U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–505PDF 2005

A PARENT’S WORST NIGHTMARE: THE

HEARTBREAK OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD

ABDUCTIONS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JUNE 22, 2004

Serial No. 108–156

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations 

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman 

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa 

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, 

Vice Chairman 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

PETER T. KING, New York 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

AMO HOUGHTON, New York 

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado 

RON PAUL, Texas 

NICK SMITH, Michigan 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

JERRY WELLER, Illinois 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

THADDEUS G. MCCOTTER, Michigan 

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida 

TOM LANTOS, California 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

BARBARA LEE, California 

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York 

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania 

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon 

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada 

GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

DIANE E. WATSON, California 

ADAM SMITH, Washington 

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel 

ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director 

KIRSTI GARLOCK, Counsel 

MARILYN C. OWEN, Senior Staff Associate 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, 

U.S. Department of State .................................................................................... 2

The Honorable Daniel J. Bryant, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal 

Policy, U.S. Department of Justice ..................................................................... 7

John Walsh, Television Host of America’s Most Wanted and Co-Founder, 

National Center for Missing & Exploited Children ........................................... 25

Tom Sylvester, Parent of Abducted Child, Carina Sylvester ............................... 33

The Honorable Dennis DeConcini, Chairman of the Board, National Center 

for Missing & Exploited Children ....................................................................... 108

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations: Prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 2

The Honorable Maura Harty: Prepared statement ............................................... 4

The Honorable Daniel J. Bryant: Prepared statement ......................................... 9

John Walsh: Prepared statement ........................................................................... 30

Tom Sylvester: Prepared statement ....................................................................... 36

The Honorable Dennis DeConcini: Prepared statement ....................................... 109

APPENDIX 

The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Indiana: Prepared statement .......................................................................... 119

Responses from the Honorable Maura Harty to questions submitted for the 

record by the Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California ................................................................................ 120

Responses from the Honorable Maura Harty to questions submitted for the 

record by the Honorable Henry J. Hyde ............................................................ 121

Responses from Department of Justice to questions submitted for the record 

to the Honorable Daniel J. Bryant by Members of the Committee on International Relations ................................................................................................ 131

Response from Tom Sylvester to question submitted for the record by Members of the Committee on International Relations ............................................ 138

Letter submitted for the record by David L. Levy, J.D., President of the 

Children’s Rights Council, dated June 22, 2004 ................................................ 145

(1)

A PARENT’S WORST NIGHTMARE: THE 

HEARTBREAK OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD 

ABDUCTIONS 

TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 3:01 p.m. in room 2172, 

Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde, (Chairman of 

the Committee) presiding. 

Chairman HYDE. Well, I would like to apologize for the worst of 

all circumstances. We have a hearing set for 2 o’clock and they 

called for votes at 2:00, all of which were prolonged, so I apologize 

for trespassing on your time. 

I understand that Assistant Secretary Harty must leave at 3:20 

for the White House, and we sure do not want to keep them waiting, so we will proceed with both your statement and Attorney 

General Bryant’s statement before we make opening statements. 

So Assistant Secretary Harty will—first let me introduce you. Do 

we have an introduction? 

We open today’s hearing with the distinguished panel of witnesses from the Administration. First, let me welcome a frequent 

visitor to our Committee, Assistant Secretary Maura Harty of the 

State Department’s Bureau of Consular Affairs. 

Ambassador Harty has held numerous key assignments since 

joining the Foreign Service in 1981, among which was the Managing Director of the Directorate of Overseas Citizens Service, 

where she created the Office of Children’s Issues. This office, for 

the first time, focused the Department’s attention and resources on 

the tragic problems of international parental child abduction. So we 

are greatly looking forward to hearing your comments on this subject at today’s hearing, and we, of course, thank you for coming. 

Next, it is my distinct honor to introduce and welcome back our 

next witness, Dan Bryant. Not only do I know firsthand his exemplary service to the House Judiciary Committee, but I believe that 

our country is even better served with Dan in his position at Justice, where he was confirmed as Assistant Attorney General in 

2001. 

Since moving to Justice, Dan has been responsible for devising 

and implementing departmental legislative strategy, which includes counsel on congressional initiatives and coordinating congressional oversight. His many other responsibilities have included 

drafting Federal crime legislation and developing strategies in conVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:03 Mar 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\FULL\062204\94505.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
2

nection with the national crime agenda. So we are especially looking forward to hearing your views today on the problem of international child abductions, and again we welcome you, Dan. 

We will ask you to begin, Ambassador Harty, with a summary 

of your statement. Your written statement, as well as that of all 

our witnesses, will be made a part of the record. Ambassador 

Harty. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Hyde follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTER- NATIONAL RELATIONS

Today, we are gathered to talk about one of the most heartwrenching issues we 

will ever consider: international child abductions. As a parent of four children and 

four grandchildren, I cannot think of a more terrifying nightmare than one in which 

one of my children or grandchildren were abducted or killed. The sheer panic, fear, 

and sickness one must feel has to be paralyzing. I believe in a government that 

stands up for the rights of all of our citizens. Today, I ask that we remember our 

most helpless citizens: our children. 

While far too many crimes are committed against children by strangers, amazingly enough, some of the perpetrators of the worst types of crimes against children 

are parents. According to the State Department, more than 16,000 cases of international child abductions were reported in the past two decades. 

Although there are diplomatic agreements in place which serve as important tools 

in the return of abducted children, many countries have failed to take their obligations seriously in making certain that these children are sent home. It is imperative 

that our government continues to press foreign governments to take seriously their 

obligations under The Hague Convention, and that we further expose their failures 

to adhere to international obligations. 

For complicated reasons, this is not an easy task. While many countries are parties to international conventions, even more countries do not have any obligation to 

return abducted children. Still with these seemingly insurmountable obstacles, 

many have been working tirelessly to make it a top foreign policy objective to bring 

our kids home. I would like to commend the efforts of Representatives Nick 

Lampson and my colleagues on the Committee, Tom Lantos and Steve Chabot, for 

their endless work on these issues and for co-sponsoring H.R. 4347, the International Assistance to Missing and Exploited Children Act of 2004. I look forward 

to working with the Administration and look for its support of this legislation to 

gain the additional tools to identify and locate missing children. 

