especially fearful 

that their financial and controlling influences could sway her, even though she had 

never proposed that idea and we had never discussed any of us moving to Japan. 

Ryoko previously discussed with me and a bilingual psychologist in over year of 

counseling, that she suffered a long-term terrible abuse in her youth at the hands 

of her father. That psychologist is able to break the privacy vow and discuss what 

he heard from Ryoko, if subpoenaed by a congressional committee or judge. So I 

asked the court for a restraining order in an effort to protect our daughter from that 

same trauma, and from being subjected to any foreign jurisdiction, laws customs, 

traditions, where she would be less protected than in the United States. That 

entered us into the family court system in Los Angeles. Despite the maneuverings 

by Ryoko’s attorney James Kelso Lindsay, everything went right for Melissa in 

court. I was lucky that Ryoko never denied her personal abuse history, and that 

there really weren’t many serious mistakes in the case by either my attorney or the 

judge. We went through 11 months of proceedings. Shared custody was ordered, 

with daily visitation. There were several protective orders in place such as passport 

surrender, no travel, and more. (Please see attached Judges order from March 8, 

2006 #2.) 

33 

Ryoko eventually succumbed to the pressure from her attorney, her parents, and 

a Japanese attorney her parents hired, who together planned and executed the 

criminal abduction of Melissa. She had a Japanese passport created in a false name 

for our daughter. Then by a combination of acts of deception, coercion, and fraud, 

she went to the airport and got on a plane with our daughter on March 16, 2006. 

Once the All Nippon Airways plane left the ground, all U.S. law protections, and 

U.S. rights were effectively stripped from Melissa. After hearing our judge order, 

specifically, no travel to Japan with our child, and the passport surrender, I believed 

that nothing like this could have ever happened. I also felt confident that if something did happen, the courts, law enforcement and the U.S. Government would 

quickly remedy the situation. This is not a case where I consented or somehow 

acquiesced to our child being subjected to any foreign laws, customs, or jurisdiction. 

In fact, like the many other cases that I highlight within the work of Global Future 

(several members of which are here today and you may have met with me here regularly), I availed myself of every possible legal protection and prevention under U.S. 

law and within the courts to ensure that Melissa would never be subject to any foreign law and especially jurisdiction. It was a criminal kidnapping, resulting in local 

and Federal arrest warrants. (Please see attached FBI arrest warrant #3.) 

So that brings me to the differences between the various types of cases and the 

differences in the U.S. Government obligations in each of the different types of 

cases. (Please see the attached Global Future Differences Between The Cases, document #4, and the Japanese Hague instrument legal definitions, the most recently 

deposited definitions currently at The Hague, #5.) The issue of a child’s separation 

from a parent is rarely as simple as it appears at face value. Abduction cases are 

complicated. Many cases of parent-child separation are not ‘‘abductions.’’ If we are 

to create legislation on this subject, we need to better understand the categories of 

cases, and the appropriate measures, as warranted by the facts of each case. Any 

legislation attempting to currently define or redefine all cases on some ‘‘same’’ basis, 

and then place all cases in the same bucket with the same limited sets of diplomatic 

remedies, severely discriminates against the cases that have a clear-cut basis in 

U.S. law and law enforcement’s statutory obligation to act. The response to international child kidnapping should be exactly on par with the federal response to 

domestic kidnappings. Even the Japanese recognize and differentiate between these 

important semantic legal foundations. 

It is now (and once again) clear that criminally abducted children do not have 

equal protection under the law. Each and every case, criminal or civil, U.S. jurisdiction or foreign jurisdiction, has a tragically sad and compelling aspect with regard 

to the children. But children by virtue of their minority and law, are subject to and 

controlled by their parents’ decisions. Sometimes parents unwittingly make bad 

legal decisions or take a risk, and later do not want to accept the resulting legal 

reality. So there are wrongful retentions and wrongful removals. There are criminal 

cases, there are civil cases, and there are foreign jurisdiction cases, U.S. jurisdiction 

cases, cases with violations of family law, and human rights cases. 

The most egregious cases will be U.S. jurisdiction cases, which include abuse of 

human rights, and have bases and remedies available in criminal, civil, and family 

law. By contrast, foreign jurisdiction cases are defined by a transgression of human 

rights, for which there may be only civil remedies. 

There has been every variety of extraordinary legal cases, such as Tom Sylvester’s, that still don’t end in remedy or relief. In addition to having a criminal child 

abduction case from the U.S. to Austria, and continuing U.S. jurisdiction, he won 

in the Hague only to face endless appeals and he also won in the E.U. Court of 

Human Rights and in the European Convention, none of which returned his daughter to her legal home in Ohio. Please see attached testimony submission (some of 

which came from the 2004 House hearing by Tom Sylvester, #6), and ask yourself 

if anything has changed since then, or since the previous hearing he testified in, 

in 1998. 

Although they may appear similar, every case is unique by fact, and remedies are 

controlled by the facts. Careful responsibility should guide our usage of the various 

descriptive words, describing the various types of cases. Correct usage is of the 

utmost importance. For example, the use of and the definition of the word ‘‘abduction.’’ In U.S. law, the word has very specific meaning, (please see the attached 

Black’s Law Dictionary definition, #7). Misuse of the word ‘‘abduction’’ and other relevant words creates misperceptions. These misperceptions are then spread through 

the media and eventually will confuse law enforcement and judicial officers as well 

as the American public and cause harm. Below is a quote from the Department of 

Justice’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (‘‘OJJDP’’) 2010 publication entitled ‘‘The Crime of Family Abduction’’ signed by Jeff Slowikowski and 

Attorney General Eric Holder: ‘‘Misperceptions about family abduction can potenVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
34 

tially cause further trauma to the abducted child. These misperceptions can also 

lead to an increase in the incidence and duration of family abductions.’’ 

The U.S. Government simply cannot unwind the legal facts and legal distress of 

every case. For example, cases where a parent consents to the travel and places his 

or her child on a plane, defines this common case model as a foreign jurisdictionwrongful retention case, with only civil and Hague remedies, if the foreign country 

is a Hague partner. It is not by fact or definition a criminal abduction. It’s unrealistic to expect that we will ever see another Senator hold up billions of dollars of 

foreign funding on behalf of a wrongful retention case, as Senator Lautenberg courageously did. There are thousands of criminal abduction cases where such strong 

action has not yet been taken. Holding up foreign aid does not demonstrate successful diplomacy, nor a success of the Hague. 

Basically, all cases can be sorted by jurisdiction first, and legal facts second. 

There are U.S. jurisdiction cases, and foreign jurisdiction cases. Under the principles of international law, jurisdiction is the primary element and will dictate the 

appropriate venue where any remedy or relief can be decided on any case. The legal 

facts will determine what areas of law can be used for remedy or relief. Legal facts 

can’t be changed after the fact. 

Six months after Melissa’s abduction in August 2006, I made my first trip to Capitol Hill. By November 2006, I made up my mind that I was going to educate every 

single legislator and every relevant government department on the issue. This gave 

me hope, a purpose, and it was a good use of my time and energy. It kept me sane, 

but more importantly, I had decided that if the U.S. Government is now the de-facto 

parent for Melissa in Japan, that this work was now my only way of parenting her. 

Since then, I have spent about 100 days per year, here in these buildings. Today, 

I stand at about 800 days of my life here. I have taken the time of so many members, some of whom are now gone from public service or have even passed away. 

I have now met with over 1,600 congressional staffers, a few maybe over 100 times. 

I have spoken with every living Secretary of State, former Presidents and Vice 

Presidents, and a few hundred foreign dignitaries. Today, I want to thank all of you 

for your time, indulgence, hard work, and occasionally your patience with me. When 

I come here, I am almost a one-issue guy. That issue is my daughter Melissa. Please 

forgive me. I feel like I have lost everything already, but I am not the victim here. 

My daughter is the victim and I am her father charged with fixing her problems. 

That is why I keep coming back, and remain committed to this work. 

Back in my first year other tracks of work were developing too. I bought a law 

library in 2007 and studied ideas in potential strategic litigation and law. The day 

before the statute ran out, I filed suit against Ryoko’s lawyer and his entire firm 

for malpractice by aiding and abetting in an abduction. I desperately fought the case 

alone for the first 14 months while interviewing over 420 malpractice attorneys, all 

of which passed on handling the case. I won the demurrer and the motion for summary judgment in pro persona, and finally found two of the best civil attorneys in 

California to handle my trial for a fee. We won. 

I was told at that time that I was the only person in America to successfully sue 

opposing counsel for malpractice, arising out of a family law action, and win. It was 

painfully bittersweet, and I don’t recommend that anyone attempt it. However, I did 

work with another New Jersey resident who copied the suit and won his case as 

well. His may be the only other example to date. 

I also filed suit against the All Nippon Airways trying to establish that airlines 

have a duty to protect children and their families from the harm that comes from 

abductions. We lost my first case, but reworked it and refiled a better version in 

another case in California, and then planned and filed refined versions in two more 

cases in Florida and Pennsylvania simultaneously. This kind of work is continuing. 

After 3 years of working with Rep. Jim Oberstar, and the House Transportation 

Committee, he ordered a GAO report, which explored the problems and potential 

remedies with airlines used in the commission of child abductions. (Please see 

attached GAO Report 11–602, #8.) There are many other ideas in the strategic 

litigation channel, but most of those are more appropriate for a future judiciary 

hearing. 

Today I also want to discuss how international child abduction violates these children’s civil and constitutional rights. 

A little background first. In the history of law, no-fault divorce, shared custody, 

and children’s rights are still in their infancy. Just 60 years ago, international marriages were a tiny fraction of what they are today. Even 20 years ago it was a lot 

of very slow work to meet a potential spouse on the other side of the planet, if you 

didn’t travel and spend time there. Today, ease of international travel and 

globalization make it possible to meet and talk with thousands of people from every 

35 

possible location on the planet. And it is happening faster and faster, and more and 

more children with dual or even triple nationalities, are born every day. 

Timing is everything for work on certain issues. Yesterday, was the time for 

meaningful progress on this issue. If this body intends to take up legislation on foreign nationals crossing our borders illegally coming in to our country, that would 

then be the appropriate time to take up work on American children being kidnapped 

out of our country. 

The Etan Patz case was the very first abduction case to really change the way 

American society and law enforcement deals with child abductions. It is now 35 

years old, and still remains unresolved. As a result of that seminal watershed case, 

we got legislation creating National Center for Missing and Exploited Children 

(‘‘NCMEC’’), law enforcement created new ways of investigating cases, photos 

became a new tool and were then first used on milk cartons. Many of the far reaching implications of that case took America into a new phase of awareness of the 

crime of child abductions. 

The Hague treaty on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abductions is now 

only 30 years old and was a great start for its time. The Hague framework is 

expanding worldwide, but the massive loopholes continue to be widened and foreign 

judges and attorneys continue to exploit in order to deny returns. 

The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (‘‘IPKCA’’) became law in 1993, 

and in the legislative history, the original authors were clear that it was the prosecution of the criminal abduction cases that would drive the deterrent to all forms 

of child abductions and wrongful retentions. I believe that is still the only effective 

path forward today, and was a visionary insight by those authors that unfortunately 

has never had a chance to be demonstrated. Just a few emblematic prosecutions 

each year would send a message everywhere that we as Americans believe that protecting these children’s rights to equal justice under the law is more important than 

either parents’ selfish considerations, or acts of revenge and control that leave children as the real victims of a crime. 

These prosecutions send a message worldwide that we won’t accept forum shopping, that any properly entered and valid first-in-time judicial decisions would and 

should remain in force, that those judicial determinations would actually be 

enforced especially when the children are abducted, and cannot be undermined 

through means of fraud and deception. The IPKCA plan was clear; the Department 

of State was to serve DOJ by assisting in resolving the most egregious criminal 

cases. Prioritizing extradition requests, and holding countries to their extradition 

treaty obligations seemed to be the simple practical key to the authors of IPKCA 

and helped reinforce the rights of all children. 

Knowledge about the potential consequences would absolutely deter most wouldbe child abductors, and would provide incentive for resolution of greater numbers 

of wrongful retention and foreign jurisdiction access cases. Essentially, bad actors 

will resist the temptation when they know the consequences might really negatively 

affect them if they choose to take such an action. 

After 1993, it seems clear that DOJ became frustrated by the unresolved criminal 

abduction cases piling up, and with the lack of DOS support on resolving the international criminal cases. So eventually, over time, the portfolio of work on these 

cases migrated from DOJ to DOS. 

I have to say here that I personally know about 100 people who work at DOS who 

sincerely would love nothing more than to bring Melissa home today. Over time and 

study, I came to realize that there are thousands of deeply committed and concerned 

people working in the DOS. But from the bottom of the DOS to the top, returning 

our children is just not in their job description or ability. They are not law enforcement officers; their job is diplomacy and they answer to the administration and to 

Congress. 

Here in the foreign relations channel, we could rewrite portions of DOS’ Foreign 

Affairs Manual in order to better serve these emblematic international Child Abduction cases. Creating better Welfare and Whereabouts reports, taking current photographs and videos to return to the left behind parents with, and including professional child development and social science evaluations may help create a more 

positive view of the U.S. Government response in appropriate cases, and would 

address the psychological and emotional traumas that these children experience. 

(Please the attached paper by Sarah Lyons, #9.) 

In fact 3 years ago, Global Future wrote a proposal (among a long list of proposals 

over a few years) for a sweeping reform of the Welfare and Whereabouts (‘‘W&W’’) 

visit program. This may be something that can be more appropriately done by this 

committee in the foreign relations channel. (Please see the attached version of the 

Foreign Affairs Manual on this subject, #10.) The W&W visit program is still one 

area that does give some parents some solace and comfort. It also may be the only 

36 

U.S. Government obligation in some types of access or foreign jurisdiction cases that 

can be executed. 

Former Assistant Secretary Kurt Campbell and current Assistant Secretary Janice Jacobs acknowledged publicly that another of our proposals became a new DOS 

policy. That particular idea is one we are most proud of. ‘‘The aged-out cases proposal.’’ After abducted children age out of minority, in appropriate cases, the DOS 

no longer needs to go through an abducting or wrongfully retaining parent in order 

to talk with the child. That person is now in their majority, still has American citizenship, still has an American family, society, and cultural aspect of their identity, 

which may have been wrongfully denied to them previously. They may have inherited property or money, they may want to seek employment or education here in 

the U.S., they may be eligible for various programs or might want to join some 

branch of our government or military. The point is that the Embassy can directly 

contact these abducted children without the barriers that they unfortunately faced 

while the child was in their minority. 

There is no way for us to write a law demanding that the administration engage 

another nation, but we can have Foreign Service officers fulfill that promise written 

inside the front page of every U.S. Passport. 

Left behind parents are a uniquely desperate and vulnerable group. They are persons who are at the most desperate time of their lives. They are susceptible to all 

kinds of scams and frauds. In fact when Googling IPCA, the top sites that come up 

will reveal scam artists who regularly prey on left-behind parents and their families 

using their children as bait. There are literally hundreds of spurious organizations 

that use real and falsified stories and images of parent and child separations to solicit money for personal gain. There are hundreds of paramilitary snatch-back organizations, most of which successfully extract between $30,000 and up to $1,000,000 

per case, from desperate and trusting parents, without ever intending to return the 

children. The Internet has created so much in the way of good for humanity. It also 

has increased the opportunities for scams and cons in an exponential way. In an 

area mostly overlooked by law and law enforcement, filled with desperate and trusting parents, these fraudsters have easy pickings. Many operate under false identities, and they face very little in the way of consequences. 

I was as desperate and vulnerable as any parent in early 2006. However I was 

lucky to discover in time that I had been solicited by one of these con artists very 

soon after my daughter’s abduction. I researched him and found that his real story 

was entirely the opposite of what he portrayed on the Internet. By attending two 

court trials against him months later, I learned that he had a notorious record of 

domestic violence, abuse, identity theft, false identity, unpaid child support, vexatious litigation, and fraud, primarily victimizing his Japanese wife, the mother of 

their child. I was appalled. Today, he runs one of three Internet-based organizations 

purportedly advocating for left-behind parents whose children are in Japan, that all 

happen to be run by persons with abuse histories that have been vetted judicially 

or by law enforcement. Individuals like this undermine the work of Congress on our 

children’s behalf, and add to the time they will be held in captivity abroad. 

One of our central pillars in Global Future became calling out abusers and 

demanding that they be prosecuted. We stand in support of victims of domestic 

violence (‘‘DV’’) and against abusers, with a no-tolerance policy. Cases where abuse 

allegations adjudicated by Judges or vetted by law enforcement officials won’t qualify for any type of association with our group or our work. At the same time, we 

object to be being painted with that same brush by DV organizations and must work 

even harder to expose abusive individuals hiding amongst the left-behind parent 

community. By virtue of their nature, we found that abusive individuals retaliated 

in any number of ways when we rejected them for inclusion in or association with 

our work. 

From these same individuals and their organizations, myself and my organization 

have received death threats, cyber threats, and cyber bullying attacks while these 

people hid by using false identities on the internet. My e-mail has been hacked, my 

credit card hacked, my Facebook page disabled, our Web site disabled, and they 

even put porn ads on my daughter’s Facebook page after I could no longer access 

it. Indeed I have even been threatened to be killed if I so much as testify on the 

subject of IPCA or expose the true facts of some cases. We have decided that the 

entire community of left-behind parents must be carefully vetted if we are ever to 

make clear progress. (Please see the attached draft copy of the Global Future Congressional Protocol for Vetting Left-Behind Parent and Child Abduction Cases, #11.) 

Indeed both legislators and the entire advocacy community suffers when these people abusively dominate the internet presence, and attempt to hijack our advocacy 

movement and work on the issue. 

37 

Until we began Global Future, no child had ever been returned from Japan 

through a legal process. Today, and in history, there has been only one single child 

legally returned from Japan. Although we worked with numerous agencies and departments of the U.S. Government, the return of Dr. Garcia’s daughter to her lawful 

home in Milwaukee, was largely a result of the planning, education, and work of 

Global Future. That was our third criminally kidnapped child returned to their lawful home in the U.S. (Please see the attached Garcia case study narrative, the 

Global Future Justice case study hand-out, and the NCMEC database report on the 

Garcia case, #12.) 

Over the entire 7 years of Global Future’s existence, we examined and analyzed 

hundreds of cases. We have worked with families in reconciliations, mediations, 

civil, criminal, and family court proceedings. All along building on ideas that we 

have perceived as in the realm of what’s possible, without letting the goal of the 

perfect result stop us from getting anywhere. We developed a set of plans that we 

believed was possible to affect a safe legal return. One of our members, Mr. 

Alejandro Mendoza of New Jersey offered his case as the first prototype. It was 

huge and courageous risk. Our feelings of responsibility if it were to fail, and commitments to making it work, were the highest. Law enforcement officials in New 

Jersey agreed, and we eventually brought both children back to their lawful home. 

All along we were working on several cases at once. Dr. Moises Garcia’s case was 

especially unique and promising in terms of all of the facts. (Please see the attached 

narrative of his case.) It is highly unlikely that we will ever see another case with 

the variety of and complete exhaustion of every possible favorable ruling in both 

countries. With that as background, and our recent success in the Mendoza case, 

Dr. Garcia convinced us that we could bring his daughter home. Again it was an 

even higher level of responsibility and fear of failure. It was Japan this time and 

no one had ever been successful in Japan. (Please see attached NCMEC database 

report on this case.) We cautiously applied many of the same ideas and principles 

as in the Mendoza case and on December 23, 2011, Dr. Garcia’s daughter was back 

in her lawful home in Wisconsin. 

This case is by far and away, the most highly emblematic of any within international child abductions. This is the model case to study. It demonstrates the key 

to unlocking hundreds or thousands of criminal abduction cases, which in turn creates the deterrent and incentivizes resolutions in all other kinds of cases. 

Today, we live in a civilization within a highly globalized world. We no longer can 

live in a world where this issue can be kicked down the road. It seems that the U.S. 

Government is entirely in control of the fate of my daughter and all other abducted 

American children. 

Please don’t let my daughter or any of these children slip away. Please use this 

opportunity to pass meaningful legislation that reinforces protections for our children, and their original jurisdiction. Legislation that prioritizes and protects the justice components. Legislation that will result in children being returned to their lawful homes. 

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mr. Braden. 

Dr. Hunter. 

STATEMENT OF NOELLE HUNTER, PH.D., PARENT OF AN 

ABDUCTED CHILD, MOREHEAD, KY 

Dr. HUNTER. Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker, and 

members of the committee: On behalf of my 6-year-old daughter, 

Muna, my family, and my fellow parents, all of whom have had 

their children kidnapped to far-away lands, I thank you so much 

for recognizing this issue of parental child abduction as one of 

great concern. Indeed, it is time to pass meaningful legislation to 

contain this pandemic and eradicate this terrible pain it has caused 

all too often. 

I would like to share my personal story and offer some ideas that 

this distinguished body, you, can take to strengthen laws, support 

legal remedies, and prompt changes in the way that our Federal 

Government and our Federal agencies work in concert with us parents and other organizations to bring our children back home. 

38 

On December 27, 2011, my daughter, Muna, was taken by her 

father from the only home she has ever known, in Morehead, KY, 

and spirited away to Bamako, Mali, in West Africa without my 

knowledge or consent. Previously, in October of that year, a Kentucky circuit court judge had issued a joint custody ruling for us, 

acknowledging the right to equally parent our child. That same decision ordered that I retain her U.S. passport. The judge understood that there was a risk that her father would take her, and 

that is the very action that brings me before you today. 

When I took Muna to the designated custody exchange location, 

even then I anticipated what was about to happen, but I was powerless to do anything because no law had yet been broken. The FBI 

later confirmed that Muna was taken away from JFK Airport on 

a Mali-bound flight. 

I immediately opened a case with the Department of State Office 

of Children’s Issues and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. As I tried to get Muna back home, across the 

world in Mali where she was taken a civil war had broken out. 

Imagine my horror. My 4-year-old daughter, a U.S. citizen born in 

Kentucky, was illegally taken away to now a war-torn country and 

there was nothing that I could do, and apparently nothing that I 

have done so far, that has returned her to my borders. 

We need to fix this. It has been 793 days, more than 2 years, 

since Muna was abducted and I have done everything that a mother can do to bring her home. I am like many of my fellow parents 

in that regard: We need your help. 

I am pleased to say that I do have the unified support of my 

Kentucky delegation. Senator Paul has reached out to members of 

the State Department and to the members of the Mali Government. 

In the U.S. House of Representatives, Chairman Rogers has been 

consistent in his support and outreach efforts on our behalf. And 

I do not really even have time to tell you of the varied and creative 

and unwavering support that the Senate Minority Leader, Mitchell 

McConnell, has given to this case. Since the first day I brought it 

to his office, he has come alongside me and my family to press with 

high-ranking members of the Mali Government, at the U.S. Department of State, and even in the Justice Department to secure 

Muna’s return. But she is still not home. 

Muna’s kidnapping speaks to the greater problem of why there 

must be fundamental changes in the way that international parental child abduction is addressed at the Federal level. When I traveled to Bamako last summer to petition the courts to recognize preexisting U.S. court orders for custody and return, I was unsuccessful. In Bamako, I virtually begged to spend time with my own 

daughter. But that court would not affirm my status as her mother. 

I returned from Bamako without Muna, but with an even stronger resolve to advocate for her and the rights of every U.S. child who 

has been unlawfully removed from U.S. soil and very often in violation of court orders, and always in violation of the international 

principles of the rule of law. That is why the process for parents 

working with Congress and Federal agencies must be streamlined. 

It is my opinion that the next logical step is to recognize that international parental child abductions are foremost a matter of justice 

39 

rather than diplomacy, though diplomacy has its place. The focus 

of this issue and action must be properly transferred to the Department of Justice because in nearly all cases this is a matter of criminality. Parental abduction is child abuse. 

We must urge the nations to place greater pressure upon their 

own citizens to adhere to the international rule of law and return 

these children to their home country. In conjunction with such 

urgings, the Justice Department should make the issuance of Federal warrants under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime 

Act of 1993 standard practice. I would like to see this happen in 

my own case because, despite high-level conversations with the 

State Department, my efforts of my family and my delegation to 

incentivize my ex-husband to return with her, she is still not here 

and justice is now our only recourse. 

This body has heard testimony about the Hague Convention as 

a means for justice and remedy. Though I cannot speak from personal experience about the efficacy of the Hague Convention because the Republic of Mali is not a signatory, I can relay the sentiments of several of my fellow parents whose children are abducted 

to signatory nations. It is in their experience a paper tiger that 

compounds their personal grief and financial woe, rather than 

serves as a means to end their abduction and bring them home. 

But Federal warrants get the job done. This is one action that 

I recommend this body consider as a front-line defense and deterrent. My friend, Alissa Zagaris, and her son, Leo, join us today sitting out in the audience as a result of this process. Alissa went the 

route of the Hague Convention and was confounded at every turn, 

until the FBI rightly issued a penal abduction warrant, and Leo is 

under her roof today. 

A final point that I would like to urge the committee to consider 

is how this government might enact strong prevention mechanisms 

to foil attempts to unlawfully remove our children in the first place. 

Exit control, as you properly said, sir, must be a key element of 

any meaningful legislation and implementation. To this day, I do 

not know how Muna left this country, because the judge ordered 

that I keep her U.S. passport. In the same way the Department of 

Homeland Security attempts to monitor persons entering this country, it should employ with equal or even greater scrutiny persons 

leaving it, especially children. 

In closing, I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member 

Corker, and this committee for allowing this issue to come before 

you. I believe in my country and I have studied it and have seen 

with my own eyes this country solve problems that we once 

thought were intractable. International parental child abduction is 

no exception. I stand with my fellow parents, Mr. Goldman, Mr. 

Braden, Rick Myers, whose sons, Dean and Adi, were abducted to 

Israel, Yedi Flaquer, whose son, infant son, is in Israel, Sally Plink, 

whose children, Jared and Cassidy, were abducted to the Netherlands, the very seat of the Hague Convention, in pleading with you 

to find better solutions to help us return our children. 

This is a crime of the heart against our most vulnerable citizens. 

They need us and they need justice. Finally, this Nation was founded on the fundamental principle of liberty and they have been deprived of this inalienable right. The only right remedy for this depVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
40 

rivation is justice, and there can be no rest for these persons or nations who thwart liberty until justice rolls down and we look up 

and see our children returning home. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Hunter follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DR. NOELLE HUNTER

Chairman Menendez, Ranking Member Corker and members of the committee, on 

behalf of my 6-year-old daughter, Muna, my family, and my fellow parents who also 

have had their children kidnapped to far away lands, I thank you for recognizing 

the issue of international parental child abduction as one of great concern. 

Modern society is a global society. Today in the U.S. there are more couples of 

mixed citizenship (nationalities) than ever. But when these relationships fail and 

the family unit breaks apart, these children become more than victims of divorce, 

they often become victims of international kidnappings. This current scourge wreaks 

emotional havoc on children and families with alarming frequency. Indeed it is time 

to create meaningful legislation to contain this pandemic and eradicate the terrible 

pain caused all too often. 

I would like to share my personal story and offer some ideas that this distinguished body—you—can take to strengthen laws, support legal remedies and 

prompt changes in the way that our Federal Government and our federal agencies 

work in concert with parents and other organizations to bring our children back 

home. 

My daughter, Muna, was taken from our home in Morehead, KY, in December 

2011. Just 2 days after Muna, her sister Rysa and I had spent a sweet Christmas 

together, she was spirited away by her father without my knowledge or consent to 

his home country of Bamako, Mali, West Africa. 

Previously in October of that year, a Kentucky circuit court judge had issued a 

joint custody ruling granting Muna’s father and me equal parenting, recognizing 

each’s fundamental right to parent our child. 

That same decision ordered that I retain possession of Muna’s U.S. passport. It 

stipulated that her father must give me a detailed itinerary if he wished to travel 

overseas with her. The judge understood there was a risk that her father would take 

the very action that brings me before you today. 

When I took Muna to the designated custody exchange location, her father 

demanded the passport from me. I refused to give it to him because he did not provide me with a travel itinerary as the order stipulated. 

Even then, I anticipated what was about to happen, but I was powerless because 

I had no proof that he was about to take her. A week later on New Year’s Day as 

I sat at the restaurant waiting for their return, the time passed when he was supposed to return her to my custody . . . my stomach knotted with every passing 

minute and I knew. 

The FBI later confirmed that my Muna was taken away from the only home she 

had known on December 27, on a Mali-bound plane out of JFK airport. 

I immediately opened a case with the Department of State Office of Children’s 

Issues and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It would take 

13 very long days, a state felony warrant for custodial interference, and pleadings 

from me to local law enforcement before Muna and her father would be entered into 

INTERPOL and the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database. 

As I tried to get Muna back home, across the world in Mali where she had been 

taken, a civil war broke out. Imagine my horror! My 4-year-old daughter, a U.S. citizen born in Kentucky, was illegally taken away to a war zone and nothing I have 

done so far has brought her back home. We need to fix this. 

For over 2 years now, I have done what any mother can do to bring her back 

home. I’ve contacted high-ranking officials of the Malian Government here and in 

that country. I’ve stage a protest in front of the Mali Embassy here in Washington. 

I’ve met with the Malian Ambassador to the United Nations. I’ve rallied my family, 

my Morehead community, and global support, thanks to social media. I’ve made several trips to Washington to lobby for her return here in Congress, and last summer 

I traveled to Mali to petition for her return . . . unsuccessfully! 

I’m pleased to say that I have the unified support of my Kentucky delegation. 

Senator Paul has reached out to the Mali Government on Muna’s behalf. In the U.S. 

House of Representatives, Chairman Rogers has been consistent in his support and 

outreach efforts to the State Department and to officials of the Mali Government. 

I don’t even have time allotted today to tell you of Senate Minority Leader Mitch 

McConnell and his varied, creative, unwavering and action-oriented support. From 

41 

the first day I made Muna’s case known to him, he has been at my side, pressing 

for her return in the Department of State and in the Department of Justice. Yet 

still . . . my Muna is not home. 

Muna’s kidnapping speaks to the greater problem of why there must be fundamental changes in the way international parental child abduction is addressed at 

the federal level. 

I have spent more than $20,000 in my efforts to return Muna. That amount 

includes attorney fees, the costs of numerous trips to Washington, overseas travel 

and other expenses. 

My family’s own meager resources quickly dwindled, but thanks to my home community, online supporters and total strangers, Muna’s cause continues. My expenses 

pale in comparison to other parents who have spent upward of $100,000, some of 

whom have come to financial ruin as they pursue their God-given rightful roles to 

parent their own children. 

Four months after Muna was taken, the Office of Children’s Issues showed me 

proof of life, my daughter’s life, in the form of a photograph taken by the consular 

officer in Bamako after they conducted a routine welfare and whereabouts visit with 

her and her father. 

That first photograph and report that she was alive and physically okay meant 

everything to me, because in Mali a political coup toppled a democratically elected 

President and that country was in turmoil. Before that report, I didn’t know 

whether Muna was alive or dead. 

Subsequent checks yielded additional pictures, and at the strong and consistent 

urging of Senator McConnell, the consular officer continued to attempt to reach out 

to her father to check on Muna, sometimes with success, sometimes not. Sadly, the 

latter has been the case most recently. 

When I traveled to Bamako last summer to petition the courts there to recognize 

preexisting U.S. custodial and return orders, I was unsuccessful. Yet, it was the consular officer’s presence at a hearing that gave me comfort. By design, the State 

Department can do nothing to facilitate Muna’s return—only create avenues for me 

to pursue that end. In Bamako, I begged to spend time with my own child, but the 

courts would not affirm my status as her mother. 

Broken hearted, I returned from Bamako without Muna but with an even stronger resolve to advocate for Muna’s rights as a U.S. citizen and for every U.S. child 

that is unlawfully removed from U.S. soil, often in violation of court orders, and 

always in violation of the internationally recognized principles of the rule of law. 

In addition to my delegation’s efforts and the work of the Office of Children’s 

Issues, I believe that part of my success in keeping Muna’s case before this body 

and the Department of State lies in my specialized knowledge of government organization and operation, which I acquired through education and through my former 

service to the Nation as an intern in the office of Senator Jay Rockerfeller. 

Still, none of this has yielded the goal. Muna is still not home. And what of my 

fellow parents who do not know how or by what means to press this matter? One 

of them is (figuratively) paralyzed by his inability to engage his case at the federal 

level. This is why the process for parents to work with Congress and federal agencies must be reevaluated and streamlined. 

It is my opinion that the logical next step is to recognize that international child 

abductions are foremost a matter of justice rather than diplomacy, though diplomacy has its place. 

There is continued need for the Department of State to facilitate intercountry 

relations in these matters when it advances opportunities for initial welfare and 

whereabouts checks; and the assistance of country consular officers when a left 

behind parent travels to a country for visitation and/or legal proceedings is invaluable. In this regard, the Department of State is helpful to an extent, but I and other 

parents know that the State Department can never return our children. 

The focus of this issue and action must properly be transferred to the Department 

of Justice because, in nearly all cases, this is a matter of criminality. Parental 

abduction is child abuse. Sometimes, I force myself not to think of what Muna must 

be feeling in the 793 days since she was taken from her mother, her sister, her 

extended family, her preschool, her church family and all of the people and places 

that I know she remembers. 

I don’t have to wonder about the psychological toll, because the FBI’s Web site 

makes clear the long-term effects of parental alienation when a child is separated 

from his or her primary attachment figure . . . who in the case of Muna . . . is 

me! 

In this nation, courts typically are quick to take action to address child abuse 

when it occurs in towns and cities across the land. It follows that the Federal Government should do likewise when U.S. citizens are unlawfully removed from U.S. 

42 

soil, and their abductions are facilitated by the parent and, by extension, sanctioned 

by the country to which the children are taken. 