The purpose of today=s hearing is to raise awareness of the issue of international 

child abductions with the public, determine the level of pressure that the United 

States places upon The Hague and non-Hague countries in seeking the return of abducted children, and solicit the recommendations from experts in the field. It is my 

sincere hope that by raising these issues once again, we are able to come to workable solutions to bring our kids home—where they belong.

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MAURA HARTY, ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. HARTY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Members of the 

Committee. I do apologize for the need to leave precipitously. I am, 

however, very grateful for the opportunity to speak today about an 

issue that is very close to my heart, that of international parental 

child abduction. You have noted that the Office of Children’s Issues 

was started in 1994. I am extremely proud of what they have accomplished since then and the things that we are continuing to try 

and accomplish. 

Sir, during my tenure as Assistant Secretary of the last 20 

months, I have traveled to South Asia, Europe, Latin America, and 

repeatedly to the Middle East, to discuss consular issues with a 

special focus on international child abduction. 

3

In 2003, we effected the return of 188 abducted or wrongfully retained children to the United States from 61 Hague and non-Hague 

countries. Since November 2002, 14 abducted or wrongfully retained children have been returned from Saudi Arabia alone, that 

over and above the additional 32 non-abducted children whom we 

helped to depart from Saudi Arabia when they were otherwise impeded from doing so. 

In my written testimony, sir, I highlight some of the kinds of abduction cases we deal with to give you a sense of the compelling 

nature of the work which I know this Committee is already well 

familiar with. In fact, what I would like to assure you is that we 

never lose sight of the fact that these are real live people. These 

are not cases and numbers. This is not clinical. It is our duty, our 

responsibility, and our privilege to help real live people solve some 

of the most harrowing circumstances that they may in fact experience in their lives. 

We also work to prevent and disrupt abductions as well, and we 

maintain a child passport information alert program to let parents 

know if someone applies for a U.S. passport on behalf of their child 

without the parent’s consent. 

We do not always achieve success in our work, sir, as Mr. Tom 

Sylvester and his daughter Carina illustrate. Despite Mr. Sylvester’s and our best efforts, we still have not brought Carina home. 

His commitment to his daughter’s welfare and her right to have a 

meaningful relationship with both parents is inspirational. 

At the highest levels of the U.S. Government we made contact 

with the Austrian Government to seek Carina’s return. We have 

also contacted the European Committee on Human Rights, which 

ruled that Austria’s actions violated Mr. Sylvester’s right to a family life. It is to his credit that despite his anguish, Mr. Sylvester 

serves as a mentor and as a resource to other left-behind parents, 

and participated as such in our most recent town hall meeting with 

left-behind parents. 

I am grateful, sir, for the interest and support for children’s 

issues that we have received from the Congress, which has an abiding interest in this subject. I have never failed, sir, to receive support from an individual Member of Congress on those occasions 

when I have needed assistance. 

Since 1995, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) has played a vital role in helping the United States 

to meet our obligations under The Hague Convention by assisting 

us to perform our central authority responsibilities for children abducted to the United States from other convention countries. 

The NCMEC’s expertise in national networks make it uniquely 

effective in helping us give force to The Hague Convention in the 

United States, and to meet our obligations under the International 

Child Abduction Remedies Act, known as ICARA. NCMEC assists 

parents whose children have been abducted to the United States 

through the courts as provided under the ICARA. NCMEC’s role 

parallels closely that of the Department of State which works to assist parents to return U.S. citizen children abducted or wrongfully 

kept abroad to the United States. 

The Department’s ability to perform its statutory and treaty obligations would be seriously impaired if we could no longer count on 

4

NCMEC’s assistance. The Code of Federal Regulations, the cooperative agreement between NCMEC and the Departments of State 

and Justice, as well as clear standard operating procedures specifically articulate NCMEC’s vital role in Hague abduction cases. 

The NCMEC has expressed concern that litigation risks could 

jeopardize its ability to perform these functions. We look forward 

to working with Congress to examine these issues of concern to 

NCMEC, and to find appropriate solutions. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, we take our responsibilities for American children extremely seriously. Our responsibilities for these 

children are all the greater for their innate vulnerability and need 

for protection. I would like to assure you today that we will not rest 

until all of our children are home with their custodial parents. And 

I thank you for the chance to testify today, sir. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Harty follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MAURA HARTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, 

BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, 

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today about an issue very close 

to my heart: International Parental Child Abduction. You may know that I started 

the Office of Children’s Issues, back in 1994, when I was Managing Director for 

Overseas Citizen Services and I am extremely proud of what they have accomplished in the ten years since its creation. I have continued to take a personal interest in Children’s Issues, which is why I have traveled to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, 

Egypt, the UAE, Austria, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Australia, the Philippines, Pakistan, India, Mexico and three times to Saudi Arabia to 

discuss consular issues with a special focus on international child abduction since 

I became Assistant Secretary in November 2002. Working closely with our embassies and consulates abroad, our partners in the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), and with both state and federal law enforcement officials we have been successful in returning children from many countries back to 

their families in the United States. To help prevent abductions, we also maintain 

a Child Passport Information Alert Program to let parents know if someone applies 

for a U.S. passport on behalf of the their child without the parent’s consent. In 2003, 

we returned 188 abducted or wrongfully retained children to their American homes 

from 61 countries both within the Hague Abduction Convention community and 

from non-Hague States. Since November of 2002, 14 abducted or wrongfully retained children have been returned from Saudi Arabia 