Most of these countries enjoy friendly relations with the United States, and enjoy 

all of the economic, political, and cultural benefits that such friendships engender. 

Our Federal Government should be asking for more than the principle of sovereignty dictates that our friendly nations should give. 

We must urge the nations to place greater pressure upon their own citizens to 

adhere to the rule of law and return these children to their home country. In conjunction with such urgings, the Justice Department should make the issuance of 

federal warrants under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 

(Crime Act) standard practice. 

I would like to see this happen in my own case. The efforts of my family, my delegation, and even the FBI to generously incentivize Muna’s father to return with her 

have utterly failed. Justice is our only recourse. This body has heard testimony 

about the Hague Convention as a means for justice and remedy. 

Though I cannot comment from personal experience about the efficacy of the 

Hague Convention, as the Republic of Mali is not a signatory, I can relay the sentiment of several fellow parents whose children are abducted to signatory nations. It 

is, in essence, a convoluted paper tiger that compounds their personal grief and 

financial woe, rather than serves as a means to an end that brings their children 

home. 

My friend Alissa Zagaris, who went the route of the Hague Convention, was confounded at every turn until the FBI rightly issued a federal warrant under the 

Crime Act, and soon after, her son Leo was in these United States under his mother’s roof once again. This is one of the actions that I recommend this body consider 

as a frontline defense and deterrent. 

A final point that I urge the committee to consider is how the Federal Government might enact strong prevention mechanisms to foil attempts to unlawfully 

remove our children from the country in the first place. 

Exit controls must be a key element of any meaningful legislation and implementation. To this day, I don’t know how she left this country without her passport. In 

the same way that the Department of Homeland Security attempts to monitor persons entering this country, it should employ equal or greater scrutiny of persons 

leaving it, especially children. 

In closing, I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing this issue to 

come before committee for insight and discussion. I believe in my country and what 

it stands for. I have studied and have seen with my own eyes this great Nation solve 

what were thought be intractable problems. 

International parental child abduction is no exception. I implore you, for Muna 

and all of our children unlawfully held in foreign lands, to work cooperatively with 

the executive branch, the judicial branch and organizations like NCMEC to enact 

meaningful legislation that returns our children unto our borders. This is a goal to 

which I am irrevocably committed—it is my life’s work. 

I stand with my fellow parents including Rick Myers, whose sons Dean and Adi 

are abducted to Israel, Yedi Flaquer, whose infant son, Eliav, also is in Israel, and 

Sally Plink, whose children, Jared and Cassidy, were abducted to the Netherlands, 

the very seat of the Hague Convention, in pleading with our government to find better solutions to return our children. 

Parental kidnapping is a crime of the heart and a crime against our most vulnerable citizens who cannot defend themselves. They need us. They need justice. 

This Nation was founded on the fundamental principle of liberty, and they have 

been deprived of this inalienable right. The only right remedy for this deprivation 

is justice, and there can be no rest for those persons or nations who thwart liberty 

until justice rolls down and we look up and see our children returning home. Thank 

you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, thank you all for some very riveting testimony and some very important insights. I assure you, as I said to 

Mr. Goldman, that it is the committee’s intention to produce a 

product that can move as far along in trying to create the tools necessary to both prevent as well as to achieve return of children who 

have been abducted. 

Let me ask one or two questions based upon both what I have 

read of your testimonies and what I have heard here today. I think 

both Mr. Allen and Mr. Goldman, and maybe others in their testimony, have talked about countries’ bilateral agreements in the abVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
43 

sence of the Hague Convention, but my understanding is that the 

success of these is dubious. For example, Mr. Allen, you referenced 

a bilateral agreement between the United States and Egypt, and 

my understanding is that none of these agreements have resulted 

in the return of abducted children. 

I am trying to get a sense, to the extent that this is one element 

of a much broader universe of things we have to do. Should we be 

focusing our resources and time on getting bilateral agreements, or 

on getting people signed up to the Hague Convention? Because the 

bilateral agreement is almost a false promise if it does not ultimately create any opportunity for the return of children. 

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I think my underlying premise is that 

there are countries, because of their religious history, because of 

their legal structure and attitude, who are not likely to become signatories to the Hague Convention. We have tried very hard to advocate for that in the Islamic world, for example. 

I made the point that I think the fact that Morocco and Turkey 

are now signatories is a potential breakthrough and that we should 

look at Morocco and Turkey and that experience and then try to 

replicate it in other places. What our view is, recognize that these 

nations are not likely to become signatories to a Convention with 

91 other countries because signing onto that Convention appears to 

compromise their own national sovereignty, that a better approach 

than spending all of our efforts to persuade those countries to sign 

on is to engage them one on one. 

There have been success stories. I think by and large the success 

story between the United Kingdom and Pakistan has been cited as 

a model. Western European countries—in French Africa, Algeria, 

and France have an excellent bilateral partnership. I do not suggest it is a panacea, and we have participated in meetings with Islamic judges to try to explore common ground and ways that we 

can address this short of—I mean, obviously it would be great of 

all these countries would become Hague signatories. Right now 

that is not realistic. 

So my view is that approaching it in that parallel way, engaging 

these countries, trying to persuade them to become signatories to 

the Convention, but recognizing if they are not going to do that at 

least we need to have open dialogue between those countries and 

the United States to deal specifically one case at a time with cases 

involving American families, is probably the best way to proceed. 

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am just concerned because I have seen 

that we have bilateral agreements or memorandums of understanding with Egypt, Lebanon, and Jordan and they have not produced the return of a child. So I get where you are coming from. 

We prefer The Hague, but in the absence of that maybe this is a 

venue. But it is only a venue of value if, in fact, it creates a venue 

for returning children at the end of the day. 

Mr. ALLEN. Well, I think the State Department has had some 

success by confronting these countries, going to the countries on a 

case-by-case basis, and has brought some children back. So my ultimate recommendation to you is we need to strengthen the tools, as 

Mr. Goldman said, that the U.S. Government has to exert leverage 

on these countries so that they view that it is in their best interest 

to cooperate with us and to create some reciprocity. 

44 

The CHAIRMAN. On that we are in agreement. 

Let me ask you. You mentioned an improvement, but still a challenge, in terms of the judiciary understanding of the Hague Convention and the authorities therein. Is there an effort under way, 

or is there an effort that needs to be undertaken, to help the judiciary in this country understand the law? 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, there have been efforts. Yes, we need a lot more 

of it. The challenge we faced here, you remember a few years ago 

the United States had a huge problem with our Western partner, 

Germany, and the chancellor of Germany said: ‘‘The issue for us is 

we have a federal judicial system. The German Government cannot 

tell a state judge how to deal with a particular case.’’ 

Dialogue was created between the United States and Germany, 

a working group, a task force. There has been great progress. So 

ultimately there are countries, even in the Western world, who 

have not been happy with the reciprocity of the United States. A 

Hague case lands in the court of a judge who basically does not 

know about the Hague and says: ‘‘I am going to be a judge, I am 

going to do what judges do, and that is hear the totality of the 

facts; I am just not going to send this kid back to the U.K.’’ 

So that is the problem. For the Hague to work it has to be fast 

and the response of every judge in every setting needs to be that 

their first obligation, absent the application of one of these exceptions under the Convention, is the return of the child to the country of habitual residence. That still does not happen in a lot of 

places. 

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Goldman. 

Mr. GOLDMAN. There are a few issues. A judge here, even on a 

return order or if one parent says, hey, please, I am afraid that my 

ex or my current, we are not getting along spouse, is going to 

abduct our child, say, to Mexico, and the judge here is going to look 

at it, Mexico is a Hague treaty partner, so if the parent does abduct 

the child the Mexican Government will return that child. They do 

not look at the statistics, and that is where we go back to we need 

complete transparency of the return rates from other countries. 

As Mr. Allen pointed out, the criteria—the spirit of the treaty is 

expeditious return of the child. When the criteria is that the leftbehind parent has been exercising their custodial rights, they filed 

the petition within a year, and the habitual residence was the 

country that the child was removed from, it is deemed that is 

where the child should be returned, and that country needs to return that child right away. That is where we have the big flaw 

where it is not expeditious and it takes, like in my case, 6 years. 

These judges in these other countries view these cases as well as 

custodial cases. They are not looking at the premise and they try 

to make them, the kid is in our country, we are going to try this 

case, we are the judge. And they do not look at—they need to be 

educated. These judges need to be educated in our country on returning and allowing children to leave and returning abducted children here and judges in other countries need to be educated, almost like I would suggest a panel of judges that are only Hague 

case judges. They can do their other practice, but when you have 

a Hague case there should be in certain districts judges that deal 

directly with Hague, so they know it and they return the child. 

45 

We, as Ambassador Jacobs said, we will protect the child as well 

as any other country. So if the abductor claims that they have been 

abused or something, we have great mechanisms and I would put 

our child protection services over most other countries. 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask Mr. Braden, because I think I saw 

in your testimony the interplay—and Dr. Hunter also may want to 

respond to this. A left-behind parent who has worked with both the 

Department of Justice and the Department of States in pursuit of 

getting their child returned—how has that interagency coordination been on international abduction cases? From your perception 

and experience, is there a better approach in interfacing both of 

them? 

Mr. BRADEN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. That is a 

right on point question. In my opinion, resolving these and the way 

the Departments work, basically the Departments stovepipe all of 

their work. I know there is a little bit, I know about some interagency communications and stuff, but maybe that is an area. 

We have a great opportunity right now with a possible piece of 

legislation. I want to say that interdepartmental cooperation, various treaties and laws and departments working together, could do 

a much better job. 

In a lot of ways, this issue belongs much more in the Department 

of Justice. We can stop child abductions. My organization, we 

brought back, my team, we brought back the only child ever returned from Japan through a legal process. There is of course a foreign relations component to that, there is a homeland security component to it, and there is a judiciary component to it. We have to 

have all of these departments, nongovernment organizations, but it 

is about enforcement of the laws, and the enforcement of the laws 

in a few emblematic prosecutions a year would go a long way to 

creating a deterrent and putting a last line of defense at every border that we have. 

The CHAIRMAN. Dr. Hunter, did you want to respond? 

Dr. HUNTER. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a good question. I would like to say very briefly that my experience with Office 

of Children’s Issues is very positive. It is very good. I have good 

caseworkers who have been empathetic and tried various solutions 

to help me communicate with the consular officer. So I have no personal qualms with how it has worked for me so far. 

The issue is that only in the recent months has the Office of 

Children’s Issues, my caseworker, started working with the FBI. If 

we could do it over again, if I could have a caseworker immediately 

and then also be assigned to someone in the Justice Department, 

in this case the FBI, in the very beginning, we probably could have 

worked in tandem to—maybe even Muna would be home by now. 

So I think that what Mr. Braden is suggesting is very true. For 

me, there is a role for the State Department and I think all of us 

and the legislation that is before this body right now suggest that 

there is a continued role for the State Department. But also, this 

issue must probably be located in the Justice Department because 

it is matters of criminality and nothing short of putting some incentive for a particular parent to return and then, by extension, 

their country feeling some pressure—those are the only things that 

46 

at this point are the most critical remedies for me as we go forward. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very succinctly, because I want to turn to Senator Corker. I have exceeded my time. 

Mr. GOLDMAN. Thank you. First of all the Hague Convention is 

the civil remedy. One of the things—in my case, I could have used 

the IPKCA and filed criminal charges right away because my son 

was being illegally held in a foreign country. However, the first 

thing a judge would say in that foreign country is: ‘‘We are not 

going to return that child because if the parent ever wants to come 

back and visit that child they will be prosecuted and go to jail.’’ 

That is why we need our country on a nation-to-state basis—we 

need to just have, as she said, an emblematic menu per se of the 

sanctions that we will put on these countries and they will return 

our children immediately once this legislation is passed; it will 

have impact. 

Secondly, the exit control. My son was spirited away to Brazil 

with my blessing. I did not know that an abduction was taking 

place. As well as Bindu; she actually flew to India with her husband and family under the guise of a vacation, and once there she 

was told: ‘‘You get out; I am taking the kids and you are done.’’ So 

exit controls can help a lot of abductions, but there are also abductions that have been without us even realizing that they are taking 

place. 

Thank you. 

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Corker. 

Senator CORKER. Mr. Chairman, thank you. 

Mr. Allen, thank you for your professional presentation today, 

and the three of you for your personal and professional presentations. They are riveting and certainly have a big impact. 

I just want to say to the chairman, you and I both were just in 

a hearing on monetary easing and zero interest rate policy. While 

we know those things affect citizens and we care about those, I 

think one of the most important things that you and I have done 

together was work on the immigration bill, which directly affected 

people immediately if it were to come to law. I thank you for your 

leadership there. I think we have an opportunity here, which we 

rarely have in the United States Senate, to pass something that 

will directly impact people in a real way, and that is a real privilege, for us to be in that position. I look forward to working with 

you in that regard, and I certainly look forward to hearing from the 

witnesses and others who are in the audience to figure out a way 

to make sure that when we pass something—and I think we will— 

it actually means something. 

I do not look at this issue as today—and I could be wrong—as 

us taking a first step. I look at this as us having a window of opportunity to address something in a real way. I appreciate Congressman Smith. He has been great. He has called over. Mr. 

Braden, I think I have seen you more here than my family by far. 

I just appreciate it. And Dr. Hunter and David, just outstanding 

presentations. 

There is a concern that the bill that came over from the House 

is a good piece of legislation, but that it could be made much 

stronger, that if we are really going to address this right now it 

47 

needs to be—and again, I thank him for pushing this issue, but it 

needs to be even more in depth and comprehensive. I am just wondering—I know you have said a few things here, but if you could 

wave a wand and cause some additional elements to be a part of 

this bill, I wonder if you might expand on what that might be? 

Mr. GOLDMAN. Absolutely, we need transparency in the reporting 

of abductions. We need each Congressman of the district of a constituent to be notified and be able to—that Congressman to be able 

to contact the State Department and get advocacy. The parents 

need advocacy. 

The criminal aspect, it is the Department of Justice, and we are 

dealing here with the civil remedies. That is where the sanctions 

can go. You can start with the demarche and then the memorandums of understanding, but all the way to the economic sanctions. 

If we have some strong, powerful quivers or arrows in our arsenal, 

most likely we will not have to use them, but the countries will see 

what is coming down the pike. As in our case when Senator Lautenberg withheld that trade bill, my son was returned. 

So I think we do have a great foundation with that legislation, 

and possibly the study of the criminal aspects or to amend the bill 

once we get something through now can help. But time is the 

enemy of these families and I am just afraid that we have a unanimous bipartisan passage of this bill. Tweak it, yes, make it a little 

stronger if you guys see something. But we do not want to alter 

it too much because I am afraid that it is just going to get bounced 

back and forth, and these families will not have any help that they 

need immediately. 

Senator CORKER. Patrick. 

Mr. BRADEN. Thank you for the question, Senator. 

Senator CORKER. And I have raised the question because in the 

hallways you have told me that there are things that need to be 

added. So this is your opportunity. 

Mr. BRADEN. I have got a list and I have got—I think as my submission will record. I think if this body intends to take up legislation on border controls for people coming into the country, that is 

the appropriate time to take up border controls for children being 

illegally kidnapped out. These children effectively have their constitutional civil rights stripped from them through a criminal act 

that leaves them as the victim of the crime. The left-behind parents, we are not—I am not a victim of crime and I recommend to 

all my people in my organization that: Who is the bigger victim, 

you or the child? 

When it comes to the things that we can add to it, I suggest that 

we go back to the 1993 IPKCA and look at the congressional notes 

there. The authors of that bill, I think, had visionary foresight. 

They put in the notes that it would be, based on the current state 

of things, with no exit controls, the Hague treaty, what we need is 

we need a deterrent and we need to demonstrate and send a message to the rest of the world that we value these children’s rights, 

we will not tolerate forum-shopping for custody or something. 

One criminal prosecution a year for a child abduction would go 

a long way toward creating a deterrent for would-be criminal kidnappers. In addition to that, it incentivizes mediations for all of 

48 

those other cases that do not qualify for the stronger sets of remedy. 

So I will put together a laundry list for you. I want to say one 

other thing on that subject, on that bill. Not all cases—cases are 

different. Case facts are different and the facts determine the possible remedies. So we need—what we need is different sets of remedies for different kinds of cases, but create the incentive and deterrent, incentive to mediate and reach resolutions on difficult 

cases where there may not be any remedies, and you can get there 

by prosecuting one or two criminal actors per year. I think that 

does the deterrent effect and educates people who are thinking 

they might get away with this. 

Senator CORKER. Dr. Hunter. 

Dr. HUNTER. Thank you, Senator Corker, for the question. I am 

in agreement with Mr. Braden about the need to essentially have 

people in countries feel the burn about what it means to commit 

a crime and abduct a child who cannot defend themselves. So I am 

in agreement with that. 

Also, there is a role for continued civil remedies as well as these 

criminal remedies. I would also like to add to that, in terms of this 

wish list of things that could be added. You made a very important 

point, Mr. Chairman, in asking about the passport issuance alert 

program. It is an educative component. I am an educator and so 

I am always harping on my students in the classroom to know 

what you are talking about. 

In this case of these relationships between people from different 

countries that fall apart for whatever reason and the children are 

left in the wake, some of that could be prevented by having a public information campaign coming out of the State Department, in 

the schools, as you suggested, in our social service agencies, all of 

the places where parents would likely show up, to have them begin 

to think that, hmm, this could happen to me, because universally 

when I tell people in my community or other folks, they have never 

heard of this before. They have maybe seen it once or twice. But 

it could happen. 

As a matter of fact, in Kentucky there are two Kentucky residents that are friends of mine and one abducted the child and took 

him to Germany. So it is not necessarily always international 

cases. It can be U.S. citizens doing it, too. But that passport alert 

program as an educative component on a national level would get 

parents thinking about it, and then, should they be in the position 

that some of us have, they have already got some of these pegs in 

place that might prevent an abduction. 

Senator CORKER. Well, I thank each of you. I think you can see 

that this committee is going to be working together very quickly to 

try to create something legislation. I appreciate the chairman’s 

leadership on this, and I do hope and know that you will interact 

with our offices as this moves ahead. I think that needs to be done 

fairly quickly, it seems. 

But I want to thank all of you for your efforts, for your strength 

of character, for your persistence, and certainly for having the courage to be before us today and to do the things you have done to 

unify your family and to continue to try to make that happen for 

those who have not. So thank you very much. 

49 

The CHAIRMAN. Let me join the ranking member in thanking 

you. 

Dr. Hunter, just one last question. Is my understanding correct 

that your child actually left the country without a passport? 

Dr. HUNTER. Without her U.S. passport, yes, sir. Until this day, 

I do not know how she left. The judge ordered that I retain it and 

when my ex-husband picked her up for his time-sharing on the custody he demanded it from me. I refused to give it to him because 

I suspected what might happen. So I do not know how she left the 

country without her U.S. passport. 

Mr. BRADEN. Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very briefly. 

Mr. BRADEN. With regard to the passport issuance program, we 

have four programs. The passport issuance program is really great, 

but it only works for U.S. passports. And in addition to that, if they 

already have the passport these abductions take place without 

knowledge, through deception and covertly. We have the no-fly list, 

the passenger manifest check, the terrorist watch list. But basically, none of these programs really do anything to prevent child 

abductions at the border exits. 

The CHAIRMAN. I recognize, as Mr. Goldman suggested, that 

there will be times in which there was not an expectation that the 

child is going to be abducted, and this would not prevent that. But 

I look at it as one mechanism among many that we ought to call 

upon. 

Well, I want to join Senator Corker and saying thank you so 

much for your willingness to share your stories. They make this a 

very real issue before the committee versus speaking about it abstractly. If I were a child, I would want one of you as my parents, 

because obviously you have done an extraordinary effort in trying 

to bring your children back. So we congratulate you on your force 

of character and courage to continue to pursue reunification with 

your children. 

I think, as you heard here, we have a bipartisan commitment to 

make this happen, and that is always great. It is a continuation 

of a long year of working with Senator Corker on a variety of critical issues which we have come together to achieve, and I think we 

will work on this one rather expeditiously to try to make it happen. 

will ask unanimous consent for this and any other parental testimony to be submitted for the record. Bindu Philips has a statement 

for the record and I will ask consent for it to be included. Without 

objection, so ordered. 

We will hold this hearing open to Monday close of business to 

provide an opportunity for those who wish to submit any statements or any questions for the record. 

With the thanks of the committee, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.] 

50 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF SPECIAL AMBASSADOR SUSAN JACOBS TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. Please discuss the role and effectiveness of the Children’s Passport 

Issuance Alert Program (CPIAP).1 Are there any challenges regarding interagency 

coordination that result in suboptimal performance of the program? 

Answer. The Office of Children’s Issues, Prevention Branch, administers the Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program (CPIAP), which is one of the most effective 

tools in preventing international parental child abduction. On average, the Prevention Branch reviews more than 300 passport applications per month. In 2013, the 

Prevention Branch entered more than 5,500 children into our CPIAP database and 

has managed more than 10,000 CPIAP cases since November 2011. 

Once we enroll a child in CPIAP, we place an entry in the Department of State’s 

passport system. Any parent or legal guardian can request that his/her child be 

enrolled into CPIAP. Only U.S. citizens under the age of 18 can be entered. Parents 

can find additional information about CPIAP by visiting our Web site: 

www.travel.state.gov. 

When a domestic passport agency or overseas embassy or consulate receives a 

passport application for that child, a Prevention Officer reviews the application. The 

Prevention Officer will contact the person (most often a parent or legal guardian) 

who requested CPIAP enrollment. That parent or legal guardian can then confirm 

his/her consent to the passport or can provide additional information that may help 

the passport adjudicator make an informed decision on the application. This process 

can stop unauthorized or fraudulent attempts to secure a passport for a minor. 

The Department of State is solely responsible for managing CPIAP. As such, 

interagency coordination does not affect any performance factors. 

Question. The 2012 OIG inspection also described a history of difficult relations 

between the Office of Children’s Issues and the National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children (NCMEC), which previously had full responsibility for incoming 

international parental abduction cases. According to the Inspector General’s report, 

‘‘NCMEC has significant resources, particularly its relationships with law enforcement, that can aid in locating abducted children. NCMEC can also assist in media 

campaigns to locate children. The organization continues to assist in funding parental travel and the repatriation of some children.’’ 

♦ What is the current state of relations between the two organizations? 

♦ What additional, mutually beneficial areas of collaboration might enhance the 

effectiveness of both organizations in addressing their shared mission? 

♦ How are tasks previously handled by NCMEC now handled by State? 

Answer. Beginning in 1995, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) handled the processing of ‘‘incoming’’ cases (involving children 

abducted to the United States) on behalf of the Department of State, under a threeway Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of Justice. These activities 

included receiving applications under the Hague Abduction Convention for return 

of, or access to, abducted children from foreign Central Authorities, locating children 

who were the subject of Hague Abduction Convention applications within the United 

States, attempting to achieve voluntary returns or access where possible, and referring left-behind parents (LBPs) to attorneys, including attorneys willing to work on 

a pro bono or reduced-fee basis for qualified parents. 

The Department of State appreciates the excellent work that NCMEC performed 

for 12 years on behalf of the U.S. Central Authority (USCA). On April 1, 2008, the 

Office of Children’s Issues (CA/OCS/CI) resumed the critical function, under the 

Convention, of processing incoming cases. The benefits of this decision include: (a) 

less confusion among counterparts in foreign central authorities, who now deal 

directly with CA/OCS/CI on both incoming and outgoing cases; and (b) increased 

leverage for outgoing cases since assisting foreign counterparts with incoming cases 

builds more productive relationships. Since 2008, the USCA carries out the functions of locating children, attempting voluntary resolutions, and assisting parents in 

finding legal counsel in incoming cases, which NCMEC previously handled. 

The Department of State enjoys an excellent working relationship with NCMEC 

at all levels. NCMEC’s role as a law enforcement support organization has complemented our mission to locate and return children to their countries of habitual 

residence. CA/OCS/CI and NCMEC country officers regularly discuss both outgoing 

and incoming abduction cases, and we work together to locate abducted children and 

to facilitate their return. Most LBPs have open cases in both organizations, and we 

routinely share information about our respective efforts to help parents resolve their 

51 

children’s cases. Supervisors regularly discuss issues of mutual concern and ways 

in which we can collaborate more closely. Most recently, during the February 2014 

IPCA bilateral working group meeting between Brazil and the United States, CA/ 

OCS/CI officers and the five-person Brazilian delegation visited NCMEC’s offices in 

order to educate the Brazilians on NCMEC roles and look for ways for closer collaboration between our three parties. 

Both the USCA and NCMEC play important roles in the process of locating 

abducted children. While the Department of State has robust resources and has a 

high success rate of locating children with the help of local and state law enforcement agencies, NCMEC also has an extensive network of law enforcement contacts 

and the skill to locate children quickly and efficiently. We continue to discuss with 

NCMEC ways in which we can more efficiently share information. 

Question. On January 24, 2014, Japan became the 91st Contracting State to the 

Hague Abduction Convention. The Convention will enter into force for Japan on 

April 1, 2014. Please discuss the implications, if any, of Japan’s new status on current U.S. return and access cases. How will the Department address cases that will 

not be grandfathered in by ratification of the Convention? 

Answer. As in other countries, when the return remedy of the Convention is 

unavailable, the Department of State continues to take all appropriate steps to seek 

the resolution of these cases. In these instances, we work closely with parents to 

provide information about domestic and foreign resources that may help parents to 

resolve their children’s cases. We raise individual cases with foreign governments, 

requesting, through diplomatic channels, that they help to facilitate the return of 

abducted children to the United States and assist parents to obtain access, confirm 

their children’s welfare, and understand their options. We monitor legal proceedings 

as a case unfolds in court, attend hearings when appropriate, engage with child welfare authorities, advocate for consular and parental access, coordinate with law 

enforcement authorities when parents choose to pursue criminal remedies, and work 

day-to-day to explore all available and appropriate options for seeking abducted children’s return to their countries of habitual residence. 

The resolution of existing abduction cases in Japan continues to be of the highest 

priority to the Department of State. The Japanese Government has stated that parents with existing cases opened prior to the date when the treaty enters into force 

for Japan will not be able to request the return of an abducted child under the Convention because the treaty will not be applied retroactively. This decision is consistent with the approaches taken by other Convention partners. The Department 

will continue to press Japan for the resolution of all existing cases using all appropriate channels and means as described above. 

Parents with existing cases may be able to use the Convention to request access 

to their children after the treaty enters into force for Japan. For processing purposes, we began accepting applications for access on March 1, 2014, and will forward those that are complete to the Japanese Central Authority beginning on April 

1, 2014, when the treaty enters into force for Japan. 

For parents who do not wish to file a Hague access application, we will maintain 

open abduction cases and continue to press Japan for their resolution. The Department of State has established a bilateral working group with Japan to address the 

challenges of non-Convention remedies. In Japan, the bilateral working group meetings provide an important forum for dialogue between the Embassy and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MOFA), and have resulted in the creation of MOFA’s pilot 

mediation program that may assist existing non-Convention cases. In addition, 

Department officials use the working group meetings to raise individual cases, advocate for consular and parental access, and to explore all available and appropriate 

options for seeking the return of abducted children to their countries of habitual 

residence. 

Question. The State Department has historically advocated for focusing primarily 

on increasing the number of Hague Convention participants, rather than seeking 

out bilateral Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) on the facilitation of return and 

access cases. In your view, are there non-Hague countries which for various religious, cultural, and legal reasons, are unlikely to ever join the Convention? For such 

countries, would MOUs be an appropriate alternative? Please discuss the relative 

benefits and limitations of MOUs as a viable means to facilitate returns and access. 

Please also discuss the specific MOUS the State Department entered into with Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt. Did those MOU’s result in the return of children? The 

Ambassador mentioned in her testimony the return of one child from Egypt. Did the 

MOUs result in increased access for certain cases? 

52 

Answer. We strongly believe the Hague Abduction Convention is the best tool for 

resolving international parental child abduction cases. We do not believe it would 

be effective to pursue arrangements or agreements with countries outside the framework of the Convention. Rather, we believe that encouraging non-Convention countries to accede to the Convention is the best way to support and protect the interests 

of abducted children. 

The Convention is effective in part because it provides one civil legal framework 

which may be implemented consistently around the world for securing the prompt 

return of children to their country of habitual residence. By contrast, MOU provisions vary widely. Accordingly, they provide no consistent basis for returning children to their country of habitual residence. In fact, absent a legally binding agreement, an instrument would not provide a basis for a foreign court to order the 

return of a child. This results in uncertainty and unreliability. If we were to pursue 

a legally binding agreement with another country, it would likely need to be reciprocal, as the foreign government would also want to see benefit from the instrument. This would mean that the instrument would likely require Senate approval. 

Therefore, MOUs would not be a realistic alternative to the Convention. Moreover, 

negotiating for MOUs will divert resources from promoting the Convention. 

Current MOUs relating to parental child abduction between the United States 

and Egypt, Jordan, and Lebanon address establishing access between parents and 

abducted children. All have failed to result in resolution of, or improved parental 

access in, individual cases, although the Jordanian MOU allows the U.S. Embassy’s 

consular section to have access on behalf of the parents to abducted children. No 

child has ever been returned to the United States as a result of an MOU. Additionally, the United Kingdom’s (U.K.) Foreign and Commonwealth Office reports the 

U.K.’s MOU with Pakistan has not resulted in a single court order granting access. 

We have no reason to believe that MOUs pertaining to returning children will be 

any more effective. 

We no longer believe there are countries that cannot become party to the Convention. In the past, we had concerns about Islamic countries implementing the Convention or becoming party to, because of possible conflicts with Sharia law. However, Morocco became party to the Convention, demonstrating that the Convention 

can be implemented in nations with separate religious courts. We have also seen 

the expansion of the Convention in Asia, and we look forward to working with the 

Hague Permanent Bureau’s new Asia Pacific Regional Office in Hong Kong to 

encourage membership in the Hague Conventions. 

Question. The Hague Convention has been criticized as lacking effective mechanisms to compel compliance among participating countries. In your view, are the existing diplomatic tools to encourage cooperation sufficient for addressing patterns of 

noncompliance among Hague countries? What are the merits and limitations of 

applying sanctions, aid conditionality, or other forms of diplomatic consequence to 

noncompliant states? How, if at all, might these limitations be addressed? 

Answer. We are constantly monitoring our current treaty partners to encourage 

them to meet their responsibilities under the Convention. Each year, the Department of State prepares a report for Congress on Convention partner countries’ compliance with the treaty. However, our engagement with Convention partner countries regarding compliance issues and concerning longstanding cases is not only 

done annually. We are engaged in a constant dialogue with foreign governments on 

these issues. The report itself serves as an important tool in these discussions, and 

we work with foreign governments to encourage improved compliance and urge that 

longstanding cases be resolved. Countries universally dislike being cited in the compliance report, and we have seen instances where countries have improved their 

performance or worked to address systemic problems compelled by a desire to 

improve performance in order to be removed from the report in future years. 

The Department of State welcomes additional and improved tools to encourage 

the return of children to their habitual residence and resolution of individual cases. 

The existence of foreign assistance restrictions or a U.S. sanctions regime in cases 

of international parental child abductions may discourage other countries from joining the Convention and would put the United States out of line with the international community, potentially weakening our relationships with existing Hague 

partners, causing strain on bilateral relationships and making future multilateral 

efforts on IPCA (a significant benefit of the current regime) difficult, if not impossible. Countries already party to the Convention may object if the United States creates a disincentive to accession for countries where they, too, have challenges with 

international parental child abduction. 

Additionally, new treaty partners, such as Japan, who have recently become party 

to the Convention often do so at heavy domestic political costs and in response to 

53 

significant U.S. encouragement, have indicated that the possibility of unilateral 

actions by the United States would be very detrimental to bilateral relations. Japan 

in particular is a country with which the United States has a security alliance that 

we believe forms the pillar of peace and security in East Asia. It is contrary to the 

United States foreign policy interests to sanction Japan. Diplomacy is the most 

effective strategy for shifting cultural and political ideologies that are necessary to 

engender changes in the law. 

Question. 6(a). In 2000, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly 

the General Accounting Office) reported that left-behind parents, among others, 

have criticized the U.S. Government’s response to parental child abductions.2

Among other noted challenges, GAO described gaps in federal services to left-behind 

parents and weaknesses within the existing case-tracking process, which impaired 

case management and program coordination across U.S. federal agencies. 

♦ (a) Please describe the current relationship between, and the roles and respective responsibilities of the State Department and other federal agencies, including the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, in responding to 

international parental child kidnapping cases. 

Answer. The Department of State chairs the IPCA Interagency Working Group, 

as established by Section 11609 of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act 

(42 U.S.C. 11609). This group, comprised of several U.S. Government agencies 

including Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense (DOD), 

Department of Justice (DOJ), and Department of State representatives with equities 

in IPCA, has developed, under the leadership of the Office of Children’s Issues, into 

an important forum for discussion of a wide range of issues such as: the implications 

of domestic violence in IPCA cases, cross-border issues with Mexico and Canada, 

and identifying best practices for information-sharing. In addition to the regular 

meetings of the working group, ongoing, close communication at the working levels 

across agencies ensures that interagency cooperation is a priority. The next working 

group meeting is scheduled for April 2014. 

The Department works in conjunction with the Department of Justice on IPCA 

cases when left-behind parents elect to pursue criminal charges against the child’s 

taking parent. We are not a law enforcement agency, but we routinely coordinate 

with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) on matters that may have a criminal 

component. 

♦ (b). Ninety one countries have adopted the Hague Convention. What is the difference in the return rate of abducted children from countries that have adopted 

the Convention and those countries that have not? 

♦ (c). If the results of return of abducted children are not significantly different, 

please explain the benefit of the legal framework of the Hague convention? 