Let me try to give you a sense for the diverse and compelling nature of some of 

these cases. In one return from South Africa, the child had been abducted by her 

mother and remained abroad for 20 months. The courts ordered the child’s return 

pursuant to the Hague Abduction Convention. With the cooperation of DHS, we 

were able to reunite the child with her father. In Turkey, we succeeded in returning 

a child who was at serious risk. Her father had hidden the child from Turkish authorities. The court was finally able to locate the child after 13 months in an air 

duct at the father’s residence. Because of the work of our embassy in Ankara, the 

court acted swiftly to remove the child from her father, who had threatened to harm 

her and had made death threats against the left behind parent and her other children. In an Irish case, two children were sent to visit their father in Ireland. He 

returned only one of them. Through the Hague process, the wrongfully retained 

child was returned to his mother in the United States in less than four months from 

the onset of the case. In Iraq, we assisted a young woman who had been wrongfully 

retained by her father there for 14 years to return to her mother in the United 

States. She was set to return just when the war in Iraq began, and finally last 

month we were able to assist her to depart Iraq. In Mexico, the destination country 

for the largest number of children abducted from the U.S., but from which only 25 

children returned in 2003, we worked with our Embassy, NCMEC and Mexican law 

enforcement and social welfare authorities to return a child to her mother. This 

story is particularly compelling, since the mother had given up hope of ever finding 

the child. A relative, sickened by the father’s treatment of the child, contacted 

NCMEC and we worked cooperatively and quickly to locate the mother and reunite 

her with her child within a month. 

5

Pursuant to the provisions of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act 

(ICARA), the President designated the Department of State as the U.S. Central Authority for the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child 

Abduction. The Department sets policy and provides direction for its partner, the 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), as it handles casework seeking the return of or access to children brought to the United States from 

Hague partner countries. When a child is abducted from the United States to a foreign country, the Office of Children’s Issues works with NCMEC and United States 

embassies and consulates abroad to assist the child and left-behind parent in a 

number of ways. 

Regardless of whether or not the Hague Abduction Convention applies to a given 

case, the Office of Children’s Issues works closely with parents whose children have 

been taken from the U.S. to a foreign country to determine the welfare of the children, provide information about the foreign legal system and work with local authorities to attempt to facilitate recovery of and access to the children. 

On average, each year caseworkers are engaged with 1100 families seeking the 

return to the United States of children abducted or wrongfully retained abroad. The 

countries with the largest number of cases include Mexico, Germany, the United 

Kingdom, Egypt, Canada, Jordan, France, Japan, India, Lebanon, Australia, Spain, 

and Pakistan. 

In their work with left-behind parents, abduction case officers in the Office of 

Children’s Issues provide informational tools parents can then use to determine 

their own best course of action according to the unique circumstances involved in 

their family’s case. We held three Town Hall meetings for left-behind parents in 

order to share information and elicit parents’ views on how we can better support 

them. Responding to a parent’s suggestion, we publish a newsletter called ‘‘For the 

Parents,’’ to provide useful information to left-behind parents. 

As the law now requires, this year’s Hague Compliance Report includes a new section on access. We use the reporting cycle to actively engage our diplomatic missions 

in raising compliance issues with their host governments, making the report a more 

useful tool in our diplomatic efforts. 

Our Victims’Assistance Specialists, part of the Bureau of Consular Affairs’ Office 

of Overseas Citizens Services, work with the Office of Children’s Issues to identify 

local, state, and federal benefits available to left-behind parents and their children. 

As a result, we have made it possible for left-behind parents to travel overseas to 

recover their children through lawful means. We have ensured that parents and 

children receive the counseling and support they need upon the child’s return. We 

believe this is a crucial service that we can provide on behalf of parents and children. 

On the multilateral level, the Department’s Office of Children’s Issues continues 

to work, in collaboration with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, with the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International 

Law on ‘‘Good Practices’’ guides that will help both new and established Central Authorities develop effective common procedures and practices when handling Hague 

abduction and access cases. The good practices guides will, we hope, foster greater 

consistency as Central Authorities handle cases and prevent some of the start-up 

problems we have seen with new parties to the Convention. Department officers regularly attend Hague Special Commission meetings to communicate U.S. concerns 

about the Convention’s operation and the U.S. maintains an active role in developing standards for Hague Abduction Convention implementation. 

Around the globe, we actively engage foreign governments on the issue of international parental child abduction and on individual cases. As I noted at the beginning of my remarks, during the past year alone, I have traveled to countries in the 

Middle East, Europe, Latin America, and South Asia on trips focused on international parental child abduction. I have also met with foreign officials in Washington from Brazil, Poland, Turkey, Syria, Austria, Germany, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Lebanon, Morocco, and other countries on numerous occasions, often to 

seek help in resolving individual cases. 

We have signed Memoranda of Understanding with Egypt and Lebanon that set 

forth shared principles of parental and consular access to children, and provide the 

basis for further communications. These MOUs explicitly state that access is no substitute for the return of an abducted or wrongfully retained child, but is crucial for 

helping a left-behind parent maintain a meaningful relationship with his or her 

child. We have initiated discussions and provided draft language for similar MOUs 

with a number of other countries in the region, including Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Pakistan, and India. 

In our view, countries that accede to the Hague Convention should be prepared 

to meet the obligations they undertake when they become parties. As countries acVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:03 Mar 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\062204\94505.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
6

cede, we review the state of their administrative and judicial infrastructure to determine whether they will be able to work effectively with us under the Convention. 

We recently accepted the accession of Uruguay, the 54th country that we will work 

with in the Hague Abduction Convention framework. 

We are grateful for the interest and support for children’s issues that we have 

received from Congress. Let me now, if I may, address some of the ways in which 

Congress, and specifically this committee, can continue to help us fulfill this important mission. 

Since 1995, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has played 

a vital role in assisting us to perform our Central Authority responsibilities for children abducted to the United States from other Convention countries. We value our 

partnership with NCMEC and are committed to continue working closely together 

to prevent and combat international parental child abduction. NCMEC’s expertise 

and national networks make NCMEC uniquely effective in helping us give force to 

the Hague Abduction Convention in the United States. 

NCMEC helps the U.S. Government meet its obligations under the Hague Abduction Convention and the ICARA. NCMEC assists parents whose children have been 

abducted to the U.S. to locate and seek their children’s return abroad through the 

courts, as provided under ICARA. Its role parallels closely that of the Department 

of State, which works with foreign governments to assist parents to obtain return 

to the United States of U.S.-citizen children abducted or wrongfully kept abroad. 