Answer. In CY 2013, out of a total of 522 reported returns of abducted children 

from Hague and non-Hague countries [including voluntary returns], 73 percent of 

the total returns came from Hague countries and 27 percent came from non-Hague 

countries. These percentages represent a breakdown of the total reported returns 

that occurred last year rather than an average rate of return from each Convention 

partner or non-Convention country which is not possible to calculate accurately due 

to the individual nature of each case and the fact that return information is often 

self-reported and may not be complete. 

In the Department’s experience, the ability of a parent or legal guardian to secure 

a court-ordered return is much greater in a country that is a Convention partner. 

For example, in 2013, out of the 522 total reported returns, 113 involved children 

returned from Convention partner countries as a result of a court order in a Hague 

proceeding. From non-Hague countries during the same period, the Department is 

aware of only two children, in the same family, who were ordered returned to the 

United States as a result of court proceedings under the domestic law. 

♦ 6(d). I am also concerned about a whether we are meeting our obligations under 

the Convention. In terms of reciprocity, is the U.S. falling short, particularly in 

the length of time for Hague abduction cases to be resolved in our courts? 

Answer. As reflected in our annual reports, we look at three areas of implementation in order to define ‘‘compliance.’’ One is the Central Authority function. We 

believe that the USCA functions efficiently on incoming cases and that we are responsive to the requests of Foreign Central Authorities. The second is judicial performance. Our courts generally interpret the Convention appropriately. Finally, we 

consider law enforcement performance. Our compliance is exemplary in this last category, especially in comparison to other countries. Our return orders are directly 

enforceable, by state law enforcement for state court orders and federal marshal 

54 

enforcement for federal court orders. Abductors and their attorneys know that noncompliance is not an option. Thus the USCA’s enforcement measures are effective. 

Many foreign Central Authorities complain about the difficulty of securing affordable legal counsel in the United States. Given the fact that the United States made 

a reservation permitted by Article 26 of the Convention and therefore is not obligated under the Convention to cover any of the costs of litigation in the United 

States, except insofar as those costs may be covered by our legal aid system, this 

is not a compliance issue. However, the process of obtaining counsel can be daunting 

for a foreign applicant. The USCA assists foreign applicants by maintaining a list 

of attorneys who volunteer to take these cases pro bono or for reduced fees for qualified applicants. In addition, we have dedicated one full-time position to locating 

affordable legal representation options for eligible Hague Convention applicants, 

and to building and maintaining the volunteer attorney network. 

———————— 

End Notes 

1See http://travel.state.gov/content/childabduction/english/preventing/passport-issuance-alertprogram.html. 2GAO/NSIAD–00–10. 

RESPONSES OF ERNIE ALLEN TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR ROBERT MENENDEZ

Question. The State Department has historically advocated for focusing primarily 

on increasing the number of Hague Convention participants, rather than seeking 

out bilateral Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs) on the facilitation of return and 

access cases. 

♦ In your view, are there non-Hague countries which for various religious, cultural, and legal reasons, are unlikely to ever join the Convention? For such 

countries, would MOUs be an appropriate alternative? Please discuss the relative benefits and limitations of MOUs as a viable means to facilitate returns 

and access. Please also discuss the specific MOUS the State Department 

entered into with Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt. Did those MOU’s result in the 

return of children? The Ambassador mentioned in her testimony the return of 

one child from Egypt. Did the MOUs result in increased access for certain 

cases? 

Answer. I strongly believe that our primary aim should be to increase the number 

of Hague Convention signatories. There is reason for optimism. The number of signatory countries has climbed to 91 with the addition of South Korea, Kazakhstan, 

and Japan in the past year. Yet, that number is still less than half of the countries 

on the planet. 

While we have not had a positive history with certain non-Islamic countries like 

Japan, I am particularly skeptical about the likelihood of ratification of the Convention by countries in the Islamic world. We are encouraged by Morocco’s ratification 

of the Convention in 2010; Turkey’s ratification a decade earlier; and hope that it 

signals that others will follow. Morocco also ratified the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, and offers a possible model for building bridges between the 

Islamic world and Western law. 

Yet, there are fundamental challenges. Courts in the Islamic world do not 

approach child custody or family law issues from the same perspective as Western 

courts. There are different approaches on equality between men and women, and 

there are differences regarding nondiscrimination. Religious and cultural issues are 

uppermost. Thus, it is difficult to imagine that many of these countries will ever 

be willing to join in an international treaty whose primary purpose is to ensure that 

the court which makes the final decision is the court in the country of the child’s 

habitual residence, in many cases a country whose law is not based on the Sharia 

and the Islamic tradition. 

Thus, while recognizing that bilateral agreements are far from panaceas, I do 

believe they have value, particularly with regard to ensuring access for left-behind 

parents. At a minimum they establish a framework for communication between two 

countries and a process for expediting legal reviews. Islamic courts are very reluctant to order access rights for a non-Islamic mother. Thus, the primary successes 

appear to be based on encouraging and negotiating voluntary solutions. Where those 

are not achievable, the value of the bilateral process drops dramatically. 

We are not privy to the State Department’s details regarding specific successes 

arising from their MOUs with Lebanon, Jordan, and Egypt. However, our underVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
55 

standing is that there have been some returns, and that the greatest benefits relate 

to facilitating access. 

A central feature of many of the existing bilateral agreements is the establishment of consultative committees composed of representatives of each country with 

a goal of facilitating settlements of complex cases and ensuring communication and 

cooperation. A good example of this approach is the France/Egypt agreement, now 

more than 30 years old. Under the agreement they search for and locate the child; 

provide information on the physical and emotional status of the child; encourage voluntary return; and work to ensure access for the left-behind parent. The France/ 

Morocco and France/Tunisia agreements closely parallel the Hague Child Abduction 

Convention itself. However, none of these agreements specifically address the question of appropriate jurisdiction to resolve the child custody dispute. 

Australia, France, Canada, Egypt, and Lebanon have concluded what are called 

‘‘bilateral consular agreements.’’ The premise of these agreements is that it is in the 

best interests of the child to have regular contact with both parents; ensure the 

right of access for the left-behind parent; and create advisory commissions to promote amicable solutions to the disputes. Reportedly, there have been numerous successes through these agreements, particularly between Canada and Egypt. 

Perhaps the bilateral agreement most often cited as the model is the U.K./Pakistan agreement adopted in 2003. At the Malta meeting in 2010 Pakistani Supreme 

Court Justice Tassaduq Hussein Jillani cited 150 cases successfully resolved 

through this process. The principles of the U.K./Pakistan agreement mirror the 

Hague Convention in emphasizing that in normal circumstances the welfare of the 

child is best determined by the courts in his country of habitual residence; that if 

a child is removed from that country, the judge of the country to which the child 

has been taken shall not ordinarily exercise jurisdiction; and most importantly, both 

the U.K. and Pakistan designate one judge from each country to act as liaison judge, 

overviewing and monitoring the cases. 

Question. The Hague Convention has been criticized as lacking effective mechanisms to compel compliance among participating countries. 

♦ In your view, are the existing diplomatic tools to encourage cooperation sufficient for addressing patterns of noncompliance among Hague countries? What 

are the merits and limitations of applying sanctions, aid conditionality, or other 

forms of diplomatic consequence to noncompliant states? How, if at all, might 

these limitations be addressed? 

Answer. I do not think that existing diplomatic tools are adequate. I favor 

strengthening them and providing new tools for the U.S. Government. These tools 

should range from demarches and public statements, to symbolic actions like canceling visits or exchanges, to economic sanctions. 

There is understandable reluctance in many instances to utilize sanctions or other 

mechanisms against friendly nations or against countries which we are trying to influence in other spheres. Nonetheless, when we launched the International Centre 

for Missing & Exploited Children in 1999 in a ceremony at the British Embassy in 

Washington, DC, the then-First Lady Hillary Clinton said, ‘‘these are not simple 

legal disputes, they are a matter of human rights.’’ She was exactly right. I believe 

that the U.S. Government needs to be willing to act on behalf of its citizens and 

their children. In so many high-profile cases it is only the intervention of senior government leaders with their counterparts in other countries that results in the return 

of a child. U.S. officials should always be willing to advocate and act on behalf of 

U.S. children. 

I am also convinced that we won’t need to exert this kind of influence and use 

these kinds of tools often. Having done it a few times and demonstrated that we 

are serious about this problem, I am convinced that we will need to use these tools 

and remedies far less frequently in the future. 

However, I should note that this is a reciprocal process. If we press foreign governments to do a better job of returning our children, we have to ensure that we 

do the same to ensure that our courts return their children. 

Finally, I believe there is merit in establishing these new tools for intervention 

by senior administration officials in international parental child abduction cases legislatively. An act of Congress empowering officials to act and providing them with 

a specific set of tools and actions which they may utilize sends a powerful message 

that this is important and that Congress is not only urging action but is empowering officials to act. 

Question. In 2000, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO, formerly the 

General Accounting Office) reported that left-behind parents, among others, have 

criticized the U.S. Government’s response to parental child abductions (GAO/ 

56 

NSIAD–00–10). Among other noted challenges, GAO described gaps in federal services to left-behind parents and weaknesses within the existing case-tracking process, 

which impaired case management and program coordination across U.S. federal 

agencies. 

♦ Please describe the current relationship between, and the roles and respective 

responsibilities of the State Department and other federal agencies, including 

the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, in responding to international parental child kidnapping cases. 

Answer. The Hague Connvention is a civil instrument. Thus, it is appropriate that 

the U.S. Central Authority reside at the State Department. Nonetheless, I helped 

work on the 1993 International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act, which provides the 

ability to address these cases as criminal acts. The role of the U.S. Department of 

Justice is important. Federal law enforcement helps in the location of abducted children and abductors, and it uses felony warrants against abductors to help resolve 

cases, etc. Within the Department of Homeland Security, ICE and Homeland Security Investigations are also key components in the law enforcement response to child 

abduction. U.S. law enforcement personnel located overseas are often involved and 

play a key role in locating abducted children and assisting in efforts to bring about 

their return. 

We support and encourage the strongest possible collaboration between federal 

agencies on these cases, and to implementing the gaps that the GAO report cited. 

Regarding those gaps, there has been significant progress since the GAO report in 

2000. 

One of the areas in which the threat of criminal prosecution or the issuance of 

felony warrants can be of greatest value is in influencing abductors to negotiate settlements. There have been several cases in which a child’s abductor was an international businessman for whom travel was essential. The existence of U.S. felony 

warrants or an Interpol Red Notice for the arrest of a wanted person, or an Interpol 

Yellow Notice regarding the missing child can be a source of serious inconvenience 

for an international businessman who needs to travel from country to country. It 

can act as an inducement for the abductor to become reasonable and enter into settlement negotiations. The threat of criminal prosecution can be an important tool 

in resolving some of these cases. 

However, criminalizing this process also carries risks. In much of the rest of the 

world there is significant opposition to the U.S. criminalizing this civil process. 

Some countries, among them some of our closest friends and allies, may be less 

likely to order a child returned if the abductor faces possible criminal prosecution. 

So, this option must be used sparingly and carefully, with awareness that there 

can be unintended consequences. 

Question. You certainly understand the frustration and pain left-behind parents 

face. Is there anything else we can do to incentivize countries to return children? 

Answer. I do understand the frustration and the sense of powerless. I have heard 

the anguish of searching parents and understand the sense that nobody cares and 

that our government is more concerned with not offending a foreign nation that 

advocating for its citizens whose children have been taken from them. 

The United States should be a global leader on behalf of the Hague Convention, 

the same kind of advocate in the field of international parental child abduction that 

we are in the fight against human trafficking. The United States should be a champion for the core premise of the Hague Convention, the swift return of abducted children to their countries of habitual residence whose courts are the proper deciders 

of the child’s custody. The U.S. should also be a champion of reciprocity. We should 

not ask other countries to do something that we are not willing to do ourselves. 

Thus, we need to be willing to intervene and bring pressure on U.S. judges or officials who knowingly or unknowingly are unwilling to follow the precepts of the 

Hague Convention. 

However, first and foremost I believe that the U.S. needs to be far more willing 

to exert influence and use its diplomatic and other tools to bring pressure on foreign 

governments to resolve these cases. We even need to be willing to exert pressure 

on our friends and allies. 

Question. Please discuss the role and effectiveness of the Children’s Passport 

Issuance Alert Program (CPIAP). Are there other tools we could be using to prevent 

the abduction of children? 

Answer. The CPIAP is an important tool for preventing international parental 

child abduction. Even if a parent has legal custody awarded by a U.S. court, that 

order may not be recognized if the child is taken to a foreign country. Thus, preventing that child from being taken out of the country is essential. 

57 

The State Department’s Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program allows parents to register their U.S. citizen children in the State Department’s Passport Lookout System. Thus, if a passport application is submitted for a child who is enrolled 

in CPIAP, the State Department alerts the parent to verify whether the parent approves passport issuance. We commend the State Department for establishing this 

important program and for its aggressive promotion of it. 

However, the larger problem is that the United States does not have exit controls. 

U.S. law enforcement in most cases will not prevent a child from leaving the country 

unless there is a court order clearly prohibiting the removal of the child from the 

United States. 

The next step in enhancing our prevention efforts needs to be addressing the lack 

of exit controls. As you heard in the hearing it is not difficult today to get these 

children out of the country. 

Question. Ninety one countries have adopted the Hague Convention. What is the 

difference in the return rate of abducted children from countries that have adopted 

the Convention and those countries that have not? If the results of return of 

abducted children are not significantly different, please explain the benefit of the 

legal framework of the Hague Convention? 

Answer. The challenge is that there is not the kind of independent, systematic 

international monitoring in the area of international parental child abduction that 

is necessary. I have had discussions with the leadership of the Permanent Bureau 

at the Hague on this matter. It is virtually impossible for them to do it, because 

their role is to be a resource for member countries. They don’t feel that they can 

also be a referee or judge of the performance of individual countries. It requires an 

independent, objective third party to do that. And it requires far better, more timely 

case outcomes data and monitoring. 

That was part of the purpose of the statistical analysis that ICMEC funded in 

2011 through Professor Nigel Lowe of the Cardiff Law School in the U.K. Professor 

Lowe was able to collect data from 60 of the then-81 member countries. As part of 

that analysis he attempted to calculate outcomes by the member countries that 

received applications. 

Another challenge in doing this kind of analysis is that there are multiple outcomes. Applications can be rejected. There can be voluntary returns. There can be 

judicial returns by consent. There can be judicial returns without consent. There can 

be judicial refusals. There can be access agreed or ordered. At any given time there 

are cases still pending. Some applications are withdrawn. 

Just examining cases in which there was judicial refusal to return a child to the 

country of habitual residence, and while acknowledging there can be legitimate reasons for not returning a child per the exceptions provided under the Convention, the 

following represents a kind of indicator of how prevalent nonreturn is among Hague 

signatory countries (I have chosen a few countries in order to illustrate the range 

of outcomes and to demonstrate the complexity of trying to measure degree of compliance): 

Australia—75 applications; 16 refusals 

Austria—28 applications; 12 refusals 

Bulgaria—21 applications; 8 refusals 

Canada—49 applications; 4 refusals 

Colombia—31 applications; 5 refusals 

France—75 applications; 12 refusals 

Germany—115 applications; 21 refusals 

Ireland—48 applications; 1 refusal 

Israel—24 applications; 3 refusals 

Italy—46 applications; 11 refusals 

Mexico—168 applications; 34 refusals 

The Netherlands—40 applications; 9 refusals 

New Zealand—37 applications; 3 refusals 

Panama—9 applications; 5 refusals 

Poland—67 applications; 26 refusals 

Romania—51 applications; 9 refusals 

South Africa—17 applications; 4 refusals 

Spain—64 applications; 15 refusals 

Switzerland—26 applications; 1 refusal 

Turkey—63 applications; 11 refusals 

Ukraine—30 applications; 5 refusals 

U.K./England and Wales—199 applications; 15 refusals 

USA—283 applications; 20 refusals 

58 

Many cases are resolved through voluntary consent of the parties, and there are 

some cases in which for a variety of reasons, judicial refusal is the correct response. 

Nonetheless, since the primary purpose of the Hague Convention is to ensure that 

custody is handled in a court of the country of habitual residence and to ensure the 

speedy return of the child to that court, a possible indicator of concern is if there 

is a high percentage of these cases that result in judicial refusals to return the child. 

The U.S. State Department conducts its own Hague compliance review which it 

submits to Congress. This review identifies countries in various stages of noncompliance or concern regarding U.S. cases. In its most recent compliance review in 2013 

the State Department found Costa Rica and Guatemala not compliant; identified 

‘‘patterns of noncompliance’’ in The Bahamas, Brazil and Panama; and listed 

‘‘enforcement concerns’’ in Argentina, Australia, France, Mexico, the Netherlands, 

and Romania. 

While comprehensive data are hard to collect, at least anecdotally historically 

return rates are much lower in non-Hague countries. Thus, I would argue that it 

is far better to have an established process in place and a clear legal and administrative framework for addressing these cases. When there are issues of noncompliance, it is also far easier to address them with countries that have taken the legal 

step of ratifying the Convention and by so doing have made a policy statement of 

its intent to comply with the provisions and expectations of the Convention. 

Question. I am also concerned about a whether we are meeting our obligations 

under the Convention. In terms of reciprocity, is the U.S. falling short, particularly 

in the length of time for Hague abduction cases to be resolved in our courts? 

Answer. The United States has made great progress in meeting its reciprocity 

obligations under the Hague Convention. I commend Ambassador Jacobs and the 

Office of Children’s Issues for their commitment. OCI has significantly beefed up its 

staffing and is bringing far more resources to this problem than ever before. 

The primary challenge that we face in the United States is the complexity and 

diversity of our judicial system. In the United Kingdom there are 17 specialist 

judges who hear Hague cases. In the United States there are nearly 10,000 state 

judges, many of whom could possibly receive and handle such a case. 

There has been great emphasis on training, and the creation of a judicial liaison 

function in the U.S. has been helpful, enabling judges who know little or nothing 

about the Hague Convention and receive a case to reach out for help and education. 

However, the time it takes to get resolution in the U.S. is a continuing problem. 

In Professor Lowe’s analysis (of 2008 cases) of the 60 countries examined, the U.S. 

was the fifth-worst in terms of the number of days it takes to get a case to court. 

The mean time in the U.S. was 207 days (nearly 7 months—remembering that the 

standard for complete resolution of these cases is 6 weeks/42 days). The U.S. trailed 

only South Africa (270 days); Ukraine (250 days); Brazil (225 days); and the Czech 

Republic (221 days). And the 207 days in the U.S. can be contrasted with 14 days 

in the U.K., 14 days in Norway, 15 days in Poland, 24 days in Portugal, 35 days 

in Australia, 54 days in Canada, 66 days in Ireland and 72 days in Germany. 

The number of days in a U.S. court once the cases are received is a moderate, 

reasonable 106 days. Nonetheless, in contrast it takes a British court 48 days; a 

Canadian court 69 days; and a German court 89 days. 

Time is the key variable in making the Hague Convention work and getting more 

internationally abducted children home. And the time it takes to complete the process in the United States is a serious problem. 

Question. We have heard concerns from advocates cases, and some percentage of 

abduction cases, however small in number, involve domestic violence. How do you 

address these cases? 

Answer. We take domestic violence allegations very seriously. They need to be 

investigated thoroughly and action taken when they are proven. The Hague Conference created a study group on this issue in 2011 and issued a paper on the 

subject. 

Article 13b of the Hague Convention states, ‘‘A court need not return a child if 

the return would pose a grave risk . . . that . . . return would expose the child to 

physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.’’ 

In the Hague domestic violence report a key conclusion is as follows, ‘‘The Hague 

return proceedings must be conducted expeditiously and the proper management of 

domestic violence allegations should not compromise a swift disposal of the return 

application, which is strongly in the interest of the child and the family. More consistency and clarity in dealing with cases where domestic violence is raised as a 

defense under Article 13(1)(b) could assist in keeping return (and access) procedures 

59 

under the Convention expeditious, without depriving the taking parent of the opportunity to present, or to have presented adequate evidence and to seek relief or protection where needed. Indeed, clear guidance on the effective and expeditious handling of these cases could reduce appeals and other legal challenges.’’ 

The Hague Conference is considering the development of a best practices guide 

regarding handling domestic violence allegations without compromising the basic 

purpose of the Convention. We support this kind of process and feel that it is timely 

and necessary. 

Question. On January 24, Japan ratified the Hague Convention. One concern with 

this is that abduction cases in Japan that existed before ratification will be grandfathered out, and will not be subject to Convention processes. How do you think we 

should address these cases that are not grandfathered in, where these children may 

not be returned because the Convention was ratified? 

Answer. I rejoice at Japan’s ratification of the Hague Convention, but I view 

Japan’s action with caution and reservations. Ratification of the Hague Convention 

is not a panacea. Further, I share your concern that it does nothing to address or 

resolve the cases of so many U.S. parents who have fought for so long to get their 

children back from Japan, or at least gain reasonable access to them. 

There is also something to be learned from history about this problem. In the 

1990s the U.S. and other countries were engaged in the same kind of battle with 

Germany. President Clinton raised this issue personally to Chancellor Gerhard 

Schroeder. A bilateral working group was established which made great progress. 

However, one German leader said, ‘‘judge us by what we do from this point forward, 

not by the older cases.’’ 

My answer to the problem of the older U.S. cases in Japan is escalating U.S. Government advocacy and pressure on behalf of the U.S. parents and increasing willingness to use real leverage to resolve each case, one at a time. I understand that 

Japan is a trusted, respected ally, deservedly so. It is a country with whom we share 

many values and which is central to our Asia and global policy. However, I do not 

believe that these priorities are mutually exclusive. As I indicated at your hearing, 

I believe that U.S. leaders need better, more effective tools for engaging foreign 

leaders on these cases, and greater willingness to utilize them. 

The Japan problem is not a new one. I have met with, talked to and tried to help 

many left-behind U.S. parents whose children were abducted to Japan. The clear 

conclusion one has to draw is that absent some ability to mediate or reach an 

agreed-upon settlement, the left-behind parent simply does not get their child back. 

Under Japanese law, only one parent gets custody over children after a divorce, 

whereas rulings on joint custody are often seen in Europe and the United States. 

The impact of Japan’s law and tradition is that Japanese courts almost always force 

children of U.S./Japanese marriages to live with their Japanese mothers, leaving 

left-behind fathers with almost no recourse. 

Parents who attempt to proceed in the Japanese family courts are at a disadvantage as courts tend to favor Japanese nationals. Joint custody decrees are virtually 

nonexistent and visitation rights for noncustodial parents are uncommon. When a 

custody decree is issued, judges and officials are often reluctant to enforce them. 

Further, taking-parents have a low incentive to voluntarily resolve or mediate cases 

as there is no pressure placed on them by government or court officials. 

In response to earlier calls for action, initially the Japanese Foreign Ministry 

replied that ‘‘there is a part of this convention that is alienated from the Japanese 

legal system . . . there are several issues that need to be thoroughly discussed, including the consistency with our country’s judicial system on families.’’ 

And this is not a problem unique to the United States. Several years ago, thenJapanese Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama said, ‘‘We have been condemned by the 

USA, Canada, the U.K., and France over this and I firmly believe we need to change 

things. The effect will be Japan coming into this century. We need to be clear 

though, these changes will take time. A very strong cultural change shifting from 

maternal primacy over the children is needed as well. I think we have already seen 

the beginning of this, but a change in laws is not the sole solution.’’ 

Thus, while I celebrate Japan’s ratification of the Hague Convention, I do not 

believe it will solve all problems, particularly with the older cases. And I am particularly concerned about the additional conditions and exceptions that the Japanese 

Government added as prerequisites for its ratification of the Hague Convention. 

The challenges for effective implementation are many and significant. In the 

United States there is a coordinated national system for locating and returning 

missing children. In Japan, there is not. 

In Japan the courts only have those powers specifically granted to them by statute. Thus, an entire statutory framework must be established to empower Japanese 

60 

courts to implement the Convention. An entire procedural code must be created covering trials, appeals, and enforcement. 

The implementing legislation allows the losing party to apply for a new trial after 

all appeals are exhausted. Is this consistent with the stated goal of the Hague Convention of bringing about the prompt return of the abducted child? 

The provisions of the Japanese legislation do not allow the imprisonment of 

abductors nor do they allow the seizure of the child. These provisions leave me less 

than fully confident that court orders, even if issued, will in fact be enforceable. 

The legislation adds exception language allowing the court to consider whether 

there are circumstances making it difficult for the taking parent or the parent 

requesting return to properly care for the child in the country of origin. Does this 

suggest that the Japanese court may reconsider the initial custody determination? 

The Implementing Act is long and complex. Some legal scholars have expressed 

concern that because Japan was pressured into ratifying the Hague Convention by 

the international community that it may be doing so without really changing its 

behavior in these cases. The Hague Convention is fundamentally about conflicts of 

law. Its core principle is that the return of children to their home jurisdiction is the 

rule, not the exception. One observer noted, ‘‘Japanese courts could conceivably continue using their own internalized views of what is best for children, which has 

always resulted in children remaining in Japan.’’ 

Question. Data provided by your organization presented to the 2011 Hague Special Commission indicate that there has been a significant increase in the number 

of applications for the return of abducted children. To what can you attribute this 

increase? Is it because there are more abducted children or because more citizens 

are aware of the Convention and are filing applications? 

Answer. It is difficult to answer your question precisely. However, in our judgment the answer is both. First, as the globe has shrunk, there are more multinational, multicultural marriages. That is a good thing. However, as marriages 

increase, so do divorces and child custody battles. Second, the number of signatory 

countries in the Hague Convention is increasing. That too is a good thing. However, 

as more countries participate, more petitions are filed by their citizens seeking 

relief. And finally there is growing awareness of the services and infrastructure 

available to help these parents. The U.S. State Department has made a major investment in its Office of Children’s Issues. More U.S. parents are aware of the State 

Department’s services and resources, and are asking for help. 

It is also important to note that the increase in the number of applications identified by Professor Nigel Lowe’s research only reflects the number of applications 

routed through Central Authorities and not to the incidence of child abduction overall. Thus, while I have concern about the impacts of these increases on the ability 

to handle the volume swiftly as anticipated by the Hague Convention, in many ways 

the increase is an encouraging sign. It may, in fact, indicate that more parents in 

these situations are asking for help and are receiving it. 

Nonetheless, my view is that the reason for the increase in applications is a combination of those factors and others, and that the numbers will continue to grow. 

Question. I understand from your testimony that the Hague process for returning 

abducted children is taking longer than years. The longer a case takes, the lower 

the likelihood of a successful resolution. Why are the causes of delay? Do you have 

any concrete suggestions for making the process more expeditious? 

Answer. There are many causes for delay: caseload, lack of familiarity with the 

Convention on the part of some judges, etc. However, my particular concern is that 

there is an incentive for the taking parent to make the case go on as long as possible. Thus, delay has become a strategy. 

One of the exceptions provided under the Convention is Article 13b, ‘‘that the 

child is old enough and has a sufficient degree of maturity to knowingly object to 

being returned to the Petitioner and that it is appropriate to heed that objection 

. . .’’ 

Most of the children being abducted are very young. The average age found in the 

survey was 6.4 years. If the process takes a long time, the taking-parent can easily 

argue that the child has adapted to his or her new surroundings, has friends, and 

that it would be harmful and disruptive to return him or her to their previous place 

of habitual residence. This was a primary argument made in the Sean Goldman 

case in Brazil. 

One of the more famous U.S. cases involving this rationale was the Sylvester case 

from Ohio, in which the child was abducted and taken to Austria by her noncustodial mother. The father pursued the return of the child to the U.S. via the Hague 

Convention and prevailed in an Austrian court, which ordered the child’s return. 

61 

However, the mother fled with the child, preventing the enforcement of the order. 

By the time the mother was apprehended several years later, an Austrian appeals 

court determined that because of the passage of time, a return of the child to the 

United States would not be in her best interests. 

There is an incentive to delay, ‘‘to run the clock out.’’ The Hague Convention 

works best when it operates speedily. 

Article 11 of the Convention sets a 6-week (or 42 day) standard for the length of 

time within which a case should be concluded. However, that standard is not precise 

or enforceable. In the latest research the average time taken to reach a decision of 

judicial return of the child was 166 days, as compared with 125 days in 2003 and 

107 days in 1999. In cases in which judges ultimately refused to return the child, 

the decision took 286 days in 2008, compared with 233 in 2003 and 147 in 1999. 

Delays are particularly troubling in connection with access cases. The average time 

it took to reach a final outcome in access cases in 2008 was 309 days if there was 

a voluntary agreement for access, 357 if access was judicially ordered, and 276 days 

if access was refused. 

Professor Lowe also examined the issue of time by country. He looked at two 

questions: the number of days before a case is sent to court; and the number of days 

it takes a court to decide the case. 

The countries examined that take the longest amount of time before a case is sent 

to court are the following: 

South Africa—270 

Ukraine—250 

Brazil—225 

Czech Republic—221 

United States—207 Bulgaria—161 

By contrast in the U.K. it takes 14 days. 

The countries examined that take the longest amount of time before a court 

decides the case are the following: 

Ecuador—526 

Ukraine—414 

Panama—285 

Bulgaria—257 

Cyprus—241 

Greece—231 

In contrast, in the U.S. the number of days in court is 106 and in the U.K. it 

is 48. 

Question. In your testimony, you highlight that it is important for judges, including judges in the United States, to have experience in Hague Convention cases in 

order to better understand them if and when they arise. What progress have you 

seen in judicial training in the United States and abroad? 

Answer. In our battles with Germany more than a decade ago, one of the points 

made by Chancellor Schroeder was that Germany had a federal system and that the 

German Government could exert no controls over state judges and judicial systems. 

In many ways the U.S. is in a similar position. 

As I pointed out in my testimony there are nearly 10,000 state judges in the U.S. 

Many of them could possibly receive and handle a Hague case whether or not they 

knowledge or prior experience. There has been a concerted effort to train U.S. 

judges at many conferences. However, more training is necessary and appropriate. 

The U.S. has more in-coming Hague cases than any other country. In Professor 

Lowe’s research in 2008 the U.S. received 283 applications; followed by the U.K. 

(200); Mexico (168) and Germany (115). 

One important development is the concept of liaison judge, pioneered by Lord Justice Mathew Thorpe of the United Kingdom. The liaison judge is a designated member of the judiciary who acts as a channel of communication and liaison with Central Authorities, with other judges in their own jurisdictions and with judges in 

other countries. In the U.S., because of the complexity of the judicial system and 

the jurisdictional issues, a group of judges experienced in these cases formed a judicial liaison committee, rather than attempting to designate a single judge. 

In addition, an International Hague Network of Judges has developed facilitating 

communication and understanding between judges involved in these cases worldwide. 

62 

RESPONSES OF AMBASSADOR SUSAN JACOBS TO QUESTIONS

SUBMITTED BY SENATOR EDWARD J. MARKEY

Question. Your testimony alluded in general terms to Congress’ role in abductions 

but declined to make any comments on H.R. 3212 or suggestions for similar legislation in the Senate in a public hearing. Could you please discuss which sections of 

H.R. 3212 the State Department sees as most helpful, which are most likely to have 

unintended consequences, and what additional enforcement tools might be useful? 

Answer. We appreciate congressional interest in addressing the important issue 

of international parental child abduction (IPCA). We share with Congress the goals 

of H.R. 3212: to prevent IPCA, to return children expeditiously to their countries 

of habitual residence, and to strengthen and expand membership in the 1980 Hague 

Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the Convention) 

worldwide. 

The Department recognizes that the intent behind H.R. 3212 is to provide us with 

more tools for resolving cases. We are working with committee staff to determine 

how to address the areas where we believe the bill will not achieve its stated objectives and might even be counterproductive. Our biggest concerns are: 

• Memoranda of Understanding (MOUs)—In our experience, MOUs are ineffective. Previously the Department thought this might be a viable alternative to 

pursue with countries that were uninterested in joining the Convention. We 

signed three MOUs and subsequently have never been able to obtain a return 

from these countries. Because MOUs are not legally binding we have found they 

actually undermine the Convention as counties do not see the need to take further action once they have signed the nonbinding MOU. The Convention is 

effective in part because it provides a civil legal framework which may be implemented consistently around the world for securing the prompt return of children 

to their country of habitual residence. By contrast, MOU provisions vary widely. 

Accordingly, they provide no consistent basis for returning children to their 

country of habitual residence. In fact, absent a legally binding agreement, an 

instrument would not provide a basis for a foreign court to order the return of 

a child. This results in uncertainty and unreliability. Moreover, negotiating 

MOUs will divert resources from engaging directly on resolving cases. 

• Access—The bill seeks to direct our work toward pursuing contact between the 

left-behind parent and child during the pendency of a Hague application for 

return of the child to his or her habitual residence. We routinely try to help 

left-behind parents gain access and/or information about their children. However, because access is often treated as a custody matter, parents who seek formal ‘‘access’’ may be required to acquiesce to the jurisdiction of a foreign court, 

which could negatively affect any claims for return under the Convention. By 

mixing these two terms the bill could potentially have a negative effect on our 

shared goal of returning these children. 

• Military cases—We agree that our service members face special challenges in 

resolving IPCA cases and we work closely with the Department of Defense 

through the Interagency Working Group to ensure that military parents receive 

the full support of both federal agencies in any IPCA case. However, H.R. 3212’s 

attempts to define the habitual residence of children of military parents who 

live overseas are problematic. The determination of which country is a child’s 

habitual residence is not made by the U.S. Central Authority but rather is a 

question of fact for a judge to determine in the context of a court hearing on 

a Hague petition for return. Although the Convention does not define this term, 

the United States cannot unilaterally interpret the term in a manner that 

would be inconsistent with the intent of the negotiators. 