We believe it is important that other governments understand the priority the 

U.S. government—both the Administration and the Congress—places on resolving 

and preventing the tragedy of international parental child abduction. The State Department strives to persuade other countries to live up to their Hague Abduction 

Convention treaty obligations and return children abducted to their countries back 

to the child’s habitual residence in the United States, where custody issues can be 

resolved. NCMEC’s effectiveness in performing this treaty function for children abducted to the United States puts us in a very strong position to persuade foreign 

governments to do likewise and return children who have been abducted or wrongfully retained abroad. NCMEC’s expertise in locating children and its domestic network of law enforcement contacts are immensely important to the Department’s 

ability to apply the Hague Abduction Convention and ICARA effectively in the 

United States and to insist on its effective application in our partner countries. 

The Department’s ability to perform its statutory and treaty obligations would be 

seriously impaired if we could no longer count on NCMEC’s assistance. The Code 

of Federal Regulations, the Cooperative Agreement between NCMEC and the Departments of State and Justice, as well as clear standard operating procedures articulate clearly NCMEC’s vital role in Hague abduction cases. NCMEC has expressed concern that litigation risks could jeopardize its ability to perform these 

functions. The Administration looks forward to working with Congress to examine 

these issues and find appropriate solutions. 

We agree with the drafters of HR4347 that it is vitally important that U.S. and 

foreign judges understand the law of the Hague Abduction Convention and how it 

operates. In some countries, judges order the return of a child consistent with the 

Convention but lack the mechanisms to enforce their orders. In some other countries, judges either are not aware of their responsibilities under the Convention, or 

simply disregard them. 

We already dedicate significant resources to providing effective judicial training 

for U.S. and foreign judges, but believe more can be done. We regularly participate 

in judicial training programs held by organizations in the U.S. We applaud all efforts to expand and institutionalize such training opportunities. The Department, 

working in coordination with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, has also hosted groups of judges and other officials responsible for implementing the Hague Abduction Convention in their countries on visits that allow 

them to meet and talk to their counterparts about how the Convention is implemented in the U.S. We also contribute to training programs on the Hague Abduction 

Convention for U.S. and foreign judges. In October 2003, we co-sponsored an international judicial seminar with Germany that involved several European countries 

and Israel, held under the auspices of the Hague Permanent Bureau. This coming 

fall, we will co-host a judicial seminar for judges from the U.S., Mexico, and a number of Latin American countries. 

We actively promote interagency cooperation on behalf of left-behind parents and 

their children. We could not operate effectively without close coordination by the 

many agencies—state and local law enforcement, and U.S. federal agencies—who 

are also involved in these cases. We meet regularly with other federal agencies to 

discuss our mutual efforts to assist left-behind parents and prevent new abductions. 

This dialogue has helped identify new areas for cooperation and action. 

7

The Office of Children’s Issues and the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children’s International Division share information about abduction cases that come 

to their attention and provide joint training on parental child abduction to law enforcement officials both in the United States and abroad. Through participation in 

the Federal Task Force for Missing and Exploited Children and our active leadership role in the Senior Policy Group and Interagency Working Group meetings that 

focus on international parental child abduction, the Department of State promotes 

better communication and cooperative efforts between agencies that respond to 

international parental child abduction and work to prevent international abductions. 

A recent example of successful interagency cooperation is worth mentioning. By acting quickly to involve U.S. and foreign authorities in two countries, we successfully 

thwarted an abduction in progress. This effort—which began one evening and lasted 

over a tense weekend—involved the Department, the FBI, local airport law enforcement, consular officers and foreign government officials in two foreign countries. 

The effort succeeded because all involved recognized the importance of stopping an 

abduction. 

The role of consular officers in protecting children is recognized in the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which now has over 160 countries as parties. We take our responsibility for our children extremely seriously. And I take it 

personally. Our responsibilities for American citizen children are all the greater for 

their innate vulnerability and need for protection. We will not rest until all our children are home with their custodial parents. Thank you.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much. 

Assistant Attorney General Bryant. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. BRYANT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Thank you for holding this important hearing today and for 

the invitation to be with you. I will summarize the written testimony presented to the Committee. 

We commend your ongoing leadership in the area of international child abduction, but of course, if I might on a personal 

note indicate that the leadership you bring, Mr. Chairman, to this 

issue is no surprise to those who know of your work through the 

years. On a personal note, I would like to indicate my enormous 

respect and admiration for the Chairman of this Committee. I 

know of no finer, kinder, more generous Member of Congress than 

the gentleman who chairs this Committee. 

Over the years——

Chairman HYDE. Mr. Bryant, if I had known you were going to 

go off like that, I would have surely gotten here earlier. [Laughter.] 

Thank you. 

Mr. BRYANT. Your decades of public service have brought great 

credit to this institution and to the United States Government as 

a whole. 

While our review of the bill is ongoing, I can preliminarily indicate that the Department believes the bill represents a significant 

effort to improve on what is currently being done with regard to 

international child abductions. We support the goal of additional 

tools and improving old ones to help combat international child abduction. 

In recent days, the Justice Department has begun working with 

your staff on a variety of provisions in your bill and will continue 

to do so. The Department currently does much to address the problem, but we must do more. 

8

Now, the problem of international child abductions is one of 

great complexity and profound trauma. It is also an issue that 

poses very real challenges to law enforcement. The Department of 

Justice has a number of tools and services available to address the 

issue of international child abductions, and the focal point for much 

of that work is the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, known to this Committee as NCMEC. 

Ernie Allen, the President of NCMEC is here. I have pages of 

laudatory discussion of his great work and the great work of 

NCMEC, but in the interest of time I will just allow the written 

testimony to speak to that. 

At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo the comments 

of my fellow witness: The Justice Department is aware of 

NCMEC’s concerns regarding litigation risks as it performs its role 

in connection with The Hague Convention. We share the concern 

of this Committee, the State Department, and NCMEC that the 

ability to perform U.S. statutory and treaty obligations would be 

seriously impaired if we could no longer count on NCMEC’s assistance. 

The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress, 

with this Committee, to examine these issues and find appropriate 

solutions. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like just to comment on the 

difficulties of abduction cases and the difficulties that they present 

to law enforcement. Those difficulties are nowhere more apparent 

than in connection with the question of whether to file criminal 

charges. 