The Department is interested in working with Congress to identify new ways to 

prevent abductions from occurring. The Department of State already collaborates 

with the Department of Homeland Security on information-sharing to prevent 

abductions in progress, under existing authorities of the two agencies. Tools to 

assist in preventing children, of any citizenship or nationality, from boarding a 

flight exiting the United States in violation of a court order from a court of competent jurisdiction may be one avenue to explore. Additionally, current law and regulations allow a child to travel to certain destinations within the Western Hemisphere without a valid passport. Further requirements for travel documentation of 

children could be explored. This would add useful prevention tools to H.R. 3212. 

Question. If you cannot provide any comments on H.R. 3212 now, could you please 

let me know when the State Department expects it will be able to provide comments? 

63 

Answer. The Department has been routinely engaged with committee staff on 

working to explore additional tools to achieve our shared goals. 

Question. I understand the argument that, in countries that respect the rule of 

law, the executive branch cannot force courts to issue the rulings it wants in particular cases. But as you know, there are many situations where foreign court orders 

a child’s return, or orders that a left-behind parent be given visitation rights, and 

those orders remain unenforced. Would stronger pressure on foreign governments 

be more productive in those cases? If so, what types of actions would be appropriate 

and effective? 

Answer. We believe that directly engaging our foreign counterparts in discussions 

regarding possible solutions to individual cases in the context of a bilateral working 

group is a more productive means to effect change and resolutions than external 

pressure. Sanctioning foreign governments for failure to enforce return orders may 

have a chilling effect by making judges less likely to order the return of a child 

knowing that country could be subject to sanctions if that order is not effectively 

enforced. 

One of our best examples of how diplomatic engagement can result in better 

enforcement of court orders is Mexico. Following years of compliance concerns with 

Mexico, we instituted a Department-wide effort to cultivate closer relationships with 

key Mexican Government officials to encourage them to adopt measures to ensure 

that court orders under the Convention would be enforced. As a result, in each of 

the past 4 years, more than 150 abducted children have been returned from Mexico 

(including 250 in 2010), which is significantly more than any previous year. These 

numbers include more than 200 children who were returned by court orders in 

Hague Convention cases. 

Question. Other witnesses testified that in general, access applications under the 

Hague Convention on average took far longer than return applications, and were far 

less likely to be successful. Do you believe that is accurate? If so, what can the 

United States do to assist parents who wish to at least see and hold their children 

overseas? 

Answer. The Department of State provides assistance to parents seeking access 

under the Hague Abduction Convention. Under the Convention, access may, or may 

not, involve an abduction across international borders, and courts generally view 

access as a substantive custody issue. Article 21 of the Convention, which addresses 

access, is broadly drafted and only requires signatory countries to facilitate a parent’s ability to pursue access via the country’s domestic legal system. It does not 

require the country to grant access. The length of Hague proceedings for access 

depends upon the country’s interpretation of its responsibilities under the Convention as they pertain to access and the underlying domestic law governing the case. 

In partial response to the shortcomings of the Convention concerning access, the 

international community subsequently negotiated the Convention on Jurisdiction, 

Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-Operation in Respect of Parental 

Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children. The United States 

recently signed this Convention and is considering how it could be implemented in 

the United States before it would be transmitted to the Senate for its approval. 

Question. Are there any steps Congress or the State Department could take to 

reduce delays in entering information on abductions into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database, or reporting abductions that involve criminal violations to INTERPOL? 

Answer. The Department works in collaboration with the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children to support law enforcement in their response to 

reports of international parental child abduction. 

In the event that a child is wrongfully removed from or retained outside the 

United States, the parent must decide whether to report the child missing to U.S. 

law enforcement. While law enforcement is solely responsible for entering children 

into the National Crime Information Center (NCIC) database and reporting cases 

to INTERPOL, the Department provides support to parents regardless of whether 

they engage law enforcement. 

There are already federal laws that guide law enforcement in responding to cases 

of missing or abducted children. The Missing Children Act (1982) requires law 

enforcement to enter a missing child into NCIC even if the abductor has not been 

charged with a crime. [Missing Children Act, 28 U.S.C. 534 (1982).] The National 

Child Search Assistance Act (1990) eliminates waiting periods, requiring law 

enforcement agents to immediately enter a Missing Person File and to liaise with 

the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. [42 U.S.C. §§ 5779, 5780 

(1990).] 

64 

Question. Are there any steps Congress or the Office of Children’s Issues could 

take to ensure that when a family court judge issues an order placing restrictions 

on overseas travel with a child, information about the child and the noncitizen parent is more promptly and reliably added to the Department of Homeland Security’s 

Prevent Departure list? 

Answer. Since the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is the agency responsible for the administration of the Prevent Departure list, we do not want to speculate on tools that might be useful to DHS to utilize this program. However, we look 

forward to continued discussions with Congress and DHS on this issue. 

Question. In June 2011 the Government Accountability Office evaluated two possible programs for preventing overseas abductions: (a) creating a high risk abductor 

list and incorporating it into standard airport security procedures for overseas 

flights; (b) requiring parental consent letters for children traveling overseas with 

only one parent. 

GAO concluded that the former option would be more effective, and create fewer 

logistical problems or burdens for families traveling with children.1 Do you agree 

with that conclusion? 

Answer. We support the creation of more prevention tools but they need to be 

explored with DHS, the airlines, and any other interested entities to discuss practical questions and potential unintended consequences. Such unintended consequences for either option might include, but are not limited to, document authentication issues, easily obtainable fraudulent documents, undue burden on noncustodial adults traveling with children for school or other organizational trips, or placing 

limitation on parents’ travel even when they are not traveling with their children. 

———————— 

End Note 

1Government Accountability Office Report 11–602, Commercial Aviation: Program Aimed at 

High Risk Parent Abductors Could Aid in Preventing Abductions, June 2011, available at http:// 

www.gao.gov/new.items/d11602.pdf. 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY SENATORS BEN CARDIN

AND BARBARA MIKULSKI OF MARYLAND

THE EDEANNA CHEBBI CHILD ABDUCTION CASE: 

MARYLAND CHILDREN ABDUCTED TO TUNISIA

Thank you for holding a hearing on the very important issue of international parental child abductions. 

The U.S. State Department is alerted to approximately 1,200 international parental child abductions each year. As a signatory to the Hague Convention on the Civil 

Aspects of International Child Abduction, the U.S. has led in the fight to protect 

the rights of children and parents, working to ensure that the appropriate legal custody agreements are enforced in all cases. However, when a child is abducted by 

a parent to another country, the ability of the U.S. to act depends on each individual 

country. The results can be devastating, not only to the child but to the entire extended family as well. That is why we must continue to examine ways to improve 

the U.S. response and capability in this matter, and continue working to improve 

the process of reuniting children with the appropriate parent. 

We have become personally involved in the case of Edeanna Chebbi and her two 

children, who were abducted by their father, Faical Chebbi, to Tunisia in November 

2011. Edeanna and Faical were divorced in the state of Maryland in January 2011. 

Ms. Chebbi was awarded full custody rights to the children. Despite a protective 

order not to remove the children from the U.S., Mr. Chebbi abducted the children 

to Tunisia in November 2011. Since January 2012, Ms. Chebbi has resided in Tunisia in order to be closer to her children, Eslam, age 7, and Zainab, age 4, and to 

pursue her legal right to custody of the children. 

In the fall of 2012, a Tunisian court recognized the U.S. divorce and custody papers allowing Edeanna to live with her children in the United States. Mr. Chebbi 

appealed this ruling but his appeal was denied and the children were ordered to 

be returned to Edeanna. At this point Edeanna has only been reunited with her 

daughter, while her son continues to be held by his father. Despite this clear direction from the Tunisian court system, Mrs. Chebbi continues to face additional judicial and bureaucratic obstacles that prevent her from returning to the U.S. with her 

children. 

Unfortunately this story is all too familiar. We are encouraged that the Senate 

Foreign Relations Committee is working to craft legislation that would empower the 

65 

U.S. to resolve international parental child abduction cases more efficiently. We 

hope that such legislation will ensure that U.S. diplomatic and consular missions 

have the necessary resources to address cases involving abducted children in their 

country of post and that appropriate mechanisms are in place to address and resolve 

existing international parental child abduction cases around the world. 

We look forward to working with you both to resolve outstanding international parental child abduction cases and to streamline the resolution of future incidents. 

Thank you for the opportunity to share our thoughts on this matter. 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY EDEANNA M. JOHNSON-CHEBBI, 

FOUNDER AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RETURN U.S. HOME

My name is Edeanna Johnson-Chebbi. My children, Eslam (7) and Zainab (5) 

Chebbi were illegally abducted by their father, Faical Chebbi (presently one of the 

top 10 Most Wanted by the FBI for parental child abduction) on November 11, 2011. 

I could certainly fill pages of testimony describing the enormous emotional aspects 

of our family’s turmoil. I could also highlight the vast statistics of the severity and 

reach of International Parental Child Abduction (IPCA) that show at least 1 child 

becomes victim to this abuse every single day. I could outline the manifestation of 

this horrendous crime in the Arab world which finds that nearly 80% of parental 

abductions to the MENA are committed by fathers in an act of retaliation or vengeance. And I could clearly outline the research and medical testimony that defines 

IPCA as a form of child abuse and the lasting detriment it causes to child victims. 

However, my hope is that by providing details of the enormous legal and political 

steps that have been taken to bring our family together, the Committee will understand just how desperately left-behind parents need strong, consequential support 

from the U.S. government (as provided for in H.R. 3212) in order to bring our babies 

home. 

In the months prior to Eslam and Zainab’s abduction I had procured every legal 

means of ensuring the prevention of this act. Following a slew of violent incidents 

and threats on my life from the children’s father, I obtained a protective order in 

February 2010 which allowed Eslam, Zainab and I to relocate from our family home. 

That same month I registered both children with the State Department’s passport 

issuance alert program. In July 2010, a circuit court judge in our county ordered 

that neither parent shall depart the U.S. with either child. In January 2011 the 

children’s father signed a legal separation agreement providing me full legal and 

physical custody of our children. In March 2011, I personally met with the passport 

issuance officer at the Tunisian embassy in Washington, D.C. I provided him copies 

of every legal document mentioned above and received assurance that the Tunisian 

embassy would not violate U.S. laws to issue Tunisian passports to Eslam or Zainab 

without my knowledge or consent. Clearly, I had put in place every possible assurance to prevent the abduction that my babies’ father had promised. 

On November 11, 2011, Faical Chebbi picked up the children for his scheduled 

weekend visitation and headed directly to Dulles airport where he boarded a Lufthansa flight to Tunis, Tunisia with Eslam and Zainab in tow. Despite their personal 

promise to uphold U.S. law, the Tunisian embassy in Washington, D.C. allowed 

Eslam and Zainab to obtain Tunisian birth certificates and passports, issued in September 2011, without my knowledge or consent. With these newly printed identities, 

and failing any security checks or inquiries for entry documentation as they exited 

U.S. borders, my children (then aged 5 and 2) were torn from the only family, land, 

language and home they had ever known. 

Had any exit requirements or minimal inquiries regarding the children’s or their 

father’s passports been conducted, Eslam and Zainab would be safe at home right 

now. 

When I received a phone call from the children’s father on November 12, 2011, 

stating that the children were with him and that I would never see them again, my 

initial response was one of shock and numbness. My second response was certainty 

that the clear criminality of this event would result in the immediate return of 

Eslam and Zainab to me in the U.S. As days turned into weeks, it was clear that 

the only means to ensure that my babies were not forgotten, and that our case was 

not dismissed, was to take every available means of political, legal and public action 

possible. In December 2011, I and 50 other supporters took to the streets to protest 

in front of the Tunisian embassy in Washington, D.C. While this action did procure 

necessary media attention to our case, it did little more than provoke sneers and 

mockery from the Tunisian consul and members of the embassy staff looking onward from their office doors. 

66 

By January 2012, federal warrants with an extradition demand were produced by 

the Assistant U.S. Attorney and the FBI for Faical Chebbi. Both children were 

issued yellow alerts through Interpol, and their father was placed on red alert. Additionally, Senator Barbara Mikulski personally delivered a letter supporting the return of Eslam and Zainab to the U.S. to the Tunisian government on an official visit 

to the country that same month. Despite these measures, I was informed by the 

U.S. Consul, the FBI, and legal counsel in Tunisia that, because no treaties or 

agreements existed between Tunisia and the U.S., I would have to pursue the legal 

recognition of our divorce and custody agreements in Tunisia. 

An official case was opened for recognition and enforcement of our U.S. custody 

and divorce decree in Tunisia, and on January 18, 2012, I boarded a plane to that 

country to pursue this new legal course, and to be close to my children. I was initially promised that our legal case would take only a matter of weeks to reach resolution. It is now 2 years one month and thirteen days since my arrival, and we are 

still awaiting enforcement.The attached legal brief provides a detailed review of our 

2 year battle. In short, I have won legal recognition of our custody and divorce orders in the First Instance Court, the Appellate Court, and the right of enforcement 

up to the Supreme Court of Tunisia. In full expectation of the immediate enforcement of our judgment, I exercised my legal rights of custody and retained Zainab 

following visitation in September 2013. Since this date, any and all contact with 

Eslam has been withheld from both Zainab and me. Through relationships with corrupt judges, police, members of the Ministry of Justice, and influence from a corrupt 

brother-in-law within the Ministry of Interior, Faical Chebbi has managed to continue the illegal imprisonment of Eslam in his custody 

In spite of U.S. law, international law, and Tunisian law, the children’s abusive 

father continues to carry on without punishment or consequence for his criminal actions. Alternatively, Eslam, Zainab and I are being arbitrarily detained by a Tunisian government that has verbally affirmed—in a private meeting with a representative from the Ministry of Justice—that they will not enforce custody to a U.S. citizen, nor allow Eslam or Zainab to be removed from Tunisia. Were H.R. 3212 a law 

today, the tools of the U.S. Consul, U.S. Ambassador, the FBI, and my congressional 

representatives to counter the abuse of law in our case would be strong and consequential enough to ensure that Eslam, Zainab and I were reunited and returned 

home to America with expediency. 

Without specific action taken by the U.S. government on our behalf, I began my 

own organization, Return U.S. Home, and have spent the past 2 years waging a 

very public political campaign to bring awareness and resolution to our family’s 

plight. These actions have included a second rally at the Tunisian embassy in Washington, D.C.; an international petition—signed by 19,222 supporters—targeted at 

President Obama and then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to work to bring 

Eslam and Zainab home; and more than 15 targeted letter writing campaigns to the 

U.S. Department of State, the Secretary of State, the U.S. President, and various 

members of Congress and congressional committees seeking the intervention and 

support of the U.S. government to protect these innocent children and to bring us 

home to our beloved America. While members of the State Department, the National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the staff of my congressional representatives have all applauded these efforts, we still lie in wait for a significant 

response from the U.S. government. Again, were H.R. 3212 a law today, I believe 

these efforts would have resulted in my children’s return many months ago. 

My family would have lost all hope were it not for the unyielding support of Senators Barbara Mikulski and Benjamin Cardin. In particular, Senator Mikulski’s personal devotion to our case and actions on our behalf have sustained my faith in the 

U.S. government in times where I have felt most hopeless. Recently, Senator Mikulski personally wrote to both President Obama and President Marzouki (of Tunisia) 

demanding their immediate action to enforce the laws of both countries to return 

Eslam and Zainab to my custody. Unfortunately, there has been no response from 

either presidential office. 

Contrarily, I have been personally humiliated by the agreeable American response 

to requests for aid, enormous financial grants and commitments, and political slaps 

on the back from a fledgling Tunisian government. While we beg for our country’s 

support for the security of 2 of its most vulnerable citizens, our cries are met with 

silence. The actions of our beloved country thus far have made clear that politics 

precedes our American lives. Were H.R. 3212 a law today, the U.S. Senate and 

President would be required to reverse this scenario, and Eslam and Zainab would 

finally be the priority. 

Briefly stated, Eslam, Zainab and I need the immediate, consequential intervention of the U.S. government at its highest levels if we are ever to have hope of being 

a family again. I continue to utilize every imaginative means of resolving our case. 

67 

I have become an expert on U.S., international and Tunisian law in order to reunite 

my family—and at least 4 other families suffering the abuse of IPCA to Tunisia— 

and to educate and encourage our supporters. I continue to reach out to our Congress, the President, Secretary of State, and the FBI, begging for intervention on 

our behalf—to simply demand the enforcement of the law. 

These activities will continue until my family is reunited and free from imprisonment in Tunisia. Sadly, I have less confidence that these actions will procure a just 

result until concerted, consequential actions are taken by the U.S. government 

against Tunisia in support of our reunification and return. Without consequence for 

their refusal to implement even their own laws, the Tunisian government will continue to open their pockets to American money while obstructing the enforcement 

of justice, for the imprisoned American citizens within its borders. 

In closing, I am in full support of the immediate passing and enactment of the 

legislation before you. I stress that you cannot act quickly enough to ensure the necessary aid that we left-behind parents so desperately need from our government in 

order to end the abuse of parental child abduction against our children. 

While I am fearful that altering the language of the proposed legislation will result in harmful delays and debate, I do applaud the Committee’s interest in ensuring that prevention measures are also taken into account. Therefore, I offer my personal suggestions for consideration: 

1. Specific language explicitly defining Parental Child Abduction as either child 

abuse or a violation of the abducted child(ren)’s human rights. 

2. Routine enforcement of Homeland Security and Customs and Border Patrol procedures that require notarized or court certified documentation of the authority 

to travel for any minor under the age of 16 departing the U.S. either alone or 

with one adult. 

3. Utilizing the NCIC (National Crime Information Center) database to initiate 

travel warnings for parents in cases where courts have issued travel bans for 

their children. 

I would like to thank the Committee for its concern and expressed devotion to the 

issue of IPCA. I would also like to thank the Office of Children’s Issues (specifically 

Afuah Owusu Baafi), the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (specifically Rami Zahr), the FBI (specifically agent Jeff Johannes), and the U.S. Ambassadors, Consuls and Vice Consuls who have worked so diligently and relentlessly 

on our case. Additionally, I am so grateful for the support of Senators Mikulski and 

Cardin who have undoubtedly ensured that our family’s case remains one of some 

political concern within Tunisia and at home. Finally, I cannot express enough gratitude to the multitudes of friends, family and supporters, many of whom are complete strangers, who have leapt in through civic engagement to share their voices 

for the innocent and silenced victims of this horrendous crime, Eslam and Zainab. 

Our family would be nowhere without you all! 

Sincerely, 

Edeanna M. Johnson-Chebbi 

ATTACHMENT 1: 

Translated from Arabic 

Mr. Kamel Boujeh 

LEGAL PROCEEDINGS TAKEN BY EDEANNA MARCELLA JOHNSON

AND A SUMMARY OF THE LEGAL ISSUES

I.—Proceedings taken by Edeanna Marcella Johnson 

• Mrs. Edeanna Marcella Johnson filed a suit before the First Instance Court of 

Tunis 2 in order to obtain the exequatur allowing the enforcement in Tunisia 

of the decree absolute #3 CAD 07552-11 handed down by the county court of 

Prince George—Maryland on October 26, 2011 since this proceeding is required 

for enabling her to request the guardianship of her children ‘‘Islem’’ and 

‘‘Zaineb’’ and since her ex-husband obtained an instanter decision handed down 

by the Family Judge concerning the guardianship of the children as soon as he 

arrived to Tunisian Territory. 

• October 2, 2012, a first instance judgment was handed down in favor of 

Edeanna ordering the enforceability of the judgment pronounced in U.S. 

• November 5, 2012, Edeanna’s ex-husband, Faical Chebbi lodged an appeal 

against the aforesaid exequatur (appeal proceeding hinders and stops the enforceability of the exequatur pursuant to the provisions of article 146 of Commercial and Legal Proceedings Code) 

68 

• May 22, 2013, the Court of Appeals in Tunis pronounced the judgment #44680 

in favor of Edeanna and confirmed the first instance judgment. 

• July 4, 2013, Edeanna informed her ex-husband Faical Chebbi about the appeal 

decree through the report #5752 transmitted by the Attorney-at-law, Mrs. Yusra 

Menara (within 20 days from the date of notice, the judgment becomes final and 

enforceable pursuant to the provisions of article 287 of Commercial and Legal 

Proceedings Code) 

• July 19, 2013, Faical lodged an appeal at Supreme Court against the appeal 

judgment #44680, he applied to the Prime Judge at the Supreme Court in order 

to stop the enforceability of the said judgment but his request was thrown out 

( lodging appeals against judgments at Supreme Court does not hinder their enforceability, however, the Prime Judge of the Supreme Court may uncommonly 

order the suspension of enforceability pursuant to the provisions of article 194 

of Commercial and Legal Proceedings Code) 

• After 20 days from the notice date, Edeanna became the legal guardian of 

‘‘Islem’’ and ‘‘Zaineb’’ 

• Faical Chebbi refused to abide by the appeal judgment despite the refusal of 

his application to hinder enforceability that he submitted to the Prime Judge 

of the Supreme Court (his refusal to give the children is deemed an offence pursuant to law #2/1962 dated May 24, 1962) 

• Further to the refusal of Faical to abide by the judgment, Edeanna kept 

‘‘Zaineb’’ and refused to give her back since she is her legal guardian. 

• August 28, 2013, Edeanna filed a complaint to the Public Prosecutor at the 

First Instance Court of Tunis 2 against Faical Chebbi for the kidnapping of her 

children from U.S. and his refusal to return ‘‘Islem’’ despite the judgment pronounced against him and about which he has been legally informed. The complaint was enrolled under #18517/2013 at Juvenile Squad Department (investigation team reporting to judicial Police). The said department heard Edeanna 

and proceeded to the enforcement of the appeal decision ordering the return of 

‘‘Islem’’ to his mother. But the Family Judge at the First Instance Court of 

Tunis 1 expressed objection and requested to let the matter unchanged, i.e. 

‘‘Zaineb’’ with Edeanna and ‘‘Islem’’ with Faical. It should be noted that the suit 

file was not brought before the aforesaid judge. 

• The Juvenile Squad informed the Public Prosecutor at the First Instance Court 

Tunis 2 who transferred the file to his colleague at the First Instance Court of 

Manouba since Faical resides in Manouba. 

• Up to this date, Edeanna did not have ‘‘Islem’’ despite the fact that she is his 

legal guardian pursuant to a final and enforceable appeal decision handed down 

by a Tunisian Court. 

II.—Proceedings taken by Faical against Edeanna : 

• November 19, 2013, Faical filed the complaint #7054705/2012 to the Public 

Prosecutor at the First Instance Court of Tunis 1 against Edeanna, he accused 

her to have instructed a gang known for child abduction to kidnap ‘‘Islem’’ and 

‘‘Zainab’’ 

• November 22, 2012, the complaint was brought before the examining magistrate, chamber 18 of the First Instance Court of Tunis 1. Further investigation 

and file study, the examining magistrate stated that Edeanna was not implicated in that matter. 

• Faical lodged the lawsuit #5762 before the Family Judge where he requested 

the return of ‘‘Zaineb’’ pretending that his ex-wife is having sexual intercourse 

in the presence of her daughter. 

• ‘‘Islem’’ and ‘‘Zaineb’’ were examined by psychologist, the allegations of Faical 

were refuted and his request was rejected on July 4, 2013. 

• October 12, 2013, Faical filed a suit enrolled under #27/92140 before the Chamber of Personal Statute at the First Instance Court of Tunis 1 requesting the 

guardianship of ‘‘Islem’’ and ‘‘Zaineb.’’ The said lawsuit is postponed to March 

3, 2014. 

• November 4, 2013, Faical lodged the complaint #8779 before the Family Judge 

about the return of ‘‘Zaineb,’’ the suit is planned for the hearing of February 

19, 2014. 

SUMMARY

• Edeanna is the legal guardian of ‘‘Islem’’ and ‘‘Zaineb’’ however Faical refuses 

to return ‘‘Islem’’ to his mother and even to allow her to see him. He is liable 

to three months imprisonment further to this indictable offence. 

69 

• Faical pretends that Edeanna may leave the country with the children; this is 

not true since the children are not allowed to leave the country, and therefore, 

Edeanna cannot take them abroad without the authorization of the competent 

Judge. • kidnapping ‘‘Islem’’ and ‘‘Zaineb’’ from U.S. is deemed an offence indictable in 

Tunisian law and American Law. American authorities have the right to request Tunisian authorities to hand him over pursuant to the current proceedings against him in U.S. and according to the international bench warrant. 

In case Tunisian authorities refuse to hand him based on the fact that no country can be urged to hand over one of its citizens, Faical should be actionable 

before Tunisian Courts for kidnapping children. 

True translation to the original, Tunis February 15, 2014 

Henda Dekkak, Sworn Translator 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY LAUREN THORLEY, NORTH CAROLINA

I live in the state of North Carolina and I grateful for your service to our great 

state. I am asking that you please submit my statement as a statement of testimony 

to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to be included as part of the official 

record of the Committee’s recent hearing on International Parental Child Abduction. 

It was due today at the close of business but given the closure of the Federal Government for the inclement weather, I am looking for direction on potential extension 

of filing, etc. of a statement for the record regarding this matter. 

Each year over 1,000 children are abducted from American homes and taken to 

a foreign country. Many become permanently out of reach of U.S. law and are never 

returned leaving behind a suffering parents and extended family. This has happened to my brother, Brian Childers, and his children Aidan and Lillian (Lily) 

Childers. Aidan and Lily’s mother, Katy Shilton Campbell, took my nephew and 

niece to Scotland in 2009 and has never allowed their return to U.S. soil. It has 

been heart breaking to watch my brother be stripped of his role as a father. Brian 

is a loving dad who has always been most concerned with his children’s best interest. Personally, I am devastated that my two children have never been able to know 

their cousins. In addition, I feel a void in not being able to love and know my own 

nephew and niece. 

On February 27, 2014 U.S. Sen. Robert Menendez (D-NJ), Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, held a hearing on International Parental Child 

Abduction. The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is looking at legislative options 

to bring back these abducted children back. I ask that you please submit my statement as a statement of testimony to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations to 

be included as part of the official record of the Committee’s recent hearing on International Parental Child Abduction. I know you have co-sponsored legislation that 

seeks to protect children in your Child Custody Protection Act of 2013. I applaud 

your efforts to protect our innocent children in the Unites States and ask that you 

make every effort you can to help protect our American children in every part of 

the world by submitting my statement. 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY BRIAN STEPHEN CHILDERS

My name is Brian Stephen Childers. I am a 37 year old father of two. Like many 

others I have been victimized by the parental abduction of my children by my 

former wife. My two children are Aidan and Lilian Childers who are 11 and 8 years 

old, respectively. 

When my former wife, Katy Shilton Campbell, and I divorced in 2009, we agreed 

on a very liberal joint custody arrangement and planned to co-parent our children. 

She did ask for, and I granted, permission to take the children to Scotland for one 

school year on the premise that her mom was ill and needed her close by to help. 

This agreement, and the agreement that she would return to the U.S. with the children, were incorporated into the Divorce Agreement that was filed with the courts 

of Montgomery County, Maryland. 

At the end of the period of living in Scotland (approximately eight months ending 

in June 2010), Katy informed me that she was not going to move back to the U.S., 

that she had met someone else and that she was unilaterally making these decisions. Of course, I was grief stricken and upset and told her we would have to come 

to an acceptable arrangement for all parties. My lawyers began drawing up those 

agreements with her attorneys in the U.S. Then out of the blue I was served papers 

from Scottish court—she had filed a court case to have herself named as sole guardVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
70 

ian in Scotland and to have a residency order in place to prohibit me from taking 

the kids outside of Scotland. I went to court there, I hired a lawyer and I submitted 

myself to a farcical examination by the Scottish courts—losing custody and contact 

with my children. During the proceedings, I noted the following: 

• The Scottish courts paid no interest to the legal agreements made in American 

court and vocally lamented that, as I was not British, had no real rights when 

it came to the children or to adjudicating custody through arbitration. 

• The Scottish curatrix (court-appointed investigator) interviewed me once to establish her assessment of my fitness as a father. She conducted her interview 

in a hotel bar. She never spoke with or attempted to communicate with anyone 

else from my family, my friends, my employer or anyone else who could establish my qualifications as a parent. The resulting report was full of illogical conclusions and an obvious bias in favor of my wife. In the end, the curatrix’s report concluded that my young children (who were interviewed in the presence 

of my ex-wife and who were undoubtedly influenced as to what they were expected to say) wanted to stay in Scotland and that was all that mattered. Furthermore, because the court surmised that I intended to remove the children 

from their mother, it allowed the order to remain that the children should stay 

in Scotland. 

• The costs of the proceedings (which I was made to pay for) were exorbitant and 

yielded me nothing. My costs incurred and paid were approximately $70,000. 

With the Scottish court victory, my ex-wife felt justified and emboldened to make 

my communications with the children and our relationship even more difficult—not 

allowing me to speak with them regularly, confiscating letters sent to them by me 

and my family, threatening me at every turn with police action (for ‘‘harassment’’ 

and for ‘‘not respecting the court’s judgment’’), and driving a wedge between me and 

the children in any way she could. My ex-wife went to great lengths to advise me 

and my family that all interaction with the children was only because she ‘‘allowed’’ 

it. I still managed to make several trips to Scotland to see my kids and to spend 

to time with them, knowing full well that my wife’s real aim was to drive me completely from their lives. In October 2013, I called my kids at a previously agreed 

time (which was rarely honored by my ex-wife) and heard my 10 year old son say 

‘‘although he knew I loved him very much, he didn’t want to speak to me again.’’ 

A few days later, their telephones were disconnected and all communication ceased. 

When I contacted my ex-wife’s attorney with a request to see the children, she told 

me Katy had no intention of allowing me any more access to my children and further attempts to contact my children will be construed as harassment and referred 

to the police. I have not seen or heard anything from the children since October 

2013. 

I think it’s important to note that, through October 2013, I conducted myself in 

absolute compliance with both our original divorce agreement and the Scottish 

court’s residency order. The Maryland courts allowed me to revise the divorce agreement to reduce my child maintenance payments (which are now being paid into a 

savings account for their future), noting in its findings: ‘‘[t]he Scottish Courts have 

declined to enforce the American agreements made between the parties.’’ 

All of my consultations—with the U.S. Department of State, with the Scottish police, with the Scottish Social Services organization, with my lawyers in Scotland— 

have yielded the same answers: that as an American man, I have no hope of winning any case in Scotland. I have had explained to me dozens of times how the Scottish court system is antiquated and unjust with respect to family cases. I have been 

told by many legal experts that I have basically no chance to win any more custody 

or access to my children, independent of who I am but merely based on the prevailing legal system there. I have pointed out to these groups that I have videos 

of the children talking about visiting America, talking about writing letters and 

communicating with family and generally having a great time together with me, as 

if it would at least raise questions as to my ex-wife’s argument that it’s their desire 

to not have a relationship with me. But everyone always responds that nothing beyond the mom’s wishes matters in Scotland. 

Every day I wake up feeling ill. I go about my days in an awkward state of grieving for my children, who are still alive, yet who I may never see again. I go through 

scenarios in my head to figure out what to say when I see the children next, if ever. 

I feel pain that my family has also lost their grandchildren, their niece and nephew, 

their cousins. When I am asked in informal settings if I have children, I don’t know 

how to answer the question honestly. 

I know my case is very different—I allowed my ex-wife to take the children in 

the first place; we were joint custodians in the U.S.; and I have never believed my 

71 

children’s lives were in danger and their temporal needs were unmet. But I cannot 

reconcile how I have lost my children simply based on my wife’s wishes. As an extremely law-abiding American with a good paying job and who was a great parent— 

who even volunteered hundreds of hours in not-for-profit work every year—it pains 

me to think that convicted felons in prison have more access to their children than 

I do. 

This needs to change. I hope something can be done. Thank you. 

Respectfully, 

Brian Childers, left-behind father of Aidan and Lilian Childers (abducted in Scotland) 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY DENNIS BURNS

My name is Dennis Burns. I am a left behind father of an international parental 

child abduction. I am in earnest support of legislation which would address consequences to countries which are non-compliant with Hague Convention guidelines 

on International Child Abduction. 

Today I respectfully and sincerely address the hearts of those who hear these 

words from a Parent who has been forced apart from their children’s lives for 3 and 

a half years. If you are a parent, you may not quite be able to process that concept. 

As the parent who has endured this, I can say that the numb state of my own heart 

and mind still doesn’t completely grasp this reality either. 

In September of 2010 when the U.S. State Department informed me that the 

International Hague Convention which would be handling my Abduction case was 

designed to return children within 6 to 8 weeks, I was heartbroken. I could not understand why it would take so long to uphold the justice of a clear cut, black and 

white case of international parental abduction. Only three weeks prior, a Colorado 

Judge had named me the primary residential parent of our two young angels and 

it was decided they would live in Colorado and not relocate to Argentina as my 

spouse at the time was legally pursuing throughout our acrimonious 13 month divorce and custody proceedings. 

When I was named the primary residential parent in the final orders, my ex-wife 

took our daughters and fled the United States to Argentina with three airline tickets her family arranged and paid for. 

My first instinct was to fly down there and be with them. How long would it take 

before I could go? I had to see them. That was all I knew and that would be the 

only thing that would help the pain from the hole in my heart I felt in those first 

weeks. I soon discovered that there are different levels of pain your heart must endure when you are shackled without your children who you love immeasurably. 

The next dagger was the information that Ana, my ex-wife, had filed charges of 

violence and abuse on me in Argentina and I was never even in the country. To 

top it off, my new attorney had discovered that she had also filed paperwork to register our daughters as permanent citizens of Argentina. I was advised that if I was 

to travel to Argentina I would be served paperwork which would only allow me 3- 

5 business days to contest otherwise the citizenship could be granted to the girls. 

It was also quite possible I would be arrested in the Buenos Aires airport upon landing in the country if the abuse charges were not cleared up first. This would leave 

me helpless to defend their citizenship. I could not believe what I was hearing. 