Given that the most important goal is the return of the child, 

criminal charges may be ill-advised, even counterproductive, especially when the child remains in a foreign country. Criminal 

charges do not necessarily provide an incentive for return of the 

child. Parents are often willing to serve prison time if they can return to the foreign country and the children they abducted, having 

completed their sentence, which is statutorily set at a maximum of 

only 3 years. 

Furthermore, foreign authorities are often reluctant to cooperate 

with U.S. authorities to resolve child abduction cases if their nationals are liable to criminal prosecution. The likelihood of an extradition request being granted depends on a variety of factors, including whether the United States has a bilateral extradition treaty with the country and whether the treaty partner can or is willing to extradite for the offense of parental kidnapping. Even so, the 

United States Department of Justice is committed to bringing appropriate prosecutions wherever we can. 

Mr. Chairman, the Department is committed to the vital goal of 

finding and protecting missing and abducted children. We are actively using a variety of tools that the Congress has provided us 

with over the years, and we look forward to working with you to 

identify additional useful tools. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bryant follows:]

9


94505bu.eps
10


94505bv.eps
11


94505bw.eps
12


94505bx.eps
13


94505by.eps
14


94505bz.eps
15


94505ca.eps
16


94505cb.eps
17

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Bryant. 

If I can ask you a question. Apparently the penalty for child abduction is just 3 years. It seems that we should increase that to 

provide a better disincentive. What is your opinion? 

Mr. BRYANT. The Chairman is correct. The maximum statutory 

sentence permitted for international parental abduction is 3 years. 

We think that in this area we have to ensure tough sentences, 

and we think it is fair for the Committee to ask the question of 

whether or not 3 years is sufficiently tough, and we would be prepared to work with you to ensure it is as the Committee moves forward. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. We are going to have one question 

for Secretary Harty, so you can make your 3:20. 

What does the National Center do for the State Department that 

makes the relationship so important? And what would State have 

to do if the center did not exist? 

Ms. HARTY. Thank you for that question, sir. I could probably go 

on longer than my allotted time, but fundamentally, sir, when the 

United States entered and became a signatory to The Hague Convention, we took a reservation to article 26 of the convention, which 

essentially would have encouraged us as a nation to help foreign 

parents when they come to this country and work through our legal 

system and pursue their cases. 

When we realized that we did not have the resources to address 

that element of The Hague Convention, we entered into, with the 

Department of Justice, an incredibly prolific and important relationship with NCMEC by using NCMEC’s extraordinary contacts, 

by using NCMEC’s extraordinary name recognition, to provide the 

kind of access to foreign parents as they come here and work incoming cases, cases where a foreign child has been brought to this 

country, provide the same kind of access that we would like to see 

American parents have overseas when they, in fact, attempt to, 

and we work with them to get their children home. 

The NCMEC is our complete partner in how we do this function, 

meeting a treaty obligation to ensure, I believe, that we are leaders, sir, in this field. If we, with NCMEC’s help, as we do together, 

ensure that foreign parents coming here to attempt to exercise 

their Hague Treaty rights, treat them as well as we do, we believe 

that the very same thing will happen overseas, and it does again 

and again and again. We are complete partners in what NCMEC 

does domestically so very, very well what we try and do overseas. 

NCMEC is extraordinarily able and well positioned to do this, since 

they not only do it for foreign children, but obviously for American 

children. They are the platform upon which we stand to fulfill a 

major treaty obligation. 

Chairman HYDE. Well, thank you very much. 

Because of the encroachment of time, we will not ask either of 

you any more questions, and I also understand that there is ongoing difficult work ahead to work the language out of this legislation, and that is all to the good, because we will have a better product. 

So rather than commit you now, we will ask you to take written 

questions——

Ms. HARTY. Yes, sir. 

18

Chairman HYDE [continuing]. Which we will submit at the appropriate time, and appreciate an answer. 

Yes. Congressman Burton from Indiana. 

Mr. BURTON. There is some very involved and far-reaching questions that may not be able to be answered in writing, and I would 

ask if Ms. Harty at some point in the future might be able to return so we can go into more detail in the questions. 

Chairman HYDE. I think she will, and not only that, she will take 

your call anytime you want. 

Mr. BURTON. Oh, I know she will. She has been very helpful. But 

I think in a public forum it would be good to get some of these 

things out, so I would like to urge the Committee, maybe, to have 

her come back at some point in the future. 

Chairman HYDE. Fine, we will try that some time when we do 

not have votes pending. 

Ms. HARTY. Happy to do it in any format you require. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. 

Ms. HARTY. Happy to. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. You are both excused with our 

thanks. 

Ms. HARTY. Thank you so much, sir. 

Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman HYDE. I will make an opening statement now before 

we introduce the next panel, and Ms. Watson, who is sitting in for 

Tom Lantos as the Ranking Democrat, will also make a statement, 

and then we will proceed with testimony from the remaining witnesses. 

Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Yes, sir. 

Mr. BURTON. I love you dearly, you know that. But Mr. Chairman, my Committee, I went to Saudi Arabia with a whole host of 

Congressmen a year before last, and I think there is a couple of 

things that I would like to say in an opening statement after Ms. 

Watson, if you do not mind. 

Chairman HYDE. Absolutely not. 

Mr. BURTON. What do you mean ‘‘absolutely not’’? You mean I 

can or I cannot? [Laughter.] 

Chairman HYDE. I mean absolutely I would not stop you. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, sir. 

Chairman HYDE. Okay. Today we are gathered to talk about one 

of the most heartwrenching issues we will ever consider: International child abductions. As a parent of four children and four 

grandchildren, I cannot think of a more terrifying nightmare than 

one in which one of my children or grandchildren were abducted 

or killed. The sheer panic, fear, and sickness one must feel has to 

be paralyzing. I believe in a government that stands up for the 

rights of all our citizens, and today, I ask that we remember our 

most helpless citizens: Our children. 

While far too many crimes are committed against children by 

strangers, amazingly enough, some of the perpetrators of the worst 

types of crimes against children are parents. According to the State 

Department, more than 16,000 cases of international child abduction were reported in the past 2 decades. 