It took 17 long months to clear all these legal obstacles before I could finally travel and see my daughters. During those 17 months Ana had moved jurisdictions 3 

times causing tremendous delays to an already painfully slow system. Every time 

she changed jurisdictions, I was forced to procure a new attorney in that area and 

the paperwork would drag for months to reach the new court system. It once took 

one of the transitions 6 months to deliver the case file to the other court only 45 

minutes away. There are no words to describe the helplessness a parent feels who 

faces such heartless lack of concern for their children’s critical state of innocence 

being crushed by the neglect of a legal system enabling this crime. 

The bottom line is that a mockery is being made of the justice systems of The 

United States and Argentina. The system has allowed my ex-wife to dictate the 

course of injustice these past 3 years. She is vengeful of being told what to do by 

the U.S. court system and vengeful of a father who will not give up on the love he 

has for his daughters. Every legal move I have made has been countered with 

months of separation from Skype or phone calls. Every holiday being cut off from 

communication for over three years now. Not knowing what schools they attended 

for almost 2 years. Not knowing what doctors were treating them or who was babysitting them. And most recently, over 3 years later myself and my family have been 

72 

completely cut off from all communication, including Skype, telephone and personal 

visits. This past November 8th was Victoria’s 7th birthday and we were not allowed 

to even see her on Skype. This recent Thanksgiving, my father emailed Ana to request that my daughters be allowed to briefly Skype with all their cousins and 

grandparents on the holiday. She replied ‘‘Stop with the email Harassment. All future emails will be blocked.’’ This was a shock to our family. How could a cordial 

email asking to skype with his granddaughters be considered ‘‘Harassment.’’ This 

last Christmas was no exception either. Emails were ignored, there was no contact 

allowed and the gifts we mailed to Argentina were never confirmed to be even 

picked up from the customs. It has now been over 5 months since I have last even 

Skyped or heard a word from my daughters. This latest cut off is also in direct violation of the laws of the U.S. and Argentina. There is a current court order from Argentina allowing me 3 Skype visits per week with my daughters. As with everything 

else in Argentina, the justice system is a snail’s pace so there are no consequences 

for this violation either. 

One of the most painful moments in this 3 year abduction so far was an email 

I received two years ago from Ana simply stating that our 5 year old daughter Victoria was in an accident and in the hospital and was being put in a full body cast. 

No further information. After 4 hours of rejected phone calls, unanswered emails, 

and verging on a mental breakdown, Ana finally emailed a picture of her in a full 

body cast with a brief explanation that she fell. It took another day to discover it 

was at a playground. And to this day, I still don’t know the details of what happened to her. I was never even allowed the doctors name or hospital. 

My current case lies with the second of two Supreme Courts in Argentina who 

must uphold the last two court’s decisions for Return to their home in the United 

States. These courts have been known to take years to make decisions. It has already been over three and a half years. Argentina has been a Hague Signatory 

country for over 100 years. 

They should honor their commitment to the Treaty and abide by the guidelines. 

It is understandable, knowing what I know now, years after being immersed in this 

bureaucracy, that there could be some delays due to unforeseen circumstances. Perhaps even 6 months would warrant patience and understanding. But 3-5 years is 

plain irresponsible and in violation of the basic human rights of my daughters, myself, their grandparents and all our amputated family. 

Argentina and other Hague signatory countries need to comprehend their personal investment to these child abduction cases and handle them in the expeditious 

manner they mandate. Sanctions beginning with mild aversions to these countries 

and ultimately financial sanctions would give the Hague Rules a set of teeth for 

countries who violate the basic human rights of children and families through their 

negligence in upholding the Hague Convention time frames for addressing International Child Abduction. 

In closing, I would like to say that Parental Alienation Syndrome is a documented 

form of emotional and psychological child abuse. Every overdue day, month, and 

year that passes as a result of the irresponsible manner that my case and many 

other cases are processed is a violation of our basic human rights since we, as loving 

parents have reached the limit to our legal abilities. These non-compliant countries 

are the only ones capable of restoring our human rights by acting in a timely manner.Passage of a law which would impose sanctions on these non-compliant countries would lessen the future suffering of multitudes of children and left behind parents and families. 

I truly thank you for allowing me your valuable time to hear my plight and I 

humbly request your support. 

Thank you, 

Dennis Burns, Left Behind Father of Victoria and Sophia Burns 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY PETER THOMAS SENESE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION RESEARCH & ENLIGHTENMENT FOUNDATION

My name is Peter Thomas Senese, the Executive Director of the International 

Child Abduction Research & Enlightenment Foundation, a non-profit foundation 

dedicated to stopping international child abduction and trafficking and commonly 

referred to as the I CARE Foundation. I am a father who once had his child internationally abducted under the rules of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. 

I know I am one of the fortunate parents who were able to safely reunite with their 

child. There is not a day that goes by that I am not thankful that my son was not 

physically harmed during the time of his abduction. As a parent deeply familiar 

73 

with nonsensical and harmful acts revolving around international parental child abduction, and as a director of a leading child abduction prevention advocacy foundation, we, as a community of mothers, fathers, daughters and sons must work 

thoughtfully and unbowed together in order to assist all parent-victims reunite with 

their kidnapped children while swiftly installing meaningful child abduction prevention measures so we may protect innocent children and their families from future 

kidnapping. 

The I CARE Foundation’s global outreach aiding parents and children of abduction as well as targeted children of abduction is significant. We have played key and 

instrumental roles reuniting many abducted children with their left behind parents 

and have prevented the abduction of an exponentially larger number of children. 

Our ongoing research studies and published reports on abduction are well-distributed, and various abduction prevention techniques we have created or widely disseminated have had an impact on the 23% decline in the reported outgoing cases 

of American child abduction during fiscal years 2011 and 2012, as reported to Congress by the United States Department of State. We anticipate that the 2013 reported outbound abduction rate will demonstrate a decline in the abduction rate for 

a third consecutive year: a strong testimony to the collective work of the dedicated 

individuals working under the helm of Ambassador Jacobs and the leadership team 

at the Office of Children’s Issues combined with the dedicated work of all non-government organizations. Despite advances in fighting against international parental 

child abduction and trafficking, cross-border child kidnapping remains a global pandemic that affects every country. 

I would like to clarify one important issue before this honorable committee and 

for our Congressional leaders regarding the outbound international abduction rate 

of American children: Previous testimony presented to Congress states that the outbound rate of American children is estimated to be more than 1,000 cases. We believe it critical to note that these are the ‘‘reported’’ cases of abduction. Non-reported 

cases of international parental child abduction remain a real issue. Based upon immigration migration trends, a large undocumented residency population that includes American children born in the United States, lack of financial resources to 

litigate abduction, and a lack of understanding of rights, we believe that the ‘‘unreported’’ cases of abduction are significant and could be equal to or greater than the 

‘‘reported’’ cases of abduction. 

On behalf of the I CARE Foundation, I respectfully urge the honorable members 

of the Senate Committee On Foreign Relations and all members of Congress to recognize that children of abduction’s dangerous journey does not end if and when they 

reunite with their targeted chasing parent. I urge all esteemed lawmakers when 

considering the path of steps our Congress may take in order to help resolve the 

international parental child abduction crisis to consider the report shared by the Department of Justice issued in 2013 stating that children-victims of parental child abduction face extreme risk of physical violence at the hands of their abducting parent. Filicide—child murder at the hands of a parent—may appear to be an extreme 

notion, but the grotesque reality is that thousands of children’s live around the 

world are taken by their sociopathic parent. American children are not immune to 

filicide As a community of abduction advocates and stakeholders we must be mindful children of abduction suffer short and long-term trauma during and after their 

abduction: alienation and isolation from members of their loving family, risk of severe physical violence at the hands of their abducting parent including filicide, and 

suicide in their post-abduction world are all consequences of this unthinkable crime 

against innocence. 

Today our Senate has a unique opportunity to create new law and policy that can 

protect American children from abduction and assist reunite those children who remain kidnapped. 

On behalf of the I CARE Foundation, I respectfully submit our view on the suggested legislation before Congress and this honorable Committee On Foreign Relations concerning the proposal of whether the United States Government should create law that allows the President of the United Sates to levy sanctions against countries that do not appear to comply with the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention 

and as conveyed by the Honorable Chairman Senator Menendez during hearings 

that took place before the committee on February 27th, 2014, to determine what 

other preventive measures can be taken to protect children at risk of abduction. 

We respectfully submit the following: 

74 

PART I 

SANCTIONING NON-COMPLIANT COUNTRIES TO THE 1980 

CHILD ABDUCTION CONVENTION

WILL THE THREAT OF SANCTIONS HELP OR HURT AMERICAN CHILD VICTIMS?

We fully support the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention and advise against 

any Contracting State’s legislation or policy that may undermine or jeopardize the 

authority and utilization of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. We believe 

our opinion that the sanctity of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention must 

be protected is one shared by knowledgeable stakeholders who are dedicated to protecting the lives of targeted children from abduction and trafficking, including the 

leadership of Hague Convention Contracting State’s Central Authorities and many 

knowledgeable attorneys practicing international family law. 

It is our view that legislation creating the ability of the United States government 

to sanction non-complying governments of the Child Abduction Convention, though 

created with good intention to increase the effectiveness of the 1980 Hague Child 

Abduction Convention and with the intent to bring American children home may be 

legislation that not only will undermine the ability of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention but may potentially significantly reduce the ability of left-behind 

parents to reunite with their child. In fact, we are conducting an ongoing survey 

of highly respected international family law practitioners located around the world 

who have litigated child abduction return cases, including representing American 

parents who have attempted to reunite with their abducted child. Participation to 

the survey ends on March 20th, 2014. We hope to share the survey’s findings with 

Congress as we believe this study may provide important insight regarding the 

issues now discussed as polled by litigators around the world, including U.S.-based 

attorneys deeply familiar with parental abduction. 

Recently, the I CARE Foundation shared information with every Central Authority concerning the proposed legislation now before Congress. We were extremely surprised to realize the vast United States Congress. The proposed law clearly was of 

keen interest to all stakeholders. 

The main component of the legislation before Congress revolves around the failure 

of many governments around the world to expeditiously return abducted American 

children and to determine what mechanisms may be created and implemented that 

would allow abducted American children to come home. We support prudent and 

carefully executed initiatives that will bring children safely home. The focus of this 

legislation falls into two essential categories: 

1. The failure of courts located in contracting member countries to follow the intent and spirit of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention and determine which 

country and court system has the correct right of jurisdiction regarding the welfare of a child. 

With respect to the grave concern of abduction before Congress, it is critical 

to note two issues. They are: 

A. In courts around the world, including in the United States, there is a tendency by the judiciary to embark upon issues identified under Article 13 (1) 

of the Child Abduction Convention concerning ‘The best interest of the child’. 

This concept has been expanded to include ‘The best interest of the child and 

family.’ Unless there is an extreme case of abuse, review of the Hague Convention’s Article 13(1) was only designed to occur in extraordinary circumstances. However, what has occurred is that courts around the world are 

often ordering for an extensive review of ‘The best interest of the child’. In 

doing so, the judiciary not only fails to uphold the intent and spirit of the abduction convention, but they create an environment that causes the targeted 

chasing parent incredible financial hardship while also allowing the abducting 

parent to create a ‘Well-settled defense’. This issue appears to be the singular 

most challenging issue all targeted chasing parents face when trying to reunite with their kidnapped children during Hague abduction litigation. 

Clearly untrained judges are creating a significant problem for all victimized 

parents. It is imperative that honorable members of Congress realize that the 

challenges created by untrained judiciary also occur for many parents living 

in other countries who have their child abducted to the United States. To underscore this issue, the United States does not have a centralized ‘Judicial 

Special Court’ focused on international parental child abduction the way the 

United Kingdom is equipped with 17 highly trained judges. Instead, when a 

child is abducted to the United States, the case may be reviewed by 1 of 

75 

10,000 family court judges, the majority of which are not trained in the complexities of Hague law. Thus, when considering how to approach issues of 

non-compliance, it is imperative that solutions that include heavy education 

and training are offered, while also acknowledging that issues of non-compliance are not only a foreign issue. 

B. The second key issue before this honorable Senate Committee On Foreign Relations is the outrageous failure by countries who have not become a party 

to the 1980 Hague Abduction Convention to return American children. Tragically, when a child is abducted to a non-Hague country there is a decreased 

chance the child will be returned. In many instances, the targeted chasing 

parent never sees their child. However, we point to strong breakthroughs in 

this behavior as shared below. 

On Thursday, February 27th, 2014 the Honorable Chairman of the Committee On 

Foreign Relations Senator Menendez made a very important comment to Ambassador Jacobs concerning the plight of American parents who had children abducted 

to and remain detained in Japan. These parents tragically will not have legal course 

under the Hague Convention due to Japan’s provisions when it deposited its signatory instruments and annexed the Child Abduction Convention. Specifically, Chairman Menendez stated that there should be increased diplomatic focus on the return 

of these American children. 

We applaud Chairman Senator Menendez’s notion to confer with American ambassadors and discuss the abduction matter. We believe that Chairman Menendez’s 

suggestion to gather American ambassadors and hopefully give them immediate direction to focus on the collective return of American children abroad may, prior to 

the passage of new law creating sanctions, offer a swift and comprehensive understanding amongst foreign governments as to the seriousness of the American Congress for these countries to remedy existing inbound abduction cases while also allowing foreign leaders to explore their concerns revolving around their child citizens 

who have been wrongfully retained in the United States. 

We believe that Honorable Chairman Senator Menendez and the esteemed Senator-members of the Committee On Foreign Relations should strongly consider directing all American ambassadors to swiftly and comprehensively engage the government leaders of the nations they are respectively assigned with an seek systematic solutions under a short-term time frame for all American children abducted 

prior to this good-intended legislation being moved to the Senate floor for vote. 

We believe that should the United States government send out a comprehensive 

delegation of Ambassadors to discuss these matters under the guidance of the Senate’s Committee On Foreign Relations and the incredible input by Ambassador 

Susan Jacobs, Congress and the American government can demonstrate a diplomatic solution-oriented agenda while all stakeholders around the world understand 

that the American government is extremely serious about the child abduction crisis. 

We believe that a synchronized diplomatic effort by American Ambassadors under 

specific direction by Congress could create remarkable and immediate results that 

not only would result in the return of a large number of American children, but in 

demonstrating Congress’ view of the gravity of the unacceptable situation at hand, 

the American government will create an urgency amongst all governments to address the global parental abduction pandemic. 

We express concern that H.R. 3212 will create an unwanted precedent for the 

United States government to impose sanctions against countries that Congress believes are not complying to the terms and spirit of the 1980 Convention. 

On the onset this may appear to be good legislation. After all, every stakeholder 

working to prevent abduction or assisting in reunification wants to protect children. 

However, we believe that H.R. 3212 has several negative drawbacks. We request 

that the Senate delay a vote seeking passage of H.R. 3212 in its existing form and 

instead consider alternative options along the lines of diplomacy and increasing the 

viability of the Hague Conference on Private International Law and the ability of 

the Permanent Bureau (Secretariat) of the Hague Conference to establish and sustain a judicial training program and other outreach programs that unquestionably 

will have a far-better global impact on protecting all children of the world, including 

American children. 

Paramount to enabling the safe return of all children of abduction, we respectfully 

urge Honorable Chairman Menendez to call upon our Ambassadors spread across 

the world, and have them engage in meaningful and case-by case specific discussions with the government leaders of their respective assigned countries with the 

singular purpose of returning kidnapped children to their country of habitual residency. We believe diplomacy, particularly due to the strong message of intolerance 

our American lawmakers is sending, will create substantial results for all children. 

76 

It is our opinion that the primary reason why some countries appear to not comply with the 1980 Hague International Child Abduction Convention is because judiciaries overseeing these cases often do not have the knowledge or experience required to rule upon these cases in accordance to the spirit and intent of the abduction convention. We point out that an uninformed judiciary is not a problem that 

falls outside of the United States borders but is instead a worldwide problem. In 

fact, we are aware that many parents who have their children abducted to the 

United States often voice similar concern shared by American left-behind parents 

that the judiciary overseeing their Hague litigation is either not knowledgeable of 

international abduction matters or is not complying with the child abduction convention. 

The answer to lack of knowledge on how to apply the Convention correctly, and 

in particular to avoid the pitfall of engaging in a full and time-consuming analysis 

of the best interest of the child when if fact the Convention is based on the core 

principle that the best interest of an abducted child is a swift return to his or her 

State of habitual residence, is not in sanctions, but rather in education, diplomacy 

and prevention. Education is particularly important in relation to the correct application of the ‘grave risk’ exception of Article 13(1)(b), which should only be applied 

in truly exceptional circumstances where its application is warranted and not be 

used as an excuse to undertake a full assessment of the child’s overall situation and 

interests. Judges around the world—including American judges—need to understand that the primary goal of the Convention is to return abducted children as 

quickly as possible to their State of habitual residence, so that the authorities of 

this State can then take the relevant and appropriate decisions regarding custody 

or visitation rights. 

Furthermore, we believe that (American) diplomacy is working. We point out for 

example that Japan ratified the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention on January 24th, 2014, following intense diplomatic and educational efforts conducted on 

the international scene. Similar diplomatic and educational efforts are being conducted in India, China, Thailand, Ghana, Russia, the Philippines, and in countries 

located in the Middle East such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt. In fact, United Sates 

Consular Affairs officials regularly meet with officials from the European Union, 

Canada, and Australia to help coordinate multilateral efforts to encourage countries 

to join and uphold the child abduction convention. In addition, the Department of 

State directs its diplomatic missions in non-Convention countries to approach host 

governments to encourage them to join the Convention, while in Washington, U.S. 

officials often raise the convention and encourage government officials to participate 

in the abduction convention. 

We further point to the importance of the Hague Special Commission meetings 

where the practical operations of the Child Abduction Convention is discussed in detail among Contracting States. The consensus-based outcome of these meetings is 

a much more promising guide and source of improvement of the Convention’s operation than unilateral actions as those suggested in H.R. 3212. 

The truth is international parental child abduction is an epidemic that impacts 

the citizens of all nations. But there is progress. For example, we point to the Department of State’s 2011 and 2012Hague Compliance Reports presented to Congress 

which clearly states that the outbound international child abductions has declined 

by over 23% during fiscal years 2011 and 2012. We fully expect that 2013 will see 

another significant decline in the number of American international child abductions. Much credit must be given to the Department of State’s Office of Children’s 

Issues and the dedicated individuals who work to protect children. We also point 

out that American children of abduction are returning home at greater numbers 

than ever before because diplomacy is working. Of course we recognize that the 

number of American children returned home is not satisfactory. . We believe gains 

in the overall return rate will occur if we further increase diplomatic efforts including education and training efforts. Clearly, a stronger Permanent Bureau with 

greater reach can further increase the overall number of children worldwide who 

would be returned home while also potentially making significant gains in overall 

abduction prevention cases. 

The following are additional reasons why H.R. 3212 should not be passed into law 

at this time, but instead first initiate a coordinated global effort by all American 

Ambassadors to engage in dialogue with leadership of the countries they are assigned to regarding the immediate return of American children to the United States. 

1. The legislation that would result from passage of the bill would require the 

United States Government to negotiate separate, albeit similar, agreements 

with States that are not yet a party to the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. This not only complicates the existing multilateral regime in place to 

77 

prevent and discourage parental child abductions, but redirects resources which 

could otherwise be used to encourage non-State Parties to consider joining the 

Hague Convention. As the Hague Convention, which currently has 91 Contracting States from around the world, is very widely considered an effective, 

valuable tool to safeguard the best interests of children who are wrongfully removed from their home country by a parent, the addition of several bilateral 

agreements would effectively undermine the value of the Hague Convention for 

all existing Contracting States because it opens the possibility for each of these 

new agreements to diverge from the text of the Hague Convention. These 

unique instruments would furthermore lack the Convention’s established framework of good practices, procedures and monitoring on which to build an effective 

and widely accepted system for international child abduction cases. In short, the 

creation of multiple new and independent instruments would severely threaten 

the uniformity and universal application of the Convention and its value as a 

global tool. 

2. By redirecting resources to the negotiation of new bilateral agreements or Memorandums Of Understanding (‘‘MOU’s’’), fewer resources will be available to 

support States that are committed to becoming a party to or improving their 

existing practices under the Convention through more promising actions, such 

as joint diplomatic and educational efforts. As a result, taxpayer money and 

government time will be wasted on efforts to recreate the wheel and be much 

more limited in the benefits to the global community as a whole. It will also 

result in the diversion of resources which could be used to build on efforts to 

encourage joining the Hague Convention so that any progress in this respect 

will be discarded and be replaced by the new tactics and work required to negotiate a series of similar MOUs or bilateral agreements. 

By entering into these alternate arrangements rather than taking steps toward joining the Hague Convention, States remain ineligible for support, training or advice relating to Convention practices and principles from bodies such 

as the Hague Conference. Such technical assistance programs have been concretely linked to sustainable development of good practices and proper implementation and operation procedures, resulting in a much greater likelihood of 

sustainable, long-term success in this area. 

3. As the proposed legislation allows for either a bilateral agreement or an MOU 

to be concluded with those States which are not yet a party to the Hague Convention, it increases the risk of destabilizing the entire international system in 

place to address international parental abductions. The new agreements that 

would need to be reached with non-Hague Convention States would discourage 

or delay these States’ efforts to join the Hague Convention and to apply it in 

cases which do not involve the United States. Furthermore, these additional 

agreements increase the likelihood that domestic authorities will develop inconsistent and possibly contradictory practices and procedures. 

4. The bill also fails to resolve problems arising from the particular instrument 

used to reach an agreement with each non-Hague Convention State. For example, the legal obligations arising from a treaty, while clearly applicable to bilateral agreements, may not extend to an MOU. As a matter of law, the title of 

MOU does not necessarily mean the document is binding under international 

law. 

Rather, this may depend on the intent of the parties as well as the position 

of the signatories. Such questions could lead to lengthy legal battles and thereby lead to uncertainty or procedural delays that could adversely affect the children the instrument was designed to protect. Furthermore, parliamentary approval of MOUs may not be required in some States on the basis that they do 

not impose binding obligations under international law. The legislation therefore threatens global advances toward universally accepted norms and practices. 

It provides States that were not interested in joining the Hague Convention in 

the past a loophole for taking concrete steps to this end by exploiting gaps in 

international law and applicable national procedural requirements for treaty 

ratification. 

5. The legislation unabashedly intends to pressure States that are not parties to 

the Hague Convention to agree to apply Convention principles and obligations 

to cases of parental child abduction involving U.S. residents and vice versa. 

This hard-line approach is likely to result in political and diplomatic consequences that could have a negative impact on U.S interests beyond parental 

child abduction matters. It could also generate a backlash from the affected 

States, resulting in a backlash that would hinder further progress on related 

78 

matters of international child and human rights as between not only the United 

States, but other countries as well. 

6. Threats to sanction States that are not compliant with the 1980 Hague Convention may result in reluctance to develop sustainable and effective practices and 

procedures implementing and applying the intended rules even if a bilateral 

agreement or similar instrument is put in place. 

It is our concern that should H.R. 3212 passes, the 1980 Hague Child Abduction 

Convention will be significantly undermined. Is there room for improvement? Of 

course there is and this is discussed in my testimony. 

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION REGARDING IMMEDIATE SANCTIONS

We believe that prior to a Senate vote on sanctions occurring, that a fully orchestrated global effort led directly by each American Ambassador on foreign soil reporting under the auspices of the Senate’s Committee On Foreign Relations engage in 

immediate diplomatic dialogue to review each existing case of American child abduction abroad. We believe that each Ambassador should prepare a comprehensive report concerning their engagement, including their view that if resolutions do not appear immediate, whether sanctions may entice foreign governments to return abducted American children. Should our American Ambassadors report the need for 

sanctions due to blatant failures, then our Congress should immediately take up 

this issue while immediately strengthening the Hague Conference Secretariat and 

enacting child abduction prevention steps as outlined herein. It is our strong belief 

that a synchronized diplomatic effort by our American Ambassadors under the direction of the United States Congress will result in the return of a rather large number 

of children, while also strengthening diplomatic global efforts amongst all nations 

in ongoing efforts to protect children. 

PART II 

KEY CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION SUGGESTED MANDATES: INCREASE THE BUDGET AND CAPACITY OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE

We also suggest that the funding of the Hague Conference and the operations of 

its Permanent Bureau (Secretariat) be significantly increased so that it can fulfill 

its mandate more effectively and, in particular, organize effective training sessions 

for all relevant actors involved in the operation of the core Hague Conventions, including of course the Child Abduction Convention. 

SECTION I—THE LIMITED RESOURCES AND MONUMENTAL

TASK OF THE HAGUE CONFERENCE

The Regular Budget of the Hague Conference amounts to approximately 3.7 Million Euro. Considering (i) that the mandate of the Hague Conference is not only to 

develop new Conventions but also to monitor the practical operation of existing Conventions and to provide other post-Convention services; (ii) that over 140 States are 

currently parties to at least one of the 38 Hague Conventions (instruments) developed so far; (iii) that the Permanent Bureau—which counts only about 30 Full Time 

Equivalents—is more and more asked to provide technical assistance to States from 

around the world for the effective implementation of Conventions and their sound 

practical operation; we respectfully submit that this budget is nonsensical. 

To better understand the real need to increase funding for the Hague Conference 

so that it may fulfill its mandates, it is believed that approximately 2 and ° Full 

Time Equivalents (employee personnel) within the Hague Conference dedicate their 

time toward the child abduction issue. Unquestionably, we must strengthen the viability of the Hague Conference Secretariat in order for it to effectively carry out its 

mandates. Without a robust and viable Hague Conference Secretariat all children 

of abduction, including American children will remain at grave risk regardless of 

sanctions. 

For example, Article 13 of the 1980 Child Abduction Prevention offers a judiciary 

in a foreign country great latitude to determine if a child should be returned or not. 

This issue was explicitly discussed on the March 27th, 2014 before this honorable 

Senate Committee On Foreign Relations. Specifically, there is a very strong tendency for courts everywhere, including in the United States (and the 10,000 judges 

who may oversee a Hague Application case) to incorrectly utilize Article 13 to embark on a broad view of ‘‘Best interest of the child’’ which in the United States and 

abroad, has expanded to include the concept of best interest of the family of the 

child. This is contradictory to the intent, purpose, and spirit of the Child Abduction 

Convention. Without a fiscally viable Hague Conference Secretariat capable of 

79 

proactively educating and training all stakeholders including judiciary and support 

personnel to the abduction convention, we will continue to see the misinterpretation 

of key aspects of the convention such as Article 12 and Article 13, which in effect 

may appear to create non-compliance. 

Despite the importance of its mandate, the broad nature of its work and the real 

impact of its Conventions on people’s life and business transactions around the 

world, the Organization has been run on a shoestring for decades. If we want the 

(core) Hague Conventions to operate effectively and uniformly around the globe, the 

Organization needs much more resources to invest in its post-Convention services, 

including the provision of training and technical assistance. 

The Organization’s budget of approximately ÷ 3.7 Mio is shared among the currently 74 Member States of the Organization (incl. the U.S.A). Each Member State 

contributes a number of ‘‘units’’ to the budget; the number of units to be paid by 

each Member State mirrors the system applied by the Universal Postal Union (see 

http://www.upu.int/en/the-upu/member-countries.html), with one notable exception: 

within the Hague Conference, the number of units to be paid by the biggest contributors is limited to 33 (as opposed to the 50 units to be paid by the top payers within 

the UPU). This cap of 33 units was introduced at the Hague Conference when the 

U.S.A became a Member of the Organization in 1964 and domestic U.S. legislation 

then required that the total contribution of the U.S.A to the budget of an intergovernmental organization not exceed a certain percentage (this domestic legislation 

has since been withdrawn but the cap of 33 units has remained in force until today). 

As a result, the 6 top payers of the Hague Conference (USA, Canada, Japan, United 

Kingdom, France and Germany) all only pay 33 units (as opposed to 50 units within 

the UPU; the other Member States pay 25, 20, 15, 10, 5, 3, 1 or 0.5 units, depending 

on their size, GDP, population, etc.). Since the value of one single unit amounts to 

slightly over ÷ 6,000, the Unites States (and the other five big contributors) contribute slightly over ? 200,000 per year to the overall budget of the Hague Conference. The United States and other contributors financial participation is nearly 

the equivalent money of the estimated overall cost for one American parent who actively expenses monies in order to reunite with their internationally abducted child 

and the economy of the United States when we consider the expenses a parent incurs attempting to find, litigate, and reunite with their child, and, the overall economic secondary and tertiary costs including for many, loss of income and the direct 

consequence of a reduction of taxable income coupled with the adverse need for social services support, and finally, the weighted costs associated with judiciary expenses and law enforcement activity. 

Again, in light of the Organization’s importance we respectfully submit that this 

contribution is simply nonsensical. This is all the more so as the yearly U.S. contribution also needs to cover accrued unfunded pension liabilities; the yearly U.S. 

contribution to the operational budget of the Hague Conference thus only amounts 

to slightly over ÷ 190,000. Despite the low insignificant budget, the Members of the 

Hague Conference—including the United States—have repeatedly requested the 

Secretary General of the Hague Conference to submit budgets that respect the zero 

nominal growth policy; as a result, and taking into account inflation developments, 

the budget of the Hague Conference has effectively decreased for many years. We 

would like to take this opportunity to salute the incredible output performed by the 

Permanent Bureau year after year with such limited resources—surely the Hague 

Conference must be one of the most cost-efficient international organizations there 

is. But more needs to be done if the operation of the Conventions is to be improved 

at the global level. 

SECTION II—CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING

FINANCIAL MATTERS TO INCREASE VIABILITY

We recognize that the budget of an Intergovernmental Organization is a delicate 

matter that involves a series of policy considerations that may vary from one State 

to another. Against this background, we strongly recommend that the Committee, 

together with the relevant U.S. Government authorities (incl. the Department of 

State and the Office of International Affairs), reach out to the Secretary General of 

the Hague Conference, Dr. Christophe Bernasconi, to discuss the best options to: 

1. Substantially increase the Regular Budget of the Hague Conference so that the 

basic mandate of the Organization, which includes the development of new instruments as well as the provision of training and technical assistance for the 

effective implementation and sound operation of existing instruments, can be 

met effectively; 

2. Increase the U.S. contribution from currently 33 units to 50 units, thus bringing 

the practice within the Hague Conference in line with the practice within the 

80 

Universal Postal Union, and at the same time inviting the other big contributors to follow suit and also increase their contribution to 50 units (or 40 units 

in the case of Canada); 

3. Put in place schemes that would enable the Organization to benefit from private 

funding; 

4. Possibly increase the U.S. contribution to the voluntary Supplementary Budget 

of the Hague Conference with a view to funding specific support activities and 

technical assistance missions. 

These suggestions seem all the more timely and appropriate as Secretary General 

Bernasconi has recently launched a process with Member States to review budgetary matters of the Hague Conference. The strong support of the U.S.A for the 

items mentioned above would be a key aspect of the envisaged process. 

PART III 

KEY CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION SUGGESTED MANDATES: MANDATE EXECUTION

OF AN INTERNATIONAL CHILD TRAVEL CONSENT FORM STEEP IN HAGUE LAW

SECTION I—THE INTERNATIONAL CHILD TRAVEL CONSENT FORM

Perhaps the singular most effective tool to prevent the international parental 

child abduction of American children and ensure their safe and immediate return 

to their home country is for Congress to mandate the use of a Hague-centric international travel child consent form and direct various government agencies connected 

to the welfare of our American child citizens and travel related matters to widely 

disseminate this form. 

Clearly, the majority of international parental child abductions under the rules 

of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention occur when a child is wrongfully detained in another country. Typically this occurs under the guise of a family vacation. 

The I CARE Foundation has created a travel consent form that is steep in Hagueoriented case law with focus on Articles 1, 12, 13 and 20. The I CARE Foundation’s 

International Travel Child Consent Form was created to remove a parent’s legal defenses under Articles 12, 13, and 20 of the Hague Convention who may be scheming 

to abduct a child prior to an alleged ’family vacation’ abroad while also establishing 

strong support for a child’s immediate return under Article 1 of the Hague Convention. 

Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law Dr. 

Christophe Bernasconi recently made the comments concerning the I CARE Foundation travel form: 

I have had the possibility to look at the travel form and must say that 

I am impressed: this is the most comprehensive document of its kind that 

I have seen so far and there is little doubt in my mind that this is a most 

valuable and important effort to prevent child abduction. 

We respectfully point out that there is a current trend for courts around the world 

to reconsider ‘‘The Best Interest of the Child’’ and include ‘‘The Best Interest of the 

Family’’ under Article 13 of the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention. Clearly, 

when courts engage in this analysis they create a direct contradiction to the expeditious intent of the convention, which inherently allow for ‘Well-settled claims’ to be 

lodged by the taking parent. 

The I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form and adjoining 

legal analysis was created as a mechanism to remove a would-be abductor’s legal 

defense of abduction prior to the act and cause either law enforcement or courts located in the in-bound country to quickly return the abducted child to their home 

country of original jurisdiction. 

SECTION II—CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING TRAVEL CONSENT FORM

The I CARE Foundation’s International Travel Child Consent Form has been an 

effective child abduction prevention tool. Use of the form protects against schemes 

of abduction to Hague countries and may be useful when abduction occurs to nonHague countries. 

We respectfully suggest that the United States Congress direct the appropriate 

U.S. governmental agencies to discuss the mandated use of a formal international 

travel child consent form based upon the design of the I CARE Foundation model. 

In addition, we respectfully suggest that the Department of State engage with the 

Hague Conference and suggest that a global Hague Travel Consent Form be developed under the auspices of the Hague Conference and that its use be made mandaVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00084 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
81 

tory. We are convinced that the mandatory use of a globally recognized Travel Consent Form signed by the left-behind parent (and possibly a notary) will dramatically 

reduce the number of (American) children who are abducted and equally will assist 

in the expeditious return of children wrongfully detained abroad if they were abducted. 