19

Although there are diplomatic agreements in place which serve 

as important tools in the return of abducted children, many countries have failed to take their obligation seriously in making certain that these children get sent home. It is imperative that our 

Government continue to press foreign governments to take seriously their obligations under The Hague Convention, and that we 

further expose their failures to adhere to international obligations. 

For complicated reasons, this is not an easy task. While many 

countries are parties to international conventions, even more countries do not have any obligation to return abducted children. Still, 

with these seemingly insurmountable obstacles, many have been 

working tirelessly to make it a top foreign policy objective to bring 

our kids home. 

I would like to commend the effort of Representative Nick 

Lampson and my colleagues on the Committee, Tom Lantos and 

Steve Chabot, for their endless work on these issues and for cosponsoring H.R. 4347, the International Assistance to Missing & 

Exploited Children Act of 2004. I also would like to commend Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana, who has made this a cause of his 

and is very diligent in pursuing it. I look forward to working with 

the Administration, and look for its support of this legislation to 

gain the additional tools to identify and locate missing children. 

The purpose of today’s hearing is to raise awareness of the issue 

of international child abductions with the public, determine the 

level of pressure that the United States places upon The Hague 

and non-Hague countries in seeking the return of abducted children, and solicit recommendations from experts in the field. It is 

my sincere hope that by raising these issues once again, we are 

able to come to workable solutions to bring our children home, 

where they belong. 

Now I am honored to yield to Ambassador Watson who will make 

an opening statement. 

Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I make 

this statement on behalf of Congressman Lantos who has a conflict. 

He is a father of two, and a grandfather of 17, and he cannot 

begin to fathom how excruciating it is for a parent or a grandparent to have a child ripped from their lives and taken to a foreign land, sometimes never to be seen or heard from again. But for 

many parents this nightmare is an every day reality. 

Mr. Chairman, sadly, this is not a new problem. Almost 15 years 

ago he held one of the first hearings examining the magnitude of 

the crime, and what we could do about it. At that hearing, the gutwrenching horror stories of left-behind parents came into the public 

spotlight for the very first time. 

Fifteen years ago, Congress began a long and grueling battle to 

get our Government to tackle this problem. The State Department 

and law enforcement officials in the United States viewed parental 

kidnapping as a private family matter that did not require outside 

involvement, and should not be treated as a foreign policy concern. 

But since that time, the U.S. Government, prodded by Congress, 

has taken some important steps to establish an effective nationwide support system to provide law enforcement agencies and parents with the proper tools to find missing children and to press forVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:03 Mar 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062204\94505.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
20

eign governments to return them. Our hearing will show that much 

remains to be done. 

Despite our efforts thus far, over 16,000 children have been abducted to foreign countries in the last 20 years, and alarmingly, the 

State Department reports that there are still approximately 1,100 

unresolved cases of international child abduction at any given time. 

Last year we had cases unresolved for over a year and a half 

with 14 countries, including Colombia, France, Spain, and 

Zimbabwe. 

Mr. Chairman, given the terrible pain of each and every American parent in these cases, the current state of affairs is absolutely 

unacceptable. We must do more to resolve cases, and to end the 

pain of families whose dear children have disappeared. Congressman Lantos and all of us are very pleased that we have the opportunity to work with you and your colleagues, and Congressman 

Lampson of Texas, in crafting the bill H.R. 4347, the International 

Assistance to Missing & Exploited Children Act, which contains a 

number of measures to enhance international cooperation and 

boost the capacity of U.S. Government agencies to help parents 

with abducted children. 

The bill will build the capacity of our Federal agencies and their 

critical NGO partner, the National Center for Missing & Exploited 

Children, to assist parents here in the United States as they seek 

to locate and return abducted children. 

It will also enhance enforcement of the international treaty, The 

Hague Convention, which requires member countries to return abducted children, by strengthening its monitoring body, The Hague 

Conference on Private International Law. 

The legislation also recognizes that the State Department must 

do more to accelerate efforts to negotiate bilateral treaties with 

more than 100 countries which are not parties to The Hague Convention. 

It is all of our hopes that we can move this bill through the 

House in an expedited manner, and send it quickly to the Senate 

so it can be signed by the President and acted into law this year. 

Mr. Chairman, we hope that our State Department, which has 

taken a long time to overcome its aversion to raising individual 

cases forcefully, will do whatever it takes to make sure to devote 

each and every adequate resource to aid parents to press cases 

with foreign governments. 

So we look forward to learning the views of our panelists, and 

thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Ms. Watson. 

And now Mr. Dan Burton of Indiana. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought you forgot 

who I was for a minute. 

Chairman HYDE. That would be impossible. 

Mr. BURTON. Thank you. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, I took a trip to Saudi Arabia about 18 months ago 

because we had a number of women who had been held against 

their will as well as children that had been abducted. We went over 

there to try to get our Ambassador and our State Department and 

the Saudi Government to be cooperative in bringing some of these 

people home. 

21

I have to tell you that the Saudi Government has been very recalcitrant, and for those of you who do not know what recalcitrant 

mean, Mr. Chairman, it means they have been a pain in the rear 

in trying to help get these people back. 

We had a case in Terre Haute, Indiana, where a woman, Ms. 

Tonetti, was married to a Saudi. They were divorced and he went 

back to Saudi Arabia, and he came back and said he wanted to 

take the children for 2 weeks for the summer. She told the judge 

that if he took the children she would not see them ever again, and 

the judge says, well, we will not let that happen. 

So he wrote a letter to the Saudi Ambassador, Ambassador Bandar, here in Washington, DC, saying that these children were not 

to be taken out of the country. But in addition to that, he took the 

man’s passport so that the children would be safe. So the children 

were safe. They went with the father. He went directly to the 

Saudi Embassy, got a passport for himself and the children, and 

she has not seen them since. 

The Saudi Government has been complacent time and again in 

helping kidnap these children, taking them away from the rightful 

parent that has been given to them by a court of law, and our Government has had a terrible time in dealing with that. And I think 

it is extremely important that we not only pass legislation, but 

send a signal to our State Department, to Ms. Harty who is doing 

her best, and the Saudi Government that we are going to take 

whatever measures are necessary to protect American citizens, 

bring them home if they want to come home, and bring these children home who have been kidnapped against their will, and never 

to see their mother or their father again. 

It is something that we just cannot turn our back on, and the 

Saudi Government just completely shuts us off. They are supposed 

to be our friends, our business partners. They have given $4 billion 

to terrorist organizations over the last 15 years, which is not the 

purpose of this hearing, but they have been very complacent in 

keeping children there and parents and women against their will. 

I talked to one woman when I was over there with our delegation, and she said, ‘‘Please put me and my kids in a box, put us 

the belly of a plane, do anything you can, but get us out of here.’’ 

She was there by herself without her children so she could not take 

off with us right then, otherwise I would have tried to put her on 

the plane. She said, ‘‘If my husband knew that I was even talking 

to you, he would kill me.’’ That is the kind of problem that American women are facing over there. 

They are not wives, they are property. The children are not children, they are property. They are owned by the Saudi father, and 

I know that is the law and they have their religious law, but these 

are American citizens, and we have to do everything that we possibly can and apply every bit of pressure that we possibly can on 

the Saudi Government to bring these kids home. 

And if for long term it means that we have to become energy 

independent and let those Saudis pound sand, then so be it. These 

Americans are American citizens held against their will and being 

mistreated. The woman told me she has to eat on the kitchen floor 

with her kids because he has other Saudi wives. They are beaten 

on a regular basis. And if they say anything, there is a threat to 

22

life and limb, and this is not just an isolated case. I have a whole 

host of these cases. 

We seem to talk and say, oh, we are making progress, we pussyfoot around the issue, and we are doing more and more, and we 

are talking about The Hague Convention. Saudi Arabia is not even 

a signatory to The Hague Convention. 

American citizens should be protected by the American Government, and we should do whatever is necessary to bring these people home. That means imposing severe pressure on those governments that try to block us, in particular the Saudis. 

I would like to publicly thank one of our guests here today for 

working so hard on this, Mr. Walsh, who is the head of America’s 

Most Wanted. He has done yeoman’s service in trying to focus attention on this issue for the American people, and I appreciate 

what you are doing, Mr. Walsh, and I only wish that our Government would focus as much attention on it as you have. 

And so, Mr. Chairman, I will do everything I can to help you 

with legislative action to help with this problem, but we need to 

put more pressure, in particular, on the Saudis to bring American 

citizens home. 

Chairman HYDE. I thank you. 

Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding 

this hearing this afternoon. 

I first became familiar with the issue of international parental 

child abduction about 9 years ago when I met a gentleman from 

my home town of Cincinnati, Tom Sylvester, who will be testifying 

later this afternoon. His daughter, Carina, an American citizen, 

then barely a year old, was kidnapped by her mother and taken to 

Austria where she remains today. 

During the last 8 years her American father has seen his daughter only occasionally and under strict supervision. This is a case 

that really rips your heart out. Every time I think about this case, 

every time we talk about this case in the office, it is the most frustrating situation that I have been involved in since I have been in 

Congress, because this is clearly an issue of what is right and what 

is wrong. Thus far what is wrong has prevailed, and my heart goes 

out to this gentleman and his daughter. It is just inexcusable that 

this has dragged on as long as it has. 

During that period, the child’s mother has refused to comply with 

both American and Austrian court orders. She has ignored appellate decisions, and has lived in continual violation of The Hague 

Convention. All the while the Austrian Government has arrogantly 

failed to enforce The Hague Convention return order. 

This is a man who spent literally his life, for the last 9 years, 

trying to get his daughter back. He spent tens of thousand of dollars, and many sleepless nights. He is somebody who has done 

what you are supposed to do. He has followed the rules. He has 

lived within the law, has not taken the law into his own hands and 

done anything illegal, although I am sure it has probably been 

tempting at times when you look at the way the justice system has 

treated him internationally, but he has always followed the rules. 

He won all the way up to the Supreme Court of Austria. This 

case has been discussed at the highest levels in both the United 

23

States and the Austrian Government. Tom Sylvester and I have 

met with both Secretary Albright down at the State Department, 

and with Secretary Colin Powell. We brought this case, and they 

brought the case to their counterparts in the Austrian Foreign Minister and all the way up to the Austrian Chancellor. Attorney General Ashcroft has addressed the issue in Vienna. Ambassador 

Harty, who was here earlier and unfortunately had to leave, I 

know has had numerous contacts with Austrian Government officials. I have traveled all the way to The Hague and met with the 

Austrian Central Authority about this case specifically, and the 

overall issue of international child abduction. The President of the 

United States himself, I am told, has expressed his strong sentiments to the Austrian Ambassador. Yet here we are. 

Carina Sylvester remains in Austria, and Tom Sylvester lives 

each day without his daughter. Frankly, our efforts, however sincere, have failed Tom and Carina Sylvester. And I think it is time 

for our Government to reassess how it does business with some of 

these offending countries like Austria. I would like to be able to 

come back here next year and see the fruits of a bolder diplomatic 

and judicial approach to this heartbreaking issue. 

I want to thank Tom Sylvester personally for not giving up and 

continuing to fight for what is a civil right, and that is the right 

of this father and his daughter to be together. And I want to thank 

the officials that have been involved in this because I know people 

within the State Department and the other departments within the 

Government, the Justice Department, many have worked hard. 

I do not think we have done everything we could do at every 

point in time. You know, I want to be open about this. But for the 

most part I think many are very sincere, but this is a case where 

justice has not prevailed, and I believe, I am optimist, I think ultimately it will. Nine years is far too long, and I hope next year that 

Tom has an opportunity to be with his daughter. 

Yield back the rest of my time, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chabot. 

It is apparent that affairs of state trump individual human 

rights on occasion, and that is a serious problem in the realm of 

justice, so we are going to pursue these some more, not that we 

have the magic formula, but we can be a grand irritant and will 

exercise that leverage. 

Mr. Chandler. 

Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I will 

be very brief. 