PART IV 

KEY CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION SUGGESTED MANDATES: EXPAND THE PREVENT

DEPARTURE PROGRAM TO INCLUDE UNITED STATES CITIZENS

SECTION I—OVERVIEW OF THE PREVENT DEPARTURE PROGRAM

The Prevent Departure Program is a little known but highly effective tool that 

can prevent against abduction of American children by non-nationals residing and 

present in the United States. The I CARE Foundation has assisted numerous parents successfully in liaising with the United States Department of State’s Office of 

Children’s Issues Abduction Prevention Unit in an effort to stop abduction using the 

Prevent Departure Program. The Prevent Departure Program does not apply to individuals possessing a right to U.S. citizenship. 

The program applies to non-U.S. citizens physically located in America considered 

individuals at risk of child abduction. In order to create a more effective abduction 

prevention policy, we respectfully suggest that the United States Congress pass legislation authorizing for individuals regardless if they possess a right of American 

citizenship or not the Department of Homeland Security the ability of placing a 

high-risk child abductor on the secure screening border-crossing departure list. 

The Department of Homeland Security oversees the Prevent Departure Program 

and it is monitored 24 hours a day. However, parents and their legal counsel should 

not contact the Department of Homeland Security, but instead all contact and communication must be directed through the Department of State. In cases of international parental child abduction, the Department of State’s Office of Children’s 

Issues has the ability of directly petitioning the Department of Homeland Security 

and request that a non-U.S. resident presently in the United States who is considered a high risk to abduct a child is placed on the Prevent Departure Program— 

which is essentially a secondary screening list. 

What the ‘‘Prevent Departure Program’’ does is provide immediate information to 

the transportation industry, including all air, land, and sea channels a single point 

of contact at Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and provides a comprehensive 

database of individuals the United States believes may immediately depart to a foreign country. 

The program only applies to aliens, and is not available to stop U.S. citizens or 

dual U.S./foreign citizens from leaving the country. 

Under Section 215 of the ‘‘Immigration and Nationality Act’’ (8 U.S.C. 1185) and 

it’s implementing regulations (8 CFR Part 215 and 22 CFR Part 46), it authorizes 

departure-control officers to prevent an alien’s departure from the United States if 

the alien’s departure would be prejudicial to the interests of the United States. 

These regulations include would-be abductions of U.S. citizens in accordance to 

court orders originating from the child’s court of habitual residency. 

If the abductor and child are identified, they will be denied boarding. In order to 

detain them after boarding is denied, there must be a court order prohibiting the 

child’s removal or providing for the child’s pick-up, or a warrant for the abductor. 

In order for an at risk parent to participate in the program, all of the following 

must be demonstrated: 

1. Subject may NOT be a U.S. citizen; and, 

2. The nomination must include a law enforcement agency contact with 24/7 coverage; and, 

3. There must be a court order showing which parent has been awarded custody 

or shows that the Subject is restrained from removing his/her minor child from 

certain counties, the state or the U.S.; and, 

4. The Subject must be in the U.S.; and, 

5. There must be some likelihood that the Subject will attempt to depart in the 

immediate future. 

The Prevent Departure Program is not for everyone and should not be abused; 

however, in situations where an abduction threat is real and the targeting parent 

intent on abducting a child is a non-US citizen possessing the capacity to breach 

82 

court orders and abduct a child of a relationship, the Prevent Departure Program 

may be a useful tool. 

The Prevent Departure Program is currently not listed as an abduction prevention 

tool on the Department of State’s website; however, all individuals in the Office of 

Children’s Issues Prevention Unit are deeply familiar with the program. 

On an important note, the Prevent Departure Program does not apply to individuals who possess a right of U.S. Citizenship. 

We, along with other major stakeholders, believe this should formally change. In 

fact, the Government Accountability Office issued a recent report concerning the 

Prevent Departure Program and suggested the creation of a secondary policy that 

would allow for individuals possessing a right of U.S. citizenship to be placed on a 

secure screening list if they are considered to be a high threat to abduct a child 

across international borders. 

With respect to the Government Accountability Office’s previously issued report 

recommending the creation of a Prevent Departure Program II that would prevent 

individuals possessing a right of U.S. citizenship from illegally removing a child 

from the United States, Jim Crumpacker of the Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) concurs with the GAO recommendation to create a secondary security screening list in order to stop American 

child-citizens from being illegally abducted abroad; however, DHS cites challenges 

that exist to implement such a program. Specifically, ‘‘DHS strongly agrees that preventing international child abduction is a very important issue. The Department 

also agrees that expanding its current efforts along these lines to include pre-departure flight screening for potential U.S. citizen abductors could be helped in preventing some abductions.’’ The response by DHS then states that there do exist 

challenges in implementing a secondary security-screening list when he states, 

‘‘However, a number of challenges exist to visibly implementing a high-risk abductor 

list for U.S. citizens. These include potential constitutional, operational, privacy, 

and resource issues, among others. DHS remains committed to continuing its work 

with the U.S. State Department, the airlines, and other stakeholders to better prevent these abductions. DHS will consider options to expand its efforts, as reasonably 

appropriate.’’ 

According to the Government Accountability Office report, ‘‘Preventing international parental child abductions can be very difficult and depends on a number 

of factors, including the parent’s knowledge of the abduction risk and the existence 

of clear custody status for the child. While prevention efforts available to parents, 

such as contacting the State Department to request a passport alert for a child, generally require that the parent have some knowledge beforehand of the risk that abduction might occur, abductions often occur when the parent has no such knowledge. In general, prevention efforts also require clear custody status. For example, 

in order for a parent to add a child and suspected abductors to the DHS’ Prevent 

Departure list, the requesting parent must demonstrate that he or she has parental 

or custodial rights to the child and that there is a court order barring the child from 

traveling internationally with the suspected abductor. However, custody laws vary 

by state, and many parents may not have such clear custody documentation available.’’ The report further states that according to the Department of Justice, as cited 

in the GAO report, ‘‘In cases where the parent is unaware of the abduction risk, 

and where there is no documentation of the child’s custody status, preventing such 

abductions is extremely difficult.’’ 

The GAO report further emphasizes the need for a secondary prevent departure 

list when it states in its report, ‘‘Department of Homeland Security officials told us 

that their Prevent Departure list—which requires a custody or court order specifically banning the child in question from traveling internationally with a specified 

parent or someone acting on behalf of the parent—is quite effective at preventing 

abductions involving non-U.S. citizen abductors. Officials at the State Department 

added that a similar list for U.S. citizens would be very effective in cases where 

there was already a custody or court order preventing the child from traveling 

abroad with the specified parent.’’ 

SECTION II—CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING

EXPANDING THE PREVENT DEPARTURE PROGRAM

We respectfully urge the United States Congress to create legislation that would 

expand the scope of this existing program to include individuals who possess a right 

of American citizenship. 

83 

PART V 

KEY CHILD ABDUCTION PREVENTION SUGGESTED MANDATES: 

MODIFYING THE EXISTING WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE POLICY TO REQUIRE ALL INDIVIDUALS REGARDLESS OF AGE DEPARTING FROM OR ENTERING THE

UNITED STATES BY LAND, SEA, AND AIR PRESENT A VALID PASSPORT. 

We respectfully and strongly urge our Congress to pass law that requires all individuals including children departing from and entering into the United States to 

present a valid passport and quash the existing policy permitting minors under the 

age of 16 years of age to present a photocopy of a naturalization document such as 

a birth certificate at the time of their border crossing as a full passport travel requirement for all individuals regardless of the method of travel unquestionably will 

prevent a significant number of reported and unreported cross-border parental abductions and could dramatically reduce the number of incidents of child trafficking. 

The United States has limited border exit control tools in place that can prevent 

international parental child abduction outside of the methods in place established 

by the Prevent Departure Program (which has significant limitations and must be 

expanded upon as explained above). 

SECTION I—INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION AND TRAFFICKING

AND THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVEL INITIATIVE

Today, very serious security gaps exist directly related to the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative (referred to as WHTI) especially as it pertains to a child’s 

international travel document requirements. These stunning flaws and loopholes 

provide substantial opportunity for illegal cross-border family or stranger child abductions and human trafficking incidents to occur to and from the United States. 

These border control security vulnerabilities presently utilized in illegally transporting children across U.S. borders in both incoming and outgoing parental abduction cases as well as being capitalized by smugglers who trade in human life needs 

to be immediately changed. 

Specifically, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 created 

the WHTI to strengthen border security and is a joint Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Department of State (DOS) plan that is carried out in part by the 

U.S. Customs Border Protection Agency (CBP). The intent of the initiative is to further protect and strengthen our nation’s borders by requiring all travelers to and 

from Canada, Mexico, the Caribbean and Bermuda to present a WHTI compliant 

document that establishes identity and citizenship. Specific to children, the WHTI 

program allows children under the age of 16 years old traveling with one of their 

parents to cross the adjoining border of member countries by presenting a naturalization document including a photocopy of a birth certificate. Thus, children 

crossing from the United States to Mexico by land are not required to present a 

valid passport. Additionally, a minor under the age of 16 years old boarding a 

closed-circuit cruise ship embarking from and returning to an American port-of-call 

is also not required to present a valid passport, but instead a photocopy of a birth 

certificate or other naturalization papers. 

The WHTI requirements for air travel took effect on January 23, 2007. According 

to U.S. Customs Border Protection, ‘‘All U.S. citizens and non-immigrant aliens from 

Canada, Bermuda, and Mexico departing from or entering the United States from 

within the Western Hemisphere at air ports-of-entry are required to present a valid 

passport (or NEXUS card, if utilizing a NEXUS kiosk when departing from a designated Canadian airport).’’ We believe that this stringent mandate for verifiable 

documentary identification prior to air travel has significantly reduced the ability 

to unlawfully remove a child from the United States. 

Additionally, the U.S. increased the security of its child citizens when on February 1, 2008 new requirements under Public Law 106-113, Section 236 took effect 

requiring the permission of both parents prior to the issuance of a U.S. passport for 

children under the age of 16. According to the Department of State Office Of Children’s Issues, ‘‘U.S. law requires the signature of both parents, or the child’s legal 

guardians, prior to issuance of a U.S. passport to children under the age of 16. Generally, to obtain a U.S. passport for a child under the age of 16, both parents (or 

the child’s legal guardians) must execute the child’s passport application and provide documentary evidence demonstrating that they are the parents or guardians. 

If this cannot be done, the person executing the passport application must provide 

documentary evidence that he or she has sole custody of the child, has the consent 

of the other parent to the issuance of the passport, or is acting in place of the parVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
84 

ents and has the consent of both parents (or of a parent/legal guardian with sole 

custody over the child to the issuance of the passport).’’ 

Due to the implementation of these new requirements, the ability to unlawfully 

transport children that do not possess dual citizenship across borders has become 

increasingly difficult, yet it still occurs due to the WHTI policy. The two-parent signature necessary for a minor child’s U.S. passport issuance has strengthened our 

border security and reduced the ability to present incomplete or fraudulent documentation in order to travel with a child across international borders. Thankfully, 

our child citizens are better protected than they were just a few years ago. 

The fact is despite consistent double-digit growth in the reported outbound cases 

of American children being victims of international parental child abduction during 

the first decade of the millennium, fiscal years 2011 and 2012 reported a 23% decline in the reported outbound American children abduction rate and we expect the 

upcoming Department of State’s Compliance Report to Congress concerning international child abduction to demonstrate another decline. The point being, that it is 

our strongest position that our Congress focus on abduction prevention techniques 

as a way to solve the international parental child abduction crisis. 

The two-parent signature requirement necessary for a U.S. Passport to be issued 

for a child has greatly reduced the opportunity that a passport will be issued without another parent’s knowledge or consent. 

Unfortunately, documentation fraud is still very difficult to detect and remains a 

severe threat to our nation’s children, especially if initiated by parental forgery. 

Tragically, for many targeted-parent victims of international parental child abduction this type of fraud is common. Unquestionably, it is critical that precautionary 

steps continue to be taken before issuing passports to children due to substantial 

evidence of documentation fraud. 

Additionally, and to our great concern, it appears to be relatively easy to obtain 

fraudulent or falsified identification or residency documentation. 

In response to the rise of illegal entry and exodus to the United States, the implementation of WHTI policy has effectively narrowed the types of documents that are 

acceptable in proving identity and citizenship. Although this change is a critical step 

towards meeting the challenge of securing our borders there still remain significant 

security challenges due to certain allowable exemptions. Unfortunately, when it 

comes to cross border travel by children being transported by land or sea, numerous 

security defects exist. Unquestionably, individuals or organizations with intent to 

breach the law have exploited these policy flaws. Our nation’s children as well as 

children from other countries are suffering either as defenseless victims of international parental child abduction or as helpless slaves taken into the world of 

human trafficking, where the worst types of crimes against humanity are the norm. 

The buying and selling of humans is the second largest criminal activity in the 

world. In the U.S., this problem is much more severe than commonly discussed. Of 

particular concern is that it is estimated that over 70% of all humans trafficked into 

the U.S. originate from Latin America: countries such as Mexico, Honduras, and El 

Salvador are well-known supply sources for human cargo. 

A significant number of these enslaved are young children between 11 and 15 

years old who originate from poverty-stricken communities, and who are lured into 

the dark world of slavery due to false promises of legitimate jobs and a better life 

in America. What awaits them is an inhuman slave world filled with torture, violence, and threats of death to family members they left behind if they ever attempt 

to flee their imprisoned ‘‘cantinas’’—prison-like brothels where they are never allowed to leave. Tragically, sure death awaits those imprisoned into this inferno: they 

are either murdered, die of drug overdose, or die of disease and infection. 

Due to limited border documentation requirements under WHTI policy, particularly for minors traveling, there is substantial concern that human traffickers are 

currently using this loophole in order to move their young human cargo into the 

United States from Mexico and Caribbean island-nations. 

The presentation of fraudulent documents at border points has long existed and 

is well illustrated in the publication of Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative 

(WHTI) Land and Sea Final Rule that was released March 27, 2008 by the Department of Homeland Security. It was reported that CBP officers had intercepted over 

129,000 fraudulent documents from January 2005–March 2008 from individuals trying to cross the border over an approximate 31⁄2 year period (We were unable to locate current data; however, due to advancements in technology we believe this number of fraudulent documents has potentially increased). This is a substantial number; however, we must ask ourselves how many fraudulent documents were never 

uncovered and successfully used? 

85 

For U.S. Citizens, a Federal Statute mandates that any citizen of the U.S. must 

possess a valid U.S. passport to depart from or enter the U.S. Following is the text 

of Federal Statute 8 U.S.C. 1185 (b). 

(b) Citizens Except as otherwise provided by the President and subject to 

such limitations and exceptions as the President may authorize and prescribe, it shall be unlawful for any citizen of the United States to depart 

from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States unless 

he bears a valid United States passport. 

When WHTI requirements for land and sea became effective on June 1, 2009 exceptions to the Federal Statute passport requirement were allowed. The new regulation states that U.S. citizens and citizens of Canada, Bermuda and Mexico may 

present a passport or other WHTI-compliant documents when entering or departing 

the United States at sea or land ports-of-entry from within the Western Hemisphere. 

We point to the fact that Mexico followed by Canada are the two countries that 

have the most outbound American abduction cases. We point out that in numerous 

cases where an American child has been illegally removed from the United States 

to Mexico or Canada, our bordering nations have served as a launching point for 

an abductor and not the final destination. 

Due to exceptions to the passport requirement, our research has concluded there 

exists distinct areas of vulnerability at the border for our children. 

It is also important to note that according to the DOS, ‘‘Since March 1, 2010, all 

U.S. citizens—including children—have been required to present a valid passport or 

passport card for travel beyond the ‘border zone’ into the interior of Mexico. The 

‘border zone’ is generally defined as an area within 20 to 30 kilometers of the border 

with the U.S., depending on the location.’’ Concerns arise when you consider that 

entry into Mexico is allowed without a passport if a representation is made that you 

intend to remain within the designated ‘‘border zone.’’ 

SECTION II—SEA TRAVEL CLOSED-LOOP VOYAGES

Currently, according to CBP ‘‘closed loop’’ travel to adjacent islands allows for the 

same documentary exceptions under WHTI, as do contiguous countries. Specifically, 

‘‘Travelers on ‘closed loop’ voyages are NOT subject to the same documentary requirements for entry to the United States as other travelers.’’ 

The CBP website indicates at least thirty-seven countries currently meet this definition. Adjacent islands are defined by statutes and regulation, specifically the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(b)(5) and 8 Code of Federal Regulations § 286.1. 

CBP reports that adjacent islands to the U.S. are: ‘‘Anguilla, Antigua, Aruba, Bahamas, Barbados, Barbuda, Bermuda, Bonfire, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Cuba, Curacao, Dominica, the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Guadeloupe, 

Haiti, Jamaica, Marie-Galantine, Martinique, Miquelon, Montserrat, Saba, Saint 

Barthelemy, Saint Christopher, Saint Eustatius, Saint Kitts-Nevis, Saint Lucia, 

Saint Maarten, Saint Martin, Saint Pierre, Saint Vincent and Grenadines, Trinidad 

and Tobago, Turks and Caicos Islands, and other British, French and Netherlands 

territory or possessions bordering on the Caribbean Sea.’’ 

As indicated by the most current Hague Compliance Reports there is a substantial 

number of American children taken OUT of the U.S. and into contiguous or adjacent 

countries, and equally, a rather large number of children were brought INTO the 

U.S. from contiguous or adjacent countries who are Hague treaty partners. The annual Hague Compliance Report does not estimate how many unreported cases of abduction occur though we approximate that unreported cases of abduction are at 

least equivalent to the reported cases of abduction. We believe the overwhelming 

majority of unreported cases of abduction originate from either contiguous or adjacent countries. In addition the Hague Compliance Report does not indicate how 

many children are abducted into the U.S. from countries that are not Hague Treaty 

partners. We believe that the available data indicates a substantial security breach 

exists due to a lack of uniformity in documentary requirements while crossing international borders within the Western Hemisphere. 

We are also very concerned that the documentary requirements for a ‘‘closed loop’’ 

cruise ship or other water vessel’s voyage or itinerary to contiguous countries or adjacent islands allows travelers to be exempt from the documentary requirements 

necessary for other types of travel. The CBP defines ‘‘closed loop’’ as occurring when 

‘‘a vessel departs from a U.S. port or place and returns to the same U.S. port upon 

completion of the voyage. U.S. child citizens who board a cruise ship at a port within the United States, travel only within the Western Hemisphere, and return to the 

same U.S. port on the same ship may present a government issued photo identificaVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00089 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
86 

tion, along with proof of citizenship (an original or copy of his or her birth certificate, a Consular report of Birth Abroad, or a Certificate of Naturalization). A U.S. 

citizen under the age of 16 will be able to present either an original or a copy of 

his or her birth certificate, a Consular Report of Birth Abroad issued by DOS, or 

a Certificate of Naturalization issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.’’ 

Travel requirements for children traveling at sea are quite alarming. The porous 

documentation controls in place due to the WHTI facilitate child abduction opportunity at sea in unthinkable ways. For example, there are certain cruise ships that 

have ports of call in other countries that cater specifically to children. These cruise 

ships hold over 5,000 passengers and typically have weekly departures. With thousands of children boarding one of these cruise ships, we acknowledge it is clear 

there is substantial opportunity for a parental or non-parental child abduction to 

occur. 

In a likely scenario for cruise ship related international parental child abduction 

or child trafficking, an individual could presumably board a cruise ship with a targeted child with limited or fraudulent documentation for the child, travel to WHTI 

designated foreign ports, disembark with the child at a port of call and simply 

choose not to re-board the ship, effectively circumventing the necessity of a passport 

which is required for other types of travel. 

The potential to illegally remove a child across international borders via cruise 

ship travel is substantially magnified because currently there are no systematic 

data base controls and other security measures that would prevent a child’s illegal 

departure from the United States. Exemplifying this grave concern are direct statements made from the security departments of two of the world’s largest cruise lines 

operators. In statements made by both companies, neither have a security database 

that would enable a parent nor a court of law to place a child’s name on a ‘‘no embankment’’ list due to specified court order. So even if a court order is issued that 

either directly names the cruise ship company as part of the action or if the court 

order references the cruise ship company to prohibit a child’s departure but does not 

list the cruise ship as part of the legal action, the cruise ship companies have nothing in place that would enable them to comply with the court order. 

When representatives in the security departments of cruise ship companies were 

asked what could be done with a court order prohibiting a child’s departure, each 

spokesperson suggested that if the targeted parent knew what cruise ship and departure date their child was scheduled to travel on, then it would be up to the parent to contact local law enforcement. 

Obviously, the ability for a single parent trying to protect their child’s abduction 

to run from cruise ship port to cruise ship port hoping to determine if their child 

is traveling on one of the ships is more than daunting and unrealistic, particularly 

since the vast majority of international child abductions are well planned, and cleverly orchestrated. 

Remarkably, there is no systematic check to determine if a child’s name has been 

placed on any law enforcement or government travel alert lists. However, if a U.S. 

passport was required and the U.S. passport was scanned, then a border patrol 

agent would have immediate access to potentially critical information regarding the 

safety of the child. We call upon the cruise ships to act responsibly by establishing 

security procedures including a ‘no-embankment’ database that would assist in the 

prevention of international parental child abduction and human trafficking. 

When we consider there are approximately 760 cruises scheduled to depart from 

the U.S. and travel in a ‘‘closed loop’’ to the Caribbean during fiscal year 2011, this 

becomes very concerning. Our worry increases after we consider there are 47 ‘‘closed 

loop’’ cruises scheduled to depart the U.S. to Canada during the same period. And 

finally, our concern surges when we realize that there are 379 cruises scheduled to 

depart the U.S. and travel in a ‘‘closed loop’’ to Mexico. 

We express our grave concern that cruise ships may be utilized to transport children illegally to and from the U.S., Mexico, and Canada as well island nations of 

the Caribbean. 

It is inconceivable that U.S. children are still permitted to travel to specific foreign countries in accordance with the WHTI without a passport. Today, nearly 40% 

of all U.S. citizens possess a passport. As that number continues to grow substantially each year it is unthinkable not to require a passport for a child to travel 

abroad. 

SECTION III—U.S. PASSPORT CONCERNS AND STATISTICS

International parental child abduction and human trafficking are extraordinary 

issues where there is no such thing as ‘‘collateral damage.’’ The reality is that interVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
87 

national parental child abduction will cost the United States economy billions of tax 

payer dollars over the next decade. 

In the past, certain legislators have expressed concern that possession of a passport as a requirement to travel by either ground or sea to our neighboring countries 

would have a direct impact on commercial trade due to the cost of passports. The 

cruise ship industry, with many of its fleet of ships bearing the flags of nations 

other than the United States, has petitioned against the use of passports for ‘‘closed 

loop’’ travel since the conception of the WHTI. Obviously, the industry is concerned 

that the additional cost associated with a passenger having to obtain a passport 

may cause a potential traveling customer to view a cruise as too costly. However, 

statistics for new passport issuances over the past ten years according to the United 

States Department of State are 133,959,114 issued. 

SECTION IV—CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION CONCERNING

MODIFYING THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE TRAVELINITIATIVE

We recommend that the documentary requirements implemented for air travel in 

Phase One of WHTI be the same requirements necessary for cross-border land and 

sea travel. In the interest of the safety of all children, we request that there be no 

exceptions to the passport mandate for contiguous countries, adjacent countries or 

‘‘closed loop’’ voyages. Specifically, that all children, regardless of age must posses 

a passport for any cross-border travel. Harmonization of the documentary requirements for all modes of travel and at all international borders will help us achieve 

a reduction in the heinous crimes of child abduction and human trafficking. 

PART VI 

SUMMARY: WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? 

International parental child abduction is a complex matter. We believe the most 

effective way to protect children and targeted parents is through enhancing the ability of the Hague Conference. Diplomacy does work and we believe that if increased 

resources were provided to the Office of Children’s Issues and to the Hague Conference, there would be a substantial increase in the number of children who are 

quickly returned back to the United States. 

We believe that Congress should call upon all American Ambassadors to coordinate global diplomatic efforts and engage with leadership of the foreign countries 

they are respectively assigned to concerning each country’s respective individual 

child abduction cases prior to the Senate voting on the proposed legislation. We believe there is a unique and significant opportunity to resolve many mutual abduction cases under the (ever increasing) scope of the Hague Child Abduction Convention, in lieu of the American Congress sending a message to the world that the 

United States will start sanctioning States that do not live up to Convention standards. We believe that an synchronized global effort by all American Ambassadors 

under the auspices of the United States Congress will have immediate, short and 

long-term benefits, including the return of many abducted American children. 

When contemplating the issue of sanctions, we respectfully urge all esteemed policymakers to carefully consider the global problem all parents of abduction face 

when their child is parentally kidnapped. The problem of children not being returned to their home country is not one that American parents face alone. In fact, 

many parents who have had their children abducted to the United States have faced 

similar grave challenges reuniting with their wrongfully detained child that American parents face abroad. Part of the problem many of these foreign parents face 

stems from the existence of nearly 10,000 American-court family law judges, many 

who are not trained or knowledgeable in Hague Convention matters and who may 

be charged with oversight on an international parental child abduction case under 

the rules of the Hague Convention. History is demonstrating that many of the 

American court’s judiciary are not addressing the short and narrow focus design of 

the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention: the very same problem that American 

parents are facing abroad. 

Clearly, a critical step in protecting American children is to strengthen the Hague 

Conference Secretariat’s reach. With a budget of 3.7 Million Euro the reality is that 

the Hague Conference does not have the financial resources needed to educate and 

train key stakeholders, and, with limited resources, the organization is financially 

handicapped in its outreach ability, including the ability to work with non-Hague 

Convention States as to the merits of joining the Convention and becoming a Member of the Conference. It is imperative that the global organization created with 

such a broad mandate that covers every cross-border aspect of civil and commercial 

law, including (but not limited to) the protection of children around the world, have 

88 

the resources to do so. Today—they simply do not. We urge Congress to provide increased funding to the Hague Conference. 

It is important to note that approximately half of the Contracting States of the 

1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention have already established a form of ‘‘concentrated jurisdiction’’ which ensures that only judges with particular subject matter expertise hear Hague Convention cases. These specialized courts, including those 

established in the United Kingdom are considered very effective. In fact, the tendency for new signatory countries to address the issue of a well-trained, specialized 

judiciary may be exemplified by Japan’s creation of two special courts created to 

hear child abduction cases. Of course, in the case of Japan, there is interest on seeing how Japan will implement the Hague Convention; however, a well-trained judiciary may see Japan as a fully complying Contracting State. 

It would be extremely beneficial if the United States Congress requested for an 

analysis on how our American judiciary system could implement and create a centralized set of Special Courts’ established to handle international parental child abduction cases to ensure that the American judiciary no longer are part of the overall 

global problem of child abduction. 

In order to protect children from international parental child abduction, we believe there are immediate, highly effective steps Congress can take via passage of 

new law that would be far-reaching and extremely impactful. This includes: 

1. Implement law that mandates that all parents complete a Hague-centric international travel child consent form similar to the I CARE Foundation’s landmark 

child travel document. The I CARE Foundation’s travel consent form has been 

highly successful in protecting children at risk of abduction and offers all targeted parents with a sound, carefully legally constructed comparative law document that defends against all child abduction defenses and techniques taking 

parents presently use, and, further removes the penchant for courts around the 

world to wrongfully turn their attention all to often to Article 13 (1) of the 

Hague Child Abduction Convention. As it is strongly estimated that the vast 

majority of of all international parental child abductions against American 

child-citizens occur due to a child’s wrongful retention abroad, we believe the 

creation of a Hague-centric travel consent form such as the I CARE Foundation’s travel form that has been strongly supported and identified by the Hague 

Conference Secretary General Dr. Christophe Bernasconi as a critical tool in the 

fight to protect children be immediately implemented for all children traveling 

abroad. 

2. Implement new policy modifying the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative to 

mandate all individuals regardless of age and form of travel departing from or 

entering into the United States to present a valid passport at the time of border 

crossing. 

3. Implement new policy modifying the existing Prevent Departure Program and 

secondary security screening program to enable the Department of Homeland 

Security, through the petition of the Department of State to request that American Citizens are placed on the Prevent Departure Program if it is believed that 

these individuals are high-risk child abductors. By allowing for individuals of 

American citizenship to be placed on the security screening list, we effectively 

protect against abduction from individuals possessing dual citizenship. 

4. We believe that like Hague Conference’s Permanent Bureau, the Office Of Children’s Issues at the United States Department of State is understaffed and underfunded. We believe that it is critical that OCI increase its personnel substantially in order to increase personnel within its Child Abduction Prevention Unit, 

increase the number of Abduction Case Worker staffers, increase the number 

of staffers in their Education and Outreach Unit in order to create and develop 

an expansive judiciary training program and outreach programs focused on abduction prevention and specific outreach programs to aid undocumented residents who have their American children abducted. 

5. We believe that Congress should modify existing law that prohibits financial aid 

for American parent victims litigating to reunite with their kidnapped children. 

Unlike many other nations who provide financial aid to parents, the United 

States only offers reunification aid in special cases, and only upon a foreign 

court’s order that a child can be returned back to American jurisdiction. As 

legal costs for reunification are extremely high, one of the strategies abductors 

utilize is an attempt to financially drain the American parent. Sadly, this strategy often works. We believe Congress should change this antiquated law created 

when Congress annexed the 1980 Child Abduction Convention. American families are victims of the crime of kidnapping. If a child were abducted by a strangVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00092 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
89 

er, financial support and resources would not be an issue. As we have now come 

to learn through research and understanding, parental child abduction is just 

as severe and dangerous to a child as that of a stranger abduction. Without financial assistance, American left behind parents will be vulnerable to litigation 

techniques created to financially drain their resources. 

The I CARE Foundation would like to thank all individuals and organizations for 

their dedication to protecting children of abduction. In particular we would like to 

acknowledge all parents who have a child who has been internationally abducted 

and offer these simple yet important words: ‘‘Know Hope.’’ And to the lawmakers 

and policy administrators responsible for assisting families of abduction, the hope 

we as parents of abduction know and turn to is you. 

[Editor’s Note: Additional exhibits, originally appended to this statement, will be 

maintained in the committee’s permanent record.] 

INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY GLOBAL FUTURE, THE PARENTS’ COUNCIL ON

INTERNATIONAL CHILDREN’S POLICY

A Comparison of the Two Types of International Separations of a Child and Parent 

INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL KIDNAPPING

VS. 

PARENTS’ VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION TO FOREIGN LAWS

1. International Criminal Kidnapping 

Some common characteristics and facts: 

• The U.S. government and U.S. courts have continuing jurisdiction over the child 

and the criminal perpetrators; 

• The U.S. government at all levels, has an affirmative duty to protect its citizens, especially vulnerable children, and to enforce the laws that were broken 

on U.S. soil; 

• The U.S. parent and the child were separated due to the crime of international 

kidnapping, which took place on U.S. soil; 

• U.S. criminal laws are broken by foreign nationals on U.S. soil; 

• U.S. Courts had previously established jurisdiction over the child’s custody and 

parents; 

• By signing a U.S. visa or green card, a foreign national submitted to U.S. jurisdiction and U.S. laws; 

• U.S. Courts issued clear and binding custody orders prior to the abduction, that 

are now violated; 

• Foreign nationals derive benefits from U.S. courts, including fair and equal justice under the law; 

• U.S. judges issued contempt of court orders against the kidnapper violators; 

• Kidnapper(s) planned and executed the crime(s) with accomplices, including 

family members and foreign attorneys, and possibly others; 

• Kidnapper(s) perpetrated related crimes including passport fraud, extortion, 

and conspiracy; 

• Local jurisdictions issued arrest warrants for the perpetrators; 

• All crimes in connection with the kidnappings are extraditable offenses under 

existing treaty; and 

• The child’s U.S. Constitutional Rights have been violated, or even worse, effectively stripped from them by a foreign government, following the criminal act. 

2. Parents’ Voluntary Submission to Foreign Laws 

Some common characteristics and facts: 

• A foreign nation and its courts have legal jurisdiction; 

• A U.S. parent consented to allowing the child to travel to the foreign nation, 

and/or waived access rights to the child before the child’s travel to the foreign 

nation; 

• No U.S. laws broken; 

90 

• The U.S. government has no mandate, authority or jurisdiction to enforce U.S. 

laws on foreign soil; 

• The parent and child separation took place on foreign soil; 

• A foreign nation might have no legal prohibition against one parent unilaterally 

separating the child from the other parent; 

• A parent travels to or lives in a foreign nation with the child; 

• U.S. citizens are greatly disadvantaged in foreign courts, especially Japan’s, and 

cannot expect equal justice; and 

• A U.S. parent voluntarily submits to a foreign court. 

A Summary of the Missing Children Act 

and the National Child Search Assistance Act 

The Missing Children Act and the National Child Search Assistance Act, together 

require Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to enter descriptions of 

missing children into the NCIC Missing Person File (MPF) without any waiting period and without regard to whether a crime has been committed (A Report to the 

Attorney General on International Parental Kidnapping. Subcommittee on International Child Abduction of the Federal Agency Task Force on Missing and Exploited Children and the Policy Group on International Parental Kidnapping April 

1999). States are required to ‘‘ ensure that no law enforcement agency within the 

State establishes or maintains any policy that requires the observance of any waiting period before accepting a missing child or unidentified person report’’ (42 U.S. 

Code § 5780). An Administrator is defined as an administrator of the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (42 U.S. Code § 5772—Definitions). Included in the duties and functions of the Administrator is to submit a report to the 

President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce of the House of Representatives, the President pro tempore of 

the Senate, and the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate. However, the Administrator is not granted any law enforcement responsibility or supervisory authority 

over any other Federal agency. An Annual grant to National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children which shall be used to, amongst other tasks, disseminate, on a 

national basis, information relating to innovative and model programs, services, and 

legislation that benefit missing and exploited children (42 U.S. Code § 5773—Duties 

and functions of the Administrator). Law-Enforcement Policy And Procedures for 

Reports of Missing And Abducted Children defines a case of Family abduction when, 

in violation of a court order, a decree, or other legitimate custodial rights, a member 

of the child’s family, or someone acting on behalf of a family member, takes or fails 

to return a child. This is also referred to as parental kidnapping and custodial interference. A missing child will be considered at risk when the 13 years of age or 

younger. Additionally, significant risk to the child can be assumed if investigation 

indicates a possible abduction. When is child considered at risk, and an expanded 

investigation, including the use of all appropriate resources, will immediately commence (Law-Enforcement Policy and Procedures for Reports of Missing and Abducted Children; A Model Developed by The National Center for Missing & Exploited Children Revised October 2011). 

A Summary of the Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA) 

The ‘‘Crime Victims’ Rights Act (CVRA): 18 U.S.C. § 3771’’ provides crime victims 

the right to be reasonably protected from the accused. As stated in the Federal Judicial Center, October 24, 2005 report the language does not restrict application of 

Section 3771 only to felonies. It does not apply to the victims of state crimes, unless 

the underlying misconduct also violates federal or D.C. law (Crime Victims’ Rights 

Act: A Summary and Legal Analysis of 18 U.S.C. 3771 Charles Doyle Senior Specialist in American Public Law April 24, 2012). The ‘‘crime victim’’ defined in is a 

person directly and proximately harmed as a result of the commission of a Federal 

offense. For a crime victim who is under 18 years of age, ‘‘legal guardians of the 

crime victim or the representatives of the crime victim’s estate, family members, or 

any other persons appointed as suitable by the court, may assume the crime victim’s 

rights.’’ 

Section 3771 also includes the reasonable right to confer with the attorney for the 

Government in the case. ‘‘Prosecutors should consider it part of their profession to 

be available to consult with crime victims about the concerns the victims may have 

which are pertinent to the case, case proceedings or dispositions. Under this proviVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
91 

sion, victims are able to confer with the Government’s attorney about proceedings 

after charging’’ (150 Cong. Rec. S4268 (daily ed. April 22, 2004) (remarks of Sens. 

Feinstein and Kyl). Additionally, the CVRA provides the right to proceedings free 

from unreasonable delay. ‘‘Too often, however, delays in criminal proceedings occur 

for the mere convenience of the parties and those delays reach beyond the time 

needed for defendant’s due process or the government’s need to prepare. The result 

of such delays is that victims cannot begin to put the crime behind them and they 

continue to be victimized. It is not right to hold crime victims under the stress and 

pressure of future court proceedings merely because it is convenient for the parties 

or the court’’ (150 Cong.Rec. S4268-269 (daily ed. April 22, 2004). As a remedy, Section 3771 affords the right to full and timely restitution as provided in law. ‘‘Statutes require the investigating and prosecuting agencies to: (1) identify child victims 

of an offense and provide the non-offending parent or guardians with notice of their 

rights and the services for which they may be eligible, including counseling, support, 

compensation, and restitution; and (2) notify victims of major events in the conduct 

of the cases. 

The use of a multidisciplinary team and appointment of a guardian ad litem are 

encouraged in appropriate situations. Congress mandates that all Federal agencies 

dealing with victims of Federal crime maintain and adhere to written guidelines 

consistent with Federal law on victim-witness assistance. All Federal agencies that 

deal with International parental kidnapping crime victims must become conversant 

with their responsibilities under Federal victim-witness guidelines and regulations’’ 

(A Report to the Attorney General on International Parental Kidnapping. Subcommittee on International Child Abduction of the Federal Agency Task Force on 

Missing and Exploited Children and the Policy Group on International Parental 

Kidnapping April 1999). Alleged victims do not have a right to confer before charges 

have been filed, (150 Cong. Rec. S4260, S4268 (daily ed. Apr. 22, 2004)). 

The Integrated entry and exit data system (8 U.S. Code § 1365a) is an electronic 

system that provides access to, and integrates, alien arrival and departure data that 

authorizes the collection of arriving and departing aliens by country of nationality, 

classification as an immigrant or nonimmigrant, and date of arrival in, and departure from, the United States. The Attorney General, in the discretion of the Attorney General, may permit other Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials 

to have access to the data contained in the integrated entry and exit data system 

for law enforcement purposes. Interagency Border Inspection System name checks 

(IBIS), managed by Customs and Border Protection, IBIS is a database of lookouts, 

wants, warrants, arrests, and convictions consolidated from over 20 agencies. A complete IBIS query also includes a concurrent check of selected files in the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) National Criminal Information Center (Department 

of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General a Review of U.S. Citizenship and 

Immigration Services’ Alien Security Checks Office of Inspections and Special Reviews OIG-06-06 November 2005). ‘‘IBIS is critical to stopping an abduction at a 

U.S. border or international airport, as an IBIS query will reveal NCIC records and 

lookouts placed in IBIS by the FBI, INTERPOL, or other Federal law enforcement 

agencies, any of which may result in locating an abductor and child as they attempt 

to leave or reenter the country’’ (A Report to the Attorney General on International 

Parental Kidnapping. Subcommittee on International Child Abduction of the Federal Agency Task Force on Missing and Exploited Children and the Policy Group 

on International Parental Kidnapping April 1999). 

Justice Model Proves Successful in International Criminal Child 

Abductions: Case Studies in Kidnapping Resolution and Deterrence 

In three of the five following examples, law enforcement initially refused to file 

an arrest warrant for the abductor in criminal child kidnappings. Only the parents’ 

persistent and constant pressure exerted in local law enforcement offices, supported 

by direct face-to-face meeting between the Global Future members and the relevant 

U.S. Congressmen, Senators, local judges and prosecutors, resulted in direct contact 

between the legislators and law enforcement officials. Without the establishment of 

this essential connection, the only leverage possible (arrest warrants) would have 

been lost, and the children would certainly not have been returned to their lawful 

homes in the U.S. 

The Mendoza family: Children Returned from South Korea, June 26 2010. U.S. 

jurisdiction existed in New Jersey prior to the criminal abduction. An arrest warrant issued in Bergen County for the abductor. The abductor was arrested in Guam 

in March 2010. Bergen county officials initially did not want to extradite or spend 

money returning the children. Only after the father made a plea to the press, did 

92 

local officials agree to pay for the extradition. The lawful custodial father worked 

closely with Global Future LLC and New Jersey prosecutors and law enforcement, 

and legislators. After being detained, the abductor refused to cooperate and return 

the children to lawful custody with their father. The children were left without access or communication with either parent in Korea for 4 months, until the abductor 

cooperated and consented to the children’s return to New Jersey. Indefinite incarceration incentived the abductors cooperation. County prosecutors, the District Attorney, the U.S. Marshals, and Superior Court Judge all cooperated on the detention 

and extradition. The DOS took a supportive role in the return of the children. The 

lawful parent continues facing a daunting array of litigation in the family courts 

and has spent over $1,200,000 to date in pursuit of justice for the children. 

The Garcia Family: Child Returned from Japan to Wisconsin, 2011. This case represents the one and only child ever returned from Japan through a legal process, 

which built on the Mendoza case resolution process. 

The DOS issued a statement prior to Karina’s return stating that Japan stands 

alone amongst all nations on the planet, as it was unaware of any abducted American child returned through a legal process from Japan.This was a case with original U.S. jurisdiction established prior to the criminal abduction of the child to 

Japan. The father had primary custody in both the U.S. and later also in Japanese 

courts. Local and federal criminal arrest warrants were issued based on the facts 

of the case. The father won unprecedented Japanese legal decisions over four years 

while the child was being held in Japan, including winning in the Japanese Supreme Court, yet was unable to return the child to her lawful home. The father was 

a part of and worked closely with Global Future LLC, which worked with the Milwaukee District Attorney and Wisconsin federal legislators. We actually asked for 

and got the DOS to promise in writing not to interfere in, or communicate any part 

of the case to their Japanese counterparts. 

In April 2011, the abductor was arrested in Hawaii, and later extradited to Milwaukee by the U.S. Marshals. The abductor then stated that she would sit in Jail 

for 50 years rather than cooperate in the child’s return to her lawful home in Milwaukee. After 8 months in jail, she then cooperated, and Karina was returned on 

December 23, 2011. The abductor could have been released from jail in just one day, 

in exchange for returning the child immediately. All during that time she spent in 

jail, the child was being held in Japan without access to or contact with either parent. The entire arrest and recovery process was an exercise of seldom used U.S. law 

enforcement tools and strategy. 

It appears that the abductors legal fees were all paid for by the Japanese government (until late 2013) which likely mounted well into the several hundreds of thousands of U.S. dollars.The family law case, the criminal case, and a civil case are 

still ongoing in Milwaukee. The Milwaukee District Attorneys office, the U.S. Marshals, and many legislators in Washington all cooperated in the return of the child. 

The father has spent over $400,0000 in costs, which are still mounting. The Milwaukee officials originally were resistant to spending money on returning the abducted child. The wide international media response verifiably contributed to deter 

other would-be abductions. 

The Hummell Family: Children Returned to California from Czech Republic and 

France, 2013. 

The Hummell case is unique in that it took place in California, after I had attended California Child Abduction Task Force meetings and law enforcement 

trainings in California for about four years. Direct access over a period of time to 

all California relevant law enforcement representatives, FBI, Prosecutors, District 

attorneys, the relevant A/ G official, as well as local DOJ representatives in those 

meetings and training sessions has changed the official perception of and response 

to international child abductions. 

The LAPD, the FBI, and the Los Angeles District Attorney remained committed 

to this case and returned the children just weeks ago. The abductor will be extradited back to Los Angeles very soon. 

This was a case of U.S. jurisdiction in Los Angeles, California prior to the abduction. The children were criminally abducted by the mother to Europe. Local and federal arrest warrants were issued based on the facts of the case. The abductor was 

caught in France after being on the run for approximately 18 months. The father 

spent over $260,000 in approximately 18 months. 

Other case studies 

In two other important cases reported on by media, the law enforcement model 

proved successful, with elements that can be replicated in domestic and international cases alike: 

93 

Cicero Illinois Case—Cicero to Mexico 

This was a case with U.S. jurisdiction in Cicero Illinois. 

The Sheriff took the case to heart and remained committed to returning the children. This case demonstrates that even in a very small local jurisdiction, law enforcement can effect the return, if they have the will to remain committed and enforce the law. 

Quinones brothers, ages 4 and 2, returned to Anaheim, California from Texas, in 

2010. Anaheim police arrested several accomplices, leading to the children’s recovery 

by Texas authorities, and the surrender of the abductor father. The abductors (father and grandfather) were believed to be headed with the children to Mexico, when 

law enforcement applied pressure on them through the arrest of accomplices. 

In 2011, Cicero, Illinois police Chief Bernard Harrison recovered a boy kidnapped 

by father to Mexico in 2000. For a decade, Harrison worked closely with FBI and 

made productive contact with the abductor’s relatives in Mexico. 

Web Links to Additional Information on Parental Child Abduction 

Black’s Law Dictionary, http://thelawdictionary.org/abduction/. 

‘‘Japan-U.S. Relations: Issues for Congress,’’ Congressional Research Service https:// 

www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33436.pdf, Emma Chanlett-Avery, Coordinator Specialist 

in Asian Affairs; Mark E. Manyin, Specialist in Asian Affairs; William H. Cooper, 

Specialist in International Trade and Finance; Ian E. Rinehart, Analyst in Asian Affairs. August 2, 2013, CRS Report for Congress, Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress. 

‘‘National Incidence Studies of Missing, Abducted, Runaway, and Thrownaway Children’’ (NISMART), 2002, http://www.missingkids.com/enlUS/documents/nismart2l 

overview.pdf. 

‘‘The Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Efforts to Combat Crimes Against Children,’’ 

Audit Report 09–08, January 2009, FBI Office of the Inspector General. 

‘‘Missing and Abducted Children: A Law-Enforcement Guide to Case Investigation 

and Program Management,’’ Fourth Edition, 2011, Office of Juvenile Justice and 

Delinquency Prevention and National Center for Missing & Exploited Children®, 

Edited by Preston Findlay and Robert G. Lowery, Jr. 

‘‘A Family Resource Guide on International Parental Kidnapping,’’ J. Robert Flores, 

Administrator, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. Original 

Printing February 2002; Reprinted May 2003; Revised January 2007, NCJ 215476. 

Prepared by Fox Valley Technical College under cooperative agreement number 

2005–MC–CX–K034 from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention 

(OJJDP), Office of Justice Programs (OJP), U.S. Department of Justice. 

‘‘Crime of Family Abduction: A Child’s and Parent’s Perspective’’ (May 2010). https:// 

www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/229933.pdf. 

‘‘When Your Child Is Missing: A Family Survival Guide’’ (May 2010). https:// 

www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/ojjdp/228735.pdf. 

‘‘A Review of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ Alien Security Checks,’’ 

Office of Inspections and Special Reviews, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

OIG–06–06, November 2005. 

‘‘Crime Victims’ Rights Act: A Summary and Legal Analysis of 18 U.S.C. 3771,’’ 

Charles Doyle, Senior Specialist in American Public Law April 24, 2012, CRS Report 

for Congress, Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress, Congressional 

Research Service, 7–5700. https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/RL33679.pdf. 

‘‘Family Abduction: Prevention and Response,’’ 2009, Sixth Edition, Revised by 

Patricia M. Hoff. Copyright © 1985, 2002, and 2009 National Center for Missing & 

Exploited Children®. Project supported by Grant No. 2007–MC–CX–K001 awarded 

by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. 

‘‘Program Aimed at High-Risk Parent Abductors Could Aid in Preventing Abductions,’’ Report to Subcommittee on Aviation, Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, House of Representatives, Commercial Aviation, June 2011, GAO– 

11–602. 

94 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY PAUL TOLAND, JEFFERY MOREHOUSE, AND RANDY COLLINS, BRING ABDUCTED CHILDREN HOME

In December, in a strong showing of bipartisan support, the House voted 398-0 

to pass H.R. 3212—The Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction 

Prevention & Return Act of 2013. International child abduction is a human rights 

violation and an ongoing form of child abuse in desperate need of greater congressional attention and action. Please show you care about the thousands of American 

families with internationally kidnapped children by swiftly pass this bill as written. 

We appreciate discussion of important prevention strategies such as better exit 

controls through our airports and borders during the committee hearing. They are 

good ideas worth developing in future immigration legislation. Adding them here 

risks enormous delays for American families and children that need help today. 

For most parents of internationally kidnapped children, frequently referred to as 

‘‘Left-Behind Parents,’’ the outlook is bleak. Many of us face each morning not 

knowing where our children are being held. Holidays and birthdays pass with unbearable pain. For most, there has been little substantive help offered under the 

current system by the Office of Children’s Issues and the Department of State. In 

fact, there has been an unmitigated effort by the Office of Children’s Issues to close 

cases without actually creating a return of the abducted children. We have seen this 

with alarming frequency lately with the kidnappings to and within Japan. We are 

also concerned that return rates for children abducted to Hague Convention and 

non-Hague countries are not materially different, suggesting the treaty is largely ineffective and creates a false sense of hope for these parents. 

Each year there are over 1,000 new cases of American children being abducted 

to a foreign country. H.R. 3212 is a vital step to create accountability and prescribe 

recourse for countries that are complicit in failing to return abducted children. For 

example, there have been nearly 400 registered cases of American children abducted 

to Japan since 1994. Currently the Department of State continues to maintain its 

longstanding policy of quiet diplomacy. The result is that the Government of Japan 

has not once assisted in returning a single abducted child. 

More than 100 BACHOME parents have limited or no contact with their children. 

Men and women serving our country in the military in overseas bases are at extreme risk. In numerous cases they have come home to find their children and 

spouse have vanished. Our children have been cut off from their homes , families, 

and friends. 

Most every parent and child has had an experience in a park, shopping mall or 

playground in which they momentarily can’t find his or her loved one. It is terrifying for those seconds or minutes. We, and our children experience this in every 

waking moment. It never ends. 

Our victimized children need to be brought home. Rapid passage of H.R. 3212 is 

a step in this direction. 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY PAUL TOLAND, CAPTAIN, MEDICAL

SERVICE CORPS, U.S. NAVY, ONLY LIVING PARENT TO ERIKA TOLAND

Senator Menendez, Senator Corker and other distinguished colleagues of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to 

speak today. My name is Paul Toland. I am a Captain in the U.S. Navy with 25 

years of service, and I am the only living parent of Erika Toland, abducted nearly 

11 years ago and wrongfully retained in Japan by her grandmother. 

Over 60 years ago, Japan regained full sovereignty under the Treaty of San Francisco, and since that time, not one of the thousands of children abducted to Japan 

has ever been returned to any foreign country by Japanese courts. It is truly a Black 

Hole from which no child ever returns. There is absolutely no hope once your child 

is taken to Japan. There is no visitation mechanism, no rights for non-custodial parents, and no enforcement mechanism to allow a parent to see his/her child. 

I am left without any remaining options. Erika is essentially help captive in 

Japan, separated from her only living parent in a country that has never returned 

a child. I never dreamed that serving my country overseas in one of our allied nations would result in the loss of my child. 

Four years ago, I testified in Congress regarding the abduction of Erika. There 

have been many such hearings about child abduction throughout the years in Congress. At one such hearing, the Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee 

stated ‘‘Parents have reported to me the failure by the United States to initiate vigorous diplomatic and law enforcement tools seeking the return of their children. 

These parents report a sense of frustration, and I can understand that . . . with 

the obviously low priority placed on the return of abducted children compared to 

95 

other diplomatic relations.’’ At that same hearing, the ranking member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee stated ‘‘the act of taking a child in violation of a 

custodial order is a heinous crime, which is extremely heart-wrenching for the parent left behind and for the child or children affected.’’ 

These statements were made in 1998, with the last statement being made by then 

Senator Joseph Biden. Yet here we are, 16 years later, and nothing has changed. 

We still talk about how International Child Abduction is a terrible scourge and 

human rights tragedy, but the last 16 years have shown little or no progress. 

As Mr. Bernard Aronson, former Assistant Secretary of State, summarized so well 

in his testimony in Congress four years ago, when he stated ‘‘all we have to show 

for it are musty hearing records and hopes that were raised but never fulfilled.’’ 

Japan is supposedly an ally of the United States, so why does the United States 

continue to tolerate this behavior from Japan? Why does Japan continue to act in 

bad faith toward their allies—because they can! There are no consequences for 

Japan or other nations who refuse to return stolen children. We are faced with a 

U.S. State Department more interested in preserving relations with Japan than protecting the welfare of U.S. citizen children. 

Benjamin Franklin said ‘‘Never confuse motion with action.’’ In recent years, we 

have witnessed a lot of motion in Congress and throughout the U.S. Government 

on this issue, but we have yet to see any real action—the kind of action that would 

result in the return of our children. 

A recent bill, H.R. 3212, passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 398- 

0, and is an initial positive step in trying to change this pattern. This bill provides 

the government with the tools required to impose consequences on nations who 

refuse to return children. I ask your support for this important bill. The time for 

action is now because, let me tell you as a parent of a growing child, time is not 

on our side. Every day that passes in my daughter’s life is a day that I can never 

recover. 

Thank you. 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY JEFFERY MOREHOUSE

My son, ‘‘Mochi’’ Atomu Imoto Morehouse, was kidnapped to Japan by his mother 

in June 2010. He was 61⁄2 years old at the time. I have not heard from him since 

then but have spent every day trying to find way to bring him home. 

Because of safety concerns for my son the court initially granted me temporary 

custody in May 2007. I was permanently designated the custodial in the state of 

Washington in June 2008 by mutual agreement of both parents. Based on evidence 

and her sworn statements in court documents, Michiyo Imoto Morehouse was allowed supervised only visitation for the first nine months due to: her violence in the 

home, alcohol abuse, psychological concerns and threats to abduct our son to Japan. 

She was restrained from holding a passport for our son or taking him outside of 

the state of Washington. Additionally she agreed in court documents that the 

United States is the home country for our son. As a preventative measure in May 

and October of 2007, I wrote to all the Japanese consulates and the embassy in the 

U.S. requesting they reject any attempts by Michiyo to obtain a passport for Mochi. 

April 2010, Michiyo attempted to obtain a passport from the Consulate of Japan 

in Seattle. They reject her based on my letters. On May 25, 2010, I filed a new motion based on her attempt to obtain passports. Subpoenaed records after the kidnapping reveal that on May 25, 2010 she purchased two tickets for a July 5th flight 

to Tokyo. 

Knowingly in violation of court orders, on June 21, 2010, Michiyo crossed state 

lines with Mochi. She then lies to consular officials on the passport application and 

is given a passport for Mochi that day. Additionally the Consulate violates the Ministry of Foreign Affairs passport issuance policy of April 2010. In courts documents 

in Japan in June 2013 she admits to committing passport fraud. Though I have repeatedly asked Government of Japan officials to invalidate his passport and Mochi 

return to me. They have ignored my requests. Multiple requests for the Japanese 

Ministry of Foreign Affairs to provide me with Mochi’s location have been denied. 

Requests for a copy of her fraudulent passport application by a Japanese judge 

and myself have been denied. 

The same day, after fraudulently obtaining the passport, Michiyo changes the 

tickets to Japan for the next available flight on June 23, 2010. 

According to the koseki (family registration certificate) in Japan, on June 25, 2010 

it was entered that the ‘‘mother has custody’’ and the modification was filed ‘‘by the 

father and the mother.’’This occurred the day after she kidnapped him to Japan. 

96 

Michiyo forged my signature. It was premeditated. In June 2013 she admitted to 

committing this crime in court documents. 

In October 2012, I received a notice from the Toyama Family Court in Japan. According to the document Michiyo had applied for custody of Mochi. Without my 

knowledge she had the U.S. custody deleted in Japan claiming that it provided for 

joint custody. She knowingly lied again. Currently the basis for her motion for custody is being opposed in the Toyama Family Court. The assigned judge is Judge 

Naoyuki Kushihashi (case number: Heisei 24 nen(Ie)516). In March 2013 through 

February 2014, Judge Kushihashi denied requests for U.S. Officials to observe any 

of the eight hearings that have taken place. 

Please help bring Mochi home. He is currently being held in the Toyama area in 

Japan. Every day he is kept by her is another day he is in danger. It is another 

day that he is cut off from his home, family and friends. 

Sincerely yours, 

Jeffery Morehouse, Father of ‘‘Mochi’’ Atomu Imoto Morehouse 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY STANLEY CHARLES THORNE, AMARILLO, TX 

[Original testimony before the Tom Lantos Human Rights 

Commission, U.S. House of Representatives] 

Distinguished Members of the Commission: My name is Stanley Charles Thorne. 

I am a citizen of the State of Texas and of the United States of America. My professional credentials are stated in my curriculum vitae and resume (attached for your 

convenient reference). 

Examination of my curriculum vitae and resume will verify that for the past five 

years I have devoted my life to advocacy for parents and children. My full time work 

is to champion the rights of parents and children. I am recognized as an expert on 

Constitutional rights of citizens in family courts, and I am an outspoken advocate 

for a wide array of family law reforms. 

My advocacy work is done in either my own personal name or sub nom The American Family Justice Project. I also work closely with and through the Center for Parental Responsibility, a Minnesota-based 501(c) (3) non-profit organization, of which 

I am a Board member. I am not on the Board or otherwise formally affiliated with 

any other organization. 

Over the past three years it has been my honor to work closely with Mr. Patrick 

Braden, father of Melissa Braden, a U.S. citizen-child abducted to Japan on 16 

March 2006 by her mother, Ryoko Uchiyama. As a result of my work with Patrick 

Braden, I have become thoroughly familiar with the facts of the Melissa Braden 

case and the growing problem of international child abduction. 

A few weeks prior to the Commission hearing on 2 December 2009, I learned from 

10 other U.S. citizen-parents about the facts of their cases of U.S. citizen-children 

abducted to Japan. 

I personally attended the entire Commission hearing on 2 December 2009. I listened carefully to each of the U.S. citizen-parents who presented their testimony at 

that hearing (Panel 1), and each of the others who shared their expertise with the 

Commission (Panel 2). 

I have prepared my written statement from this fact and issue specific frame of 

reference, combined with my unique personal perspective from over 25 years of rich 

life experience as a student of the political process, historian, policy analyst, attorney, counselor, mediator, speaker, author, and father of two sons (age 24 and 20) 

and one daughter (age 15). 

I have asked Patrick Braden to submit my written statement as part of his submission for the record of the Hearing on International Child Abduction before the 

Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission of the United States House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. on 2 December 2009. 

However, I stress that I submit these written comments only in my capacity as 

a private U.S. citizen, as I am not the legal representative of Patrick Braden, or 

Melissa Braden, or any other abducted U.S. citizen-child, their U.S. citizen-parent, 

or any organization. It is under these conditions that I respectfully submit this written statement. 

The first section addresses aspects of diplomacy as a tool to resolve open cases 

and prevent new ones from occurring, followed by a section containing more specific 

points and suggestions. 

97 

Continue formal foreign diplomacy by USDOS 

The issue of international child abduction historically has been addressed wholly 

within the context of United States foreign diplomatic relations, whether bi-lateral 

or multi-lateral. Accordingly, the sole agency of U.S. action in response to international child abduction has been the United States Department of State (USDOS). 

I characterize the array of formal proactive and remedial actions in this arena as 

‘‘USDOS foreign diplomacy.’’ 

Over the years, left-behind U.S. citizen-parents with children in Japan have used 

every possible effort to resolve their open cases without any success. They have exhausted their resources and themselves and have turned for help and hope to the 

USDOS. Yet USDOS foreign diplomacy in U.S.-Japan bilateral relations prior to 

2009 has never yielded a single tangible step toward resolving a single open case 

of a U.S. citizen-child kidnapped to Japan. 

Events during 2009 indicate, but have not confirmed, that USDOS has raised the 

international child abduction problem to the highest levels of formal foreign diplomacy in U.S.-Japan bilateral relations. Secretary of State Clinton reportedly had the 

issue on her agenda for discussion with her counterpart in Japan in more than one 

meeting during 2009. And President Obama reportedly had the issue on his agenda 

for discussion with his counterpart in Japan during the summit conference 12-13 

November 2009. 

While these reports were encouraging to left-behind U.S. citizen-parents, USDOS 

has not released to them any details as to whether or not the issue actually was 

discussed, or the scope of any discussions that may have occurred. To the left-behind 

U.S. citizen-parents who desperately need information, this lack of follow-up communication from the White House and USDOS is discouraging, confusing, and unacceptable. 

A left-behind U.S. citizen-parent with a kidnapped child in Japan has no hope of 

any remedy, except whatever is accomplished by and through USDOS foreign diplomacy. Under current circumstances, return of U.S. citizen-children from Japan to 

their left-behind U.S. citizen-parents is utterly, totally, and completely dependant 

upon whether or not United States foreign diplomacy gets results. 

A lack of follow-up communication within a reasonable time after high-level bilateral talks with Japan by the President and Secretary of State seems to callously 

disregard the expectations of the left-behind U.S. citizen-parents raised by those 

talks. For them to know that the issue was not discussed at all would be better than 

waiting and wondering if it was, and wondering what USDOS plans to do next to 

resolve their open cases. 

Recommendation 1 

On behalf of left-behind U.S. citizen-parents with kidnapped children in 

Japan, the Commission should make a formal request to each of President 

Obama and Secretary of State Clinton for a written report to the Commission on whether or not they actually discussed abduction of U.S. citizenchildren to Japan, and if they did, the details of those discussions, and 

what to expect next from formal USDOS foreign diplomacy to resolve the 

open cases. The report should be made public so that the Commission may 

distribute it to the general public and left-behind U.S. citizen-parents with 

kidnapped children in Japan. 

More than one left-behind U.S. citizen-parent with a kidnapped child in Japan 

has requested, without success, a meeting with the President and Secretary of 

State. Even a private meeting between left-behind U.S. citizen-parents and staff 

personnel from either the White House or Secretary of State’s office would signal 

that the issue is truly important to the President and Secretary of State. 

As steps are taken in 2010 by the President and Secretary of State to press the 

issue with their Japanese counterparts, at some point in the process it will be appropriate for them to have a public meeting with left-behind U.S. citizen-parents. 

Sooner is better than later. 

The U. S. Congress has unequivocally expressed Legislative Branch interest in addressing the issue of international child abduction in general, and especially in 

Japan. U.S. House Resolution 125 specifically mentioned the Melissa Braden case 

and the issue of U.S. citizen-children kidnapped to Japan. H. Res. 125 passed 11 

March 2009 on a 418-0 roll-call vote.A letter dated 5 November 2009 from twentytwo U.S. Senators to President Obama called upon him to specifically address the 

issue with his counterpart in Japan during their summit conference in Japan 12- 

13 November 2009. 

U.S. Senators and Congressman are demanding a change in Japan’s track record 

on abduction of U.S. citizen-children kidnapped to Japan. It is long past time for 

98 

strong, decisive action from the Executive Branch to demand that Japan fully resolve the open cases now—that is, return kidnapped U.S. citizen-children from 

Japan to their left-behind U.S. citizen-parent in the United States, and arrest and 

extradite the kidnappers and their accomplices to the U.S. for prosecution by U.S. 

authorities. 

An integral part of any Executive Branch plan to progressively increase pressure 

on Japan to resolve open cases should include a series of private and public gestures 

by the Executive Branch calculated to signal to not only all left-behind U.S. citizenparents with kidnapped children in Japan, but also to Japan, that the issue is truly 

important to the Executive Branch of the United States government. 

Recommendation 2 

On behalf of left-behind U.S. citizen-parents with kidnapped children in 

Japan, the Commission should make a formal, written request to each of 

President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton for a meeting between leftbehind U.S. citizen-parents with kidnapped children in Japan. As a step in 

the process of progressively increasing pressure on Japan to resolve open 

cases, the Commission’s request should be made public and broadly disseminated. 

Activate formal law enforcement diplomacy by USDOJ.—To my knowledge, the 

United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) has had virtually no role in international child abduction cases, either proactive or remedial. This is surprising in 

light of the fact that a substantial number of the open international child abduction 

cases are straight criminal kidnapping cases to which USDOJ can and should devote their resources. I refer to a specific subset of the open case population that I 

describe below as ‘‘U.S. jurisdictional cases.’’ 

I am confident that if specifically tasked to act in U.S. jurisdictional cases, 

USDOJ could utilize already-open law enforcement channels with good effect to obtain not only arrest and extradition to the U.S. of the criminal perpetrator, but also 

obtain prompt return of the abducted U.S. citizen-child to their home in the United 

States. 

I characterize the array of formal proactive and remedial actions in this arena as 

‘‘USDOJ law enforcement diplomacy.’’ As a new initiative to supplement traditional 

USDOS foreign diplomacy, the United States should bring to bear USDOJ law enforcement diplomacy on the international child abduction problem, especially in respect of Japan. I will make specific suggestions about how to activate USDOJ law 

enforcement diplomacy later in this paper. 

Activate informal legal diplomacy by U.S. lawyers and judges.—Traditional 

USDOS foreign diplomacy, supplemented by new initiatives in USDOJ law enforcement diplomacy, can and should be complimented by an additional new initiative— 

the informal efforts of U.S. lawyers and judges who have personal relationships with 

foreign counterparts, especially in Japan. 

As globalization has accelerated over the past decade, international child abduction has been a slowly growing problem for all nation-states. The international child 

abduction problem will only be exacerbated with the accelerating pace of 

globalization, and international child abduction has markedly increased in recent 

years. 

At the same time, global business, commerce, and cultural exchange has brought 

more and more U.S. lawyers and judges into working relationships that are routinely exercised outside the formal channels of USDOS foreign diplomacy and 

USDOJ law enforcement diplomacy. I refer here to the multitude of U.S. lawyers 

and judges (civilian, military, and government) who are in frequent, regular contact 

with foreign lawyers and judges outside the formal channels of either USDOS foreign diplomacy or USDOJ law enforcement diplomacy. 

I have personal knowledge of and experience with the power of informal networking by and between U.S. lawyers and judges and foreign lawyers and judges 

who are involved in global business, commerce, and cultural exchange. I characterize the array of informal proactive and remedial actions in this arena as ‘‘informal legal diplomacy.’’Informal legal diplomacy cannot and should not be underestimated as a tool to effect the return of U.S. citizen-children. If properly activated, 

informal legal diplomacy may be the most powerful tool available to bring enough 

pressure to bear that open cases are resolved. 

Recommendation 3 

USDOS foreign diplomacy to address international child abduction most 

certainly should be continued at the highest levels, and as robustly as posVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00102 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
99 

sible, with a focus upon aggressive action to resolve the open cases that languish year after year. 

Recommendation 4 

USDOJ law enforcement diplomacy most certainly should be engaged to 

open a new front from which to aggressively attack the international child 

abduction problem. Again, the focus should be upon the open cases in which 

the location of the U.S. citizen-child(ren) and the criminal perpetrator are 

known because, to date, the criminal fugitive from U.S. justice has been 

given safe haven in a foreign country. 

Recommendation 5 

USDOS foreign diplomacy and USDOJ law enforcement diplomacy should 

unequivocally communicate (i.e. loudly, clearly, and often) that it is unacceptable for any foreign nation to harbor a criminal kidnapping fugitive 

from U.S. justice who has violated the human rights of the U.S. citizenchild(ren) they abducted and their left-behind U.S. citizen-parent. 

Recommendation 6 

Informal legal diplomacy can and should be brought to bear on the problem by a USDOJ campaign to reach U.S. lawyers and judges, raise their 

awareness of the international child abduction problem, and call upon them 

to informally press upon their foreign counterparts for the return of U.S. 

citizen-children illegally abducted in violation of U.S. law. 

Recommendation 7 

Recognize that a child has a human right to frequent, continuing, unfettered access to each parent, so as to enjoy a meaningful parent-child relationship with each parent. 

A child’s right to a meaningful parent-child relationship with each parent is a 

human right of the first order, and fundamental to the dignity and well-being of 

every human being. It follows that the first order of business for every government 

is to protect the human rights of the child-citizen. Otherwise, the essential building 

block upon which the society is based, the family, is weakened in a way that weakens both the society-at-large and the government. Weakness in recovery of U.S. citizen-children illegally abducted to foreign nations in violation of U.S. law signals a 

weakness of national will that threatens U.S. national security. 

Recommendation 8 

Recognize ‘‘U.S. jurisdictional cases’’ as a subset of international child abduction cases, as distinguished from ‘‘foreign jurisdictional cases.’’ 

The population of worldwide international child abduction cases may be categorized in many ways. It is useful to consider a fact-based categorization stemming 

from the fact-pattern underlying each individual case. Established ‘‘conflicts-of-laws’’ 

principles of both U.S. domestic and international law operate so as to give jurisdictional primacy to the nation that first asserts legal jurisdiction over both the 

child(ren) and the subject matter of parental rights to possession of the child(ren). 

For purposes of discussion in this paper, a ‘‘U.S. jurisdictional case’’ may be defined as one in which—prior to the abduction— 

• Each parent and their child(ren) were physically within the U.S., that is, within 

the geographic jurisdiction of the United States; 

• Each parent and their child(ren) were subject to the exercise by a U.S. court 

of ‘‘personal jurisdiction’’ a/k/a ‘‘in personem jurisdiction’’; 

• Each parent and their child(ren) were subject to the exercise by a U.S. court 

of ‘‘subject matter jurisdiction’’ over each parent-child relationship;a U.S. court 

obtained personal jurisdiction over each parent and their child(ren); 

• The U.S. court asserted subject matter jurisdiction over the parent-child relationship of each parent; 

• The U.S. court adjudicated—as between the two parents—possession of the 

child(ren); and 

• The U.S. court entered written orders to give effect to the judgment—usually 

including surrender of the child(ren)’s passport, specific restrictions on the 

child(ren)’s travel outside to geographic jurisdiction of the U.S. court, etc. 

For purposes of discussion in this paper, a ‘‘foreign jurisdictional case’’ may be 

broadly defined as one that is not a ‘‘U.S. jurisdictional case,’’ that is, any case in 

100 

which the facts prior to abduction of the child(ren) did not result in lawful exercise 

by a U.S. court of personal jurisdiction over each parent and their child(ren) and 

subject matter jurisdiction over the parent-child relationship of each parent. 

The key and most conspicuous fact of the U.S. jurisdictional case is that the child 

was kidnapped from within the U.S. and taken to a foreign country, so that U.S. 

law has primacy and controls the disposition of the kidnapping case. In contrast, 

the key and most conspicuous fact of the foreign jurisdictional case is that the child 

was already outside the U.S. when kidnapped, so that U.S. law does not have primacy and control the disposition of the kidnapping case. 

Recommendation 9 

Recognize that in a U. S. jurisdictional case, the U. S. court has no meaningful authority to address a post-judgment international child abduction 

unless and until both the perpetrator and the abducted child are physically 

present before the court in the U.S. Consequently, an international child 

abduction case is beyond the reach of the U. S. court to resolve without decisive intervention by the United States. 

When, in a U.S. jurisdictional case, a U.S. court has adjudicated—as between the 

two parents—possession of the U.S. citizen-child(ren), and then there is an abduction to Japan, the act of abduction simultaneously constitutes: 

• An act of civil contempt or criminal contempt, or both, of the U.S. civil court 

orders—punishable by the U.S. court that entered the orders prior to the abduction—with fines or incarceration, or both; 

• An act of criminal conduct punishable by U.S. criminal law enforcement authorities (either state or federal, or both) with fines or incarceration, or both; 

• An act of tortious interference with the parental rights of the left-behind U.S. 

citizen-parent punishable un a U.S. civil court by a civil action for monetary 

damages paid from the perpetrator to the left-behind U.S. citizen-parent. 

However, none of these remedial measures is actionable unless and until both the 

perpetrator and the abducted child are physically in the U.S. and present before the 

U.S. court(s). 

Consequently, an international child abduction case is beyond the reach of the 

U.S. court (that obtained jurisdiction prior to the abduction) to resolve without decisive intervention by the United States that results in the physical return of both 

the perpetrator and the abducted child back to the U.S. court. 

Recommendation 10 

Recognize an international child abduction case is beyond the reach of 

any U.S. citizen-parent to resolve without decisive intervention by the 

United States. 

When viewed from the perspective of a left-behind U.S. citizen-parent, a U.S. jurisdictional case is the most egregious kind of international child abduction case because the U.S. legal system failed in the first instance to protect and preserve their 

parent-child relationship, and then that failure is compounded by the failure of U.S. 

diplomatic and legal means to effect either the prompt recovery of their child(ren) 

or the punishment of thecriminal fugitive who kidnapped the child(ren). 

The manifest injustice of all of this is exacerbated when the U.S. citizen-child is 

abducted to Japan because Japanese policy ignores lawful U.S. court orders and 

gives refuge in Japan to the criminal fugitive. 

In many U.S. jurisdictional cases, the left-behind U.S. citizen-parent knows where 

in Japan the perpetrator is living with the abducted child(ren), but Japanese policy 

allows the perpetrator to hide in plain sight behind a wall of protection built and 

maintained by Japanese policy. 

To date, that wall has been strong enough that no U.S. citizen-child abducted to 

Japan has ever been returned by U.S. diplomatic or legal means. That is a sorry 

state of affairs that must be ended at the earliest possible moment. 

In every U.S. jurisdictional case, the left-behind U.S. citizen-parent has every 

right to ask of their U.S. government why the reach of the United States of America 

is too short or too weak to get their child(ren) back from Japan and punish the 

criminal wrongdoer who took the child(ren). 

Recommendation 11 

Recognize that foreign jurisdictional cases have little basis for resolution 

beyond the exercise of robust foreign diplomacy by USDOS. On the other 

hand, U.S. jurisdictional cases not only have the exercise of robust foreign 

diplomacy by USDOS as a basis for resolution, they also have as additional 

basis for resolution the exercise of robust law enforcement diplomacy by 

101 

USDOJ and the vigorous exercise of informal legal diplomacy by U.S. lawyers and judges. 

In every diplomacy context involving a U.S. jurisdictional case, the application of 

well-established ‘‘conflicts-of-laws’’ principles will result in both a moral and legal 

position favorable to the return of the perpetrator and abducted child(ren) to the 

U.S. court that had lawfully established and exercised jurisdiction prior to the abduction. 

The conflicts-of-laws analysis is straightforward and may be simplistically summarized as follows. Determine whether ‘‘personal jurisdiction’’ over each parent and 

their child(ren) and ‘‘subject matter jurisdiction’’ over their parent-child relationships were established in a U.S. court prior to the abduction of the child(ren). 

If a U.S. court obtains jurisdiction and adjudicates parental rights prior to the abduction without any competing jurisdictional claim from a foreign court, then use 

existing law enforcement mechanisms (such as U.S.F.B.I. and Interpol arrest warrants) to effect arrest of the perpetrator wherever they may be found. 

Upon arrest of the perpetrator, then use existing law enforcement mechanisms 

(e.g. international ‘‘extradition’’ principles) to obtain return of the perpetrator to the 

U.S. court that had jurisdiction over the child(ren) prior to the abduction. 

If both a U.S. court and a foreign court assert jurisdiction over the same 

child(ren), then use existing international ‘‘conflicts-of-laws’’ principles to resolve the 

conflicting claims of jurisdiction. 

Recommendation 12 

Recognize that in a U. S. jurisdictional case, the perpetrator is aided and 

abetted in the actual abduction by various accomplices who should be aggressively identified, located, arrested, and punished as criminal co-conspirators of the perpetrator. 

USDOJ law enforcement officials at all levels should unequivocally communicate 

(i.e. loudly, clearly, and often) to U.S. federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies: 

• That it is unacceptable for anyone to aid, abet, or harbor a criminal kidnapping 

fugitive from U.S. justice who has violated the human rights of the U.S. citizenchild(ren) they abducted and their left-behind U.S. citizen-parent; 

• That U.S. federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies should aggressively 

investigate and prosecute international child abduction cases as high law enforcement priority; 

• That arrest, extradition, and prosecution of criminal kidnapping perpetrators 

(and their accomplices) by both U.S. and foreign law enforcement authorities 

executing U.S.F.B.I. and Interpol warrants should routinely occur as a matter 

of reciprocity among all nation-states; 

• That conspicuous, aggressive investigation and prosecution of international 

child abduction cases by U.S. federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies 

will serve as the best deterrent of future international child abduction cases; 

and 

• That the USDOJ expects full cooperation on international child abduction cases 

from not only foreign law enforcement authorities, but also U.S. federal, state, 

and local law enforcement authorities.Constitutional rights of parent and child 

While the Constitutional rights of each U.S. citizen-parent and each abducted U.S. 

citizen-child is a subject beyond the scope of this paper, it is noteworthy that in various contexts, the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized and protected 

parental rights under the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments 

of the United States Constitution. 

Throughout the modern era, the Supreme Court of the United States has consistently emphasized the importance of the family and repeatedly described the rights 

of citizens in parenting and family rights as ‘‘fundamental’’ or ‘‘basic civil rights.’’ 

• ‘‘[T]he right ‘to marry, establish a home and bring up children,’ . . . and ‘the liberty to direct the upbringing and education of children,’ . . . are among ‘the basic 

civil rights of man.’ ’’ Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 503 (1965) (Mr. 

Justice White, concurring.) 

• ‘‘The rights to conceive and to raise one’s children have been deemed essential 

. . . basic civil rights of man . . . far more precious . . . than property rights . . . 

It is cardinal with us that the custody, care, and nurture of the child reside first 

in the parents. . . . The integrity of the family unit has found protection in the 

Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, . . . the Equal Protection 

102 

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the Ninth Amendment . . .’’ (citations 

omitted). Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 651 (1972). 

• ‘‘[T]he rights of fatherhood and family were regarded as essential and basic civil 

rights of man.’’ Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U.S. 441, 461 (1973) (Dissent of Mr. Chief 

Justice Burger and Mr. Justice Rehnquist). 

• ‘‘The rights to conceive and to raise one’s children have been deemed ‘essential,’. 

‘basic civil rights of man,’ ’’ Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 771 (1975). 

• ‘‘[O]ne of the ‘basic civil rights of man’ is the right to marry and procreate.’’ (citations omitted) Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Center, Inc., 473 U.S. 432, 463 

(1985). 

• ‘‘[T]he liberty . . . to direct the upbringing and education of children, . . . are 

among ‘the basic civil rights of man.’ ’’ Thornburgh v. American Coll. of Obst. 

& Gyn., 476 U.S. 747, 773 (1986) (Mr. Justice Stevens, concurring). 

• ‘‘The rights to conceive and to raise one’s children have been deemed ‘essential,’ 

. . . ‘basic civil rights of man,’ ’’ (citations omitted.) Hodgson v. Minnesota, 497 

U.S. 417, 447 (1990). 

• ‘‘[I]t cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth 

Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to make decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.’’ Troxel v. Granville, 530 

U.S. 57, 65–66 (2000). 

Recommendation 13 

It is axiomatic that in the American system of justice the parent-child relationship of each parent and child is protected as a fundamental right of 

Constitutional proportions. More so than any other category of fundamental 

rights recognized in American law, the human rights of each abducted U.S. 

citizen-child and each left-behind U.S. citizen-parent deserve protection by 

the United States. Yet, in the typical international child abduction case, 

these Constitutional rights are extinguished by abduction of the child and 

they remain extinguished unless and until the abducted U.S. citizen-child 

is returned to their left-behind U.S. citizen-parent. The United States of 

America can and should use every possible means to resolve open international child abduction cases as an urgent law enforcement priority. 

Recommendation 14 

Recognize the need for USDOJ to establish and maintain an official, central data repository and clearinghouse for data related to both at-risk and 

abducted U.S. citizen-child(ren). 

As a function of USDOJ law enforcement duties, USDOJ should establish an official, central repository and clearinghouse for data related to both at-risk and abducted U.S. citizen-child(ren), including a registry for U.S. court orders that in any 

way restrict travel by U.S. citizen-child(ren) outside the United States. 

The utility of the registry would be multi-faceted. For example, the same registry 

could serve a public notice function, and as a point of reference for any exit control 

officer or consular official to learn of U.S. court orders for passport surrender, and 

as an authoritative resource for both domestic and foreign law enforcement personnel to determine the status of any particular at-risk or abducted U.S. citizenchild. 

Once the functions of the registry are defined, its existence should be widely communicated to judges, lawyers, and U.S. federal, state, and local law enforcement 

agencies, so they are aware of the registry as a resource. 

Recommendation 15 

Recognize the need for enhanced exit controls over the departure from the 

United States of minor U.S. citizen-children in international travel. 

In the recent Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Reauthorization Act, Section 

809 required the Comptroller General to study and report to Congress ‘‘ . . . to help 

determine how the [FAA] . . . could better ensure the collaboration and cooperation 

of air carriers . . . and relevant Federal agencies to develop and enforce child safety 

controls for adults traveling internationally with children.’’ 

The Commission should make a written request to the Comptroller General as to 

the status of the study and report to Congress. If the report has been submitted 

to Congress, the Commission should issue a press release identifying the study and 

report and how members of the press and public may obtain a copy. If the report 

has not yet been submitted to Congress, the Commission should make a formal writVerDate Nov 24 2008 15:20 Feb 24, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00106 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 S:\FULL COMMITTEE\HEARING FILES\113TH CONGRESS, 2ND SESSION\2014 ISSUE TE
103 

ten request for the Comptroller General to make every possible effort to expedite 

completion of the study and submission of the report to Congress. 

Recommendation 16 

Recognize the critical role of the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission 

of the United States House of Representatives to sound the clarion call to 

all U.S. governmental agencies for: 

• Constant and unrelenting urgency in resolving the open case of each and every 

kidnapped U.S. citizen-child; 

• Dramatically enhanced and improved USDOS foreign diplomacy in open foreign 

jurisdictional cases; 

• New USDOJ law enforcement diplomacy in open U.S. jurisdictional cases; 

• New informal legal diplomacy in all open cases, both foreign and U.S. jurisdictional; and 

• Decisive, proactive implementation of new safeguards to prevent new cases of 

international abduction of U.S. citizen-children. 

Conclusion 

I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to offer my thoughts for the record of the 

Hearing on International Child Abduction before the Tom Lantos Human Rights 

Commission of the United States House of Representatives in Washington, D.C. on 

2 December 2009. I urge the Commission to act with urgency to resolve all open 

foreign and U.S. jurisdictional cases with dispatch. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Stanley Charles Thorne, Amarillo, Texas 79109 

STATEMENT SUBMITTED BY BINDU PHILIPS

Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Committee, it is my honor and 

privilege to submit this testimony for the record today and I thank you for taking 

your valuable time to hear of my plight. My name is Bindu Philips and it is my 

ardent hope that my story shall capture your attention today. 

While I have held many roles in my life, none has been more meaningful to me 

than that of motherhood. Twelve years ago, I was blessed to become a mother of 

twin boys—my precious children, Albert Philip Jacob and Alfred William Jacob. 

When my children were born my ex-husband, Sunil Jacob, and I made a joint decision that I would stay home with them and be their primary caretaker. I was an 

active and loving mother in every aspect of our children’s lives. My children came 

first in everything I did and in every decision I made. 

Tragically, my world and that of my innocent children, was violently disrupted by 

my ex-husband, Sunil Jacob in December of 2008, when he orchestrated the kidnapping of the children during a vacation to India. I would note that the children, my 

ex-husband and I are American citizens and that the children were born in America, 

which is the only nation they identified with as home. 

Sunil Jacob worked in the financial industry, and was laid off by his employer, 

Citi Group, late in 2008. My ex-husband pressed me to agree to a family vacation 

to India during the children’s winter break. My ex-husband was both physically and 

emotionally abusive to me, and I feared the consequences of refusing him. I had 

seen return plane tickets dated January 12, 2009, and I had every reason to believe 

that we would be home in a few weeks to resume our life in the United States. Had 

I known what would follow I would never have boarded that flight to India. 

On reaching India I was not only physically and emotionally abused by my exhusband but also by his parents. I was finally, very cruelly separated from my children with no means to communicate with them. 

I could not bear the separation from my children and on learning that they were 

admitted to a local school in India, I approached the Principal requesting that I be 

allowed to see my children and I was granted permission. As soon as my ex-husband 

learned about this, he transferred them to another school and gave the school strict 

orders that neither the mother nor any of the maternal relatives should be allowed 

to see or communicate with the children. 

I contacted the U.S. Consulate in Chennai, India, for assistance. Yet absent an 

order granting me custody of the children, there was little that the consulate could 

do for me. 

I would like to point out that Sunil Jacob’s plan to kidnap the children and sequester them in India out of my reach was not a decision that was quickly or lightly 

reached. Subsequent events showed how carefully he had planned his actions. 

104 

Unable to communicate with the children, I ultimately returned to the United 

States four months later on April 9, 2009. I literally came home to an empty house. 

Our residence in Plainsboro was devoid of all furniture and possessions and both 

cars were gone from the garage. While in India, my ex-husband had his 3 friends 

strip the entire house of everything inside. They took everything, leaving me with 

not even a single photograph of my children. He had not paid the mortgage on the 

Plainsboro home, nor the utilities or nor an equity line of credit which he had transferred to India, and left me with this additional financial burden. 

Heart broken and impoverished, I had to start from nothing and survived initially 

on the graciousness of good people. My neighbors allowed me to move in with them 

briefly and a local church gave me a car. Shortly thereafter, I found employment, 

secured an apartment and purchased a car of my own. 

Over the last four and a half years I continue to uncover information that shows 

how deceptive my ex-husband Sunil Jacob is. The investigation reports from 

Plainsboro Police Station show that he had planned the move to India as early as 

March of 2008. He had communicated his intentions to the principal of the children’s elementary school, without my knowledge. In November of 2008, one month 

before the trip to India, Sunil Jacob obtained an Indian visa for him and the children, known as OCI, Overseas Citizen of India that would allow him and the children to stay for an extended period of time in India, since the children are American 

citizens and without the OCI visa they can stay in India only for 6 months. Indian 

OCI visa is granted to minor children only after the approval of both parents. Sunil 

Jacob obtained this visa by fraudulent means as I have not signed on any OCI application for my children. Sunil Jacob, an American citizen, deceptively abducted my 

American citizen children and is staying in India, out of my reach and that of the 

Hague Convention, indefinitely. (Please note India does not honor dual citizenship.) 

I came to know that he has two software firms in India and recently got information 

that he is also the owner of a resort in India that was registered in 2007; that’s 

when we were still married. I also came to know that he has remarried. In 2013, 

Sunil Jacob’s family member confirmed with the Plainsboro police that the separation of the children from me was planned well in advance. 

Frustrated but determined, on May 14, 2009, I filed a petition with the Superior 

Court of NJ for custody of our children. Sunil Jacob tried to delay the matter by 

arguing that the U.S. did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, but the American 

Courts, both at the superior court and appellate levels, have held that jurisdiction 

was indeed proper in the Superior Court Family Part. My ex-husband was in contempt of the court order granting me parenting time over the children’ winter break 

although he participated in this hearing over the phone. The flight information was 

conveyed to Sunil Jacob by the U.S. consulate, my American attorney, my father 

and me. The Honorable Superior Court of New Jersey granted me residential and 

legal custody of the children. The Plainsboro police and FBI have issued arrest warrants against Sunil Jacob. Please note in 2007, while Sunil Jacob was working at 

Citi Group, he was involved in an unknown incident at his office that resulted in 

an FBI enquiry on him. 

It is significant that the Honorable Barry A. Weisberg, Judge of the Superior 

Court Family Part in New Jersey, not only granted me sole custody of the children 

and demanded their immediate return to the United States, but also held that Sunil 

Jacob must comply with a psychiatric evaluation and a risk assessment upon his 

return of the children. Clearly, Judge Weisberg, an experienced jurist in the Family 

Part, felt that Sunil Jacob’s conduct was evidently that of a man who was disturbed. 

I fear for the safety of our children and their emotional wellbeing in their father’s 

care. 

Despite having kidnapped our children, Sunil Jacob filed for custody of the children in the Indian Courts after the U.S child custody was filed. This case is currently pending at the Honorable Supreme Court of India. In addition to wrongfully 

keeping the children from me, Sunil Jacob has thwarted every effort I have made 

to even speak to our children and let them know that I love them. Beyond the kidnapping, Sunil Jacob continues to file false court cases against members of my family and me in India and is brain washing and alienating the children from their own 

mother. He believes that if his campaign of harassment becomes too much to bear, 

we will back away from the quest for me to regain custody of our children. He must 

learn that this will not happen; he must be held accountable for his reprehensible 

actions. 

On my children’s birthday in December 2013, I had birthday wishes published in 

a local Indian newspaper, since Sunil Jacob has not allowed me to communicate 

with my children even on their birthday. I also created a website (http:// 

albertalfredbindu.blogspot.com/) so that I could send my love, motherly advice and 

let my children know that I am trying my best to be reunited with them. Sunil 

105 

Jacob filed two more Indian court cases on me in December and obtained a court 

order preventing me from posting new messages on the website. He manages to get 

court orders and then drags the court case for years. The Superior Court of New 

Jersey awarded me sole legal and residential custody of the children in December 

2009 and I am not able to see or communicate or even post messages to my own 

beloved children. 

I have put everything I have into my mission to be reunited with my children. 

I have rebuilt myself financially and made a viable career path for myself. I have 

made a new home for the children to return to, as I was forced to sell the marital 

home to satisfy the debts my ex-husband created. It must be remembered that 

America is the children’s home—it is where they were born, where the children they 

lived. They must be brought home to American soil. I implore the Senate to assist 

me in righting the wrongs that have been done to the children and me by my xhusband, Sunil Jacob. 

Every day I awaken to the heart-wrenching reality that I am separated from the 

children that I love more than anything in the world. I have done everything that 

I can think to do in this nightmarish situation, and I will never give up on my children. Yet, I am here because I can no longer fight the good fight on my own. I respectfully request that you, the members of the Senate, help me to make my voice 

heard in a way that shall be meaningful and allow me to be reunited with my children who need the love and nurturing of their mother 

Please help me to end this nightmare that Sunil Jacob has created for my family. 

Please help my precious children and me—I do not want to know and cannot imagine a meaningful life without them. Please act not just for the benefit of two innocent children and their broken-hearted mother; please think of all the other children 

and parents caught in similar nightmarish situations due to hostile-minded parents 

who abduct children to overseas nations. 

I thank Senator Robert Menendez and Congressman Chris Smith for being champions for the noble cause of reuniting the children with their left behind parents. 

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for accepting my humble and fervent plea 

during your otherwise pressing schedules. I shall always be grateful for this time 

and for the opportunity to share my story and that of my children. 

REVIEW OF ACCULTURATION PSYCHOLOGY RESEARCH

Prepared by Sarah L. Lyons Doctoral Candidate in Psychology, 

University of Maryland, College Park 

Many international parental abduction cases involve bicultural children who are 

moved from the country of one parent to the country of the other. An extensive psychological literature speaks to the psychological consequences of negotiating cultural 

identities, although this research has not been applied to the issue of international 

parental abduction. 

Acculturation is widely defined as ‘‘those phenomena which result when groups 

of individuals having different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact, 

with subsequent changes in the original culture patterns of either or both groups.’’1

. In other words, acculturation is a process that one undergoes during ongoing exposure to multiple cultures, and it applies to immigrants, refugees, sojourners, and expatriates. It is also relevant for children of immigrants and bicultural individuals 

whose parents come from different cultural backgrounds.Individual modes of acculturation have been described in terms of an acculturation strategy framework.23 Individuals display preferences for: 

• How much they wish to maintain ties with their culture of origin, or heritage 

culture 

• The extent to which they want to have contact with people outside their cultural group and participate in the mainstream society of the culture of settlement, or host culture 

Preferences for these two dimensions are reflected in attitudes and behavior 

across a number of domains such as culture, customs, language, values, neighborhood community, marriage, and employment . Acculturation strategies have frequently been described in terms of four categories developed by psychologist John 

Berry:2

• Assimilation: These individuals primarily value participating in the larger host 

society and forgo contact with their culture of origin community. They identify 

with being a national of the country of settlement and may have abandoned 

their family’s cultural traditions or only speak the language of the host society. 

106 

• Separation: These individuals prioritize contact with their culture of origin community and decline to participate in mainstream society. These individuals may 

be reluctant to adopt new customs or traditions and prefer not to socialize with 

people who do not belong to their own cultural group. 

• Integration: These individuals seek to participate in the larger society while also 

maintaining cultural values, norms and customs from their culture of origin. 

These individuals are able to experience belongingness in the mainstream community while not sacrificing their heritage culture. 

• Marginalization: These individuals are not interested in maintaining their culture of origin or forming relationships with others outside the cultural community.6235 They lack a sense of belongingness to either culture and do not feel 

as if they fit in. 

Figure 1. Berry’s Acculturation Model 

Outcomes for Acculturation Strategies 

Decades of research have illuminated outcomes for each of these strategies. Across 

various studies of immigrants, integration is typically found to be the most preferred of the acculturation strategies, and marginalization the least preferred.7

These strategies are associated with a number of psychological, health and life outcomes. The outcomes of acculturation strategies are often discussed in terms of psychological (i.e., well-being, mental health) and sociocultural (i.e., ease in social situations) adaptation.89

Across the board, integration has repeatedly been associated with psychological 

well-being and is related to less acculturative stress, which is the psychological impact of adaptation to a new culture.1011 Integration is also related to positive longterm health outcomes,1210 greater psychological and sociological adaptation including school adjustment and behavior issuesix, and higher self-esteem as compared to 

the separation or marginalization strategies . 

In comparison, marginalization is linked with a number of negative outcomes. 

Marginalization has been related to alienation, psychosomatic stress and deviance, 

including delinquency, substance and familial abuse.6 Marginalization has been associated with personality characteristics such as high unsociability, neuroticism, 

anxiety, and closed-mindedness.12 The marginalized are also susceptible to the experience of anomie, which refers to a sense of instability or uncertainty that comes 

from a lack of purpose.14

The assimilation and separation strategies are more or less beneficial depending 

on the context. The separation and assimilation strategies fulfill certain 

belongingness needs that can help diminish the effects of acculturative stress; having a sense of community and a social support system in place prepares individuals 

to contend with personal hardships.15 However, each of the strategies comes with 

drawbacks as a consequence of alienation from either the host or heritage culture. 

107 

Assimilation into the mainstream culture distances the immigrant from their heritage culture, and can lead to ethnic- and self-hatred.16 Assimilation has been associated with disorders such as depression, substance abuse and anorexia, delinquency 

and family conflict.1718 However, separation has also been associated with depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder and withdrawal,19 general dissatisfaction in life, 

as well as negative life events like divorce and hospitalizations.20 The separation 

strategy keeps immigrants from feeling comfortable and competent in their new environment, and can lead to loneliness and isolation.16

Contextual Factors Surrounding Acculturation Strategies and Outcomes 

It is implied that an acculturation strategy is a matter of choice; the individual 

prefers to associate with one culture or another. In fact, immigrants’ choice of acculturation strategy is constrained by the options for socialization in their environment. The individual’s acculturation strategy in some part depends on the climate 

of the host society. For a person to endorse the separation strategy there must be 

a community of other individuals from the heritage culture; for a person to endorse 

the assimilation strategy, the host society must demonstrate willingness to incorporate immigrants as members of their society. National policies and institutional 

ideologies to some extent constrain the acculturation choice of immigrants.215 Societies that are receptive to multiculturalism encourage integration strategies; societies that subscribe to the ‘‘melting pot’’ metaphor of immigration are likely to 

produce assimilation strategies; societies where minority groups are segregated from 

the rest of society will result in the adoption of the separation strategy; finally, societies that are not welcoming to immigrants (i.e., have no immigrant communities) 

and have excluded them from participating in mainstream society will force individuals into the marginalization strategy. 

Many factors beyond acculturation strategy influence immigrants’ adjustment to 

society and level of acculturative stress. Adjustment is related to age of immigration, in that it is easier to adapt to a new environment at a younger age, although 

adolescents may struggle with identity issues.610 Cultural distance between the culture of origin and culture of settlement also plays a role; for cultures different across 

dimensions such as values, norms and religious beliefs, adjustment is more challenging. There are gender differences in adjustment patterns; females have a more 

difficult time than males due to different definitions of gender roles across cultural 

contexts. Education affects the process as well; individuals who are more highly educated have more job mobility and possess higher status, and also may be equipped 

with better tools to handle acculturative stress.610 Finally, individual characteristics 

related to personality, psychopathology and self-esteem act as protective or risk factors against acculturative stress.610 It is important to note that despite challenges 

inherent in the acculturation process, many immigrants are actually better off than 

their native-born peers with respect to outcomes such as health, education and 

criminal behavior, a phenomenon known as the immigrant paradox.16

Given that international parental child abduction is a multinational issue and 

each case is characterized by unique circumstances, the previously described outcomes for acculturating individuals are likely to depend on a number of cultural and 

individual factors. 

—————— 

Notes: 

1 Redfield, R., Linton, R., & Herskovits, M. J. (1936). Memorandum for the study 

of acculturation. American anthropologist, 38(1), 149-152. 

2 Berry, J. W. (1970). Marginality, stress and ethnic identification in an acculturated 

aboriginal community. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 1(3), 239-252. doi: 

10.1177/135910457000100303 

3Sam, D. L., & Berry, J. W. (2010). Acculturation: When individuals and groups of 

different cultural backgrounds meet. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 

472-481. doi: 10.1177/1745691610373075 

4 Bourhis, R. Y. & Barrette, G. (2006). Notes on the Immigrant Acculturation Scale 

(IAS). Working Paper, LECRI, Departement de psychologie, Universite du Quebec 

a Montreal, Canada. November 2006. 

5 Berry, J. W. (2006a). Contexts of acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. Berry (Eds.), 

The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. (pp. 27-42). New York, NY 

US: Cambridge University Press. 

6 Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 5-34. doi: 10.1080/026999497378467 

108 

7 Bourhis, R. Y., Moise, L. C., Perreault, S., & Senecal, S. (1997). Towards an interactive acculturation model: A social psychological approach. International Journal of 

Psychology, 32(6), 369-386. doi: 10.1080/002075997400629 

8Ward, C., & Kennedy, A. (1994). Acculturation strategies, psychological adjustment, and sociocultural competence during cross-cultural transitions. International 

Journal of Intercultural Relations, 18(3), 329-343. 

9 Berry, J. W., Phinney, J. S., Sam, D. L., & Vedder, P. (2006). Immigrant Youth: 

Acculturation, Identity, and Adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55(3), 303-332. doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2006.00256.x 

10 Berry, J. W. (2006c). Stress perspectives on acculturation. In D. L. Sam & J. W. 

Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. (pp. 43-57). New 

York, NY US: Cambridge University Press. 

11 Berry, J. W., & Sam, D. L. (1997). Acculturation and adaptation. Handbook of 

cross-cultural psychology, 3, 291-326. 

12Schmitz, P. G. (1994). Acculturation and adaptation processes among immigrants 

in Germany. In A.-M. Bouvy, F. J. R. van de Vijver, P. Boski & P. G. Schmitz (Eds.), 

Journeys into cross-cultural psychology. (pp. 142-157). Lisse Netherlands: Swets & 

Zeitlinger Publishers. 

13 Eyou, M. L., Adair, V., & Dixon, R. (2000). Cultural identity and psychological adjustment of adolescent Chinese immigrants in New Zealand. Journal of Adolescence, 

23(5), 531-543. doi: 10.1006/jado.2000.0341 

14Durkheim, E. (1951). Suicide. New York, NY US: Free Press. 15 Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310-357. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.98.2.310 

16 Nguyen, H. H. (2006). Acculturation in the United States. In D. L. Sam & J. W. 

Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. (pp. 311-330). 

New York, NY US: Cambridge University Press. 

17 Chun, K. M., & Akutsu, P. D. (2003). Acculturation among ethnic minority families. In K. M. Chun, P. Balls Organista & G. Marφn (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances 

in theory, measurement, and applied research. (pp. 95-119). Washington, DC US: 

American Psychological Association. 

18 Szapocznik, J., Kurtines, W. M., & Fernandez, T. (1980). Bicultural involvement 

and adjustment in Hispanic-American youths. International Journal of intercultural 

relations, 4(3), 353-365. 

19Torres-Matrullo, C. (1976). Acculturation and psychopathology among Puerto 

Rican women in mainland United States. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 

46(4), 710-719. doi: 10.1111/j.1939-0025.1976.tb00969.x 

20Salgado de Snyder, V. N. (1987). The role of ethnic loyalty among Mexican immigrant women. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 9(3), 287-298. doi: 10.1177/ 

07399863870093005 

21 Berry, J. W. (2003). Conceptual approaches to acculturation. In K. M. Chun, P. 

Balls Organista & G. Marin (Eds.), Acculturation: Advances in theory, measurement, and applied research. (pp. 17-37). Washington, DC U.S. American Psychological Association. 

22Kosic, A. (2006). Personality and individual factors in acculturation. In D. L. Sam 

& J. W. Berry (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of acculturation psychology. (pp. 

113-128). New York, NY U.S. Cambridge University Press. 

23Kosic, A., Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Mannetti, L. (2004). The Social Cognition of Immigrants’ Acculturation: Effects of the Need for Closure and the Reference Group at Entry. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86(6), 796-813. 

doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.86.6.796 

Æ