Everyone who has spoken so far has been very eloquent on this 

subject. This is clearly a tragic problem, a problem that our Government must do its utmost to deal with. Obviously, we have difficulties with international law that have to be dealt with, but 

being an irritant, I think, is a very good approach, a very, very big 

irritant is what we need to be. 

Very briefly I want to say hello to Mr. Walsh. He was kind 

enough, when I served as Attorney General of Kentucky, to come 

to our State and spread this message, a message of victims’ rights, 

a message of what happens to innocent people in cases like this 

throughout our country, and it is a message that more of us need 

to hear and see and be aware of. 

24

I have three children. They are 10, 9, and our youngest, Mr. 

Walsh, is 6 years old. He is a boy, same age as your Adam was 

when you lost him. I cannot imagine, cannot imagine the pain that 

so many families in this country have to go through, and I want 

you to know, I want all the people here to know, everybody on this 

Committee to know, that I am committed in every way that I possibly can be to contributing a great deal of irritation for these people who are not doing what they ought to do. 

Thank you, sir. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. 

Mr. Flake? No statement. I have a memo for you, however. 

Mr. McCotter. 

Mr. MCCOTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chair, but there is really nothing I can add that would speak more eloquently or more urgently 

than the victims suffering. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Mr. Chris Smith. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

First of all, I want to thank you for introducing H.R. 4347, the 

International Assistance to Missing & Exploited Children Act of 

2004. It is a very much needed piece of legislation, and I commend 

you for your leadership on that. 

Mr. Chairman, as you probably know, one complex child custody 

case which has made a significant number of headlines lately has 

been the abduction of two New Jersey citizens by the President of 

Uzbekistan’s daughter, Ms. Gulnora Karimova. 

Mr. Masqudi, who is her husband as well as a New Jersey resident and an American citizen, has been trying without success to 

visit with his two children, his son, Islam, and his daughter, Iman, 

for several years. It needs to be pointed out that a New Jersey 

court awarded custody of the two children to their father, and has 

fined Ms. Karimova for violating the court order and issued a warrant for her arrest. 

In retaliation, she has used her family connections to have 

Uzbekistan issue an Interpol red notice throughout many of the 

countries in which Interpol operates to have Mr. Maqsudi arrested 

when he travels overseas. 

Mr. Maqsudi has told me on many occasions that he desperately 

wishes to see his children in Uzbekistan, but if he went back there 

he would undoubtedly be arrested and quite possibly tortured by 

the repressive Karimov regime. 

He even offered to meet her in a neutral country, or a setting 

that would guarantee that neither of them would be arrested. I 

know the State Department has tried to work on this, I think they 

can do more. I have raised it as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission on a number of occasions, and have gotten nowhere. 

So I just want to raise this issue again today, Mr. Chairman, because it underscores that obviously there are many people, husbands and wives, who love their children just as much as Mr. 

Maqsudi. They would love to see their children, but because of an 

abduction have been precluded that opportunity. 

So again, your bill, I think, is a very, very important step. I 

would especially like to say how great it is to see Dennis DeConcini, a good friend and a very fine Senator, who headed the HelVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:03 Mar 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062204\94505.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
25

sinki Commission for a number of years. I served under him, and 

greatly cherish those times together during the worst days of the 

Soviet Union. He did a marvelous job, and Dennis, nice to see you 

again. 

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Smith. 

Our second panel today is led by John Walsh, host of America’s 

Most Wanted and America Fights Back. It was over 20 years ago 

that our Nation learned about the sad details of 6-year-old Adam 

Walsh’s life ending. Since that tragedy, Mr. Walsh has championed 

his son’s life and has worked tirelessly in assisting and recovering 

missing children, and bringing perpetrators to justice. I am convinced that many other children have been saved due to the diligent efforts of people like yourself, Mr. Walsh, and we surely look 

forward to hearing your statement. 

Among the thousands of other parents who have spent years of 

sleepless nights in the effort to have their children returned home, 

we also have Mr. Tom Sylvester here with us today. He has been 

a victim of a heartbreaking case of international child abduction of 

his daughter Carina. She is living and growing up in Austria, and 

only knows her father as a visitor who is limited to seeing her for 

a few days several times a year. 

Mr. Sylvester’s former wife lives permanently overseas and has 

been completely successful in derailing the courts’ and his efforts 

at claiming his rights as a father. We look forward to hearing your 

story, Mr. Sylvester. 

And finally, our panel will conclude with our good friend, retired 

Senator Dennis DeConcini, whose life’s work has moved in new directions. After his retirement from the Senate, he chose to continue 

public service by joining the Board of Directors of the National 

Center for Missing & Exploited Children, where he is now Chairman of the Board. 

In addition, Senator DeConcini serves as a member of the board 

of the new International Center for Missing & Exploited Children. 

It cannot go without mention that the National Center for Missing 

& Exploited Children is the world’s leader in returning missing 

children to their parents, and we look forward to hearing Senator 

DeConcini’s thoughts on this growing crisis. 

I also want to mention that we have been joined by Mr. Erie 

Allen, President of the National Center for Missing & Exploited 

Children, who will be available for any questions that someone 

might choose to ask. 

So we ask you begin the panel with your statement, Mr. Walsh. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN WALSH, TELEVISION HOST OF ‘‘AMERICA’S MOST WANTED’’ AND CO–FOUNDER, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN 

Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Chairman Hyde. I would like to thank 

Congressman Chandler for his kind comments; Congressman 

McCotter for being here; Congressman Flake, I have worked with 

before; Mr. Chabot for your leadership and all your help for Tom 

Sylvester, you are a ray of hope for Tom, and that is greatly appreciated; Congressman Lantos who is not here; and Congresswoman 

Watson, thank you for taking the time here today. 

26

The people I have mentioned, I feel that they have their priorities in order, that they are here and listening to us because they 

care about America’s silent citizens, our children. These are American kids we are talking about today, American citizens. 

I have worked with Dan Burton on this issue before. He has been 

a loud voice. He put his money where his mouth is. He went to 

Saudi Arabia and tried to help these people, and ran into a brick 

wall, and I feel exactly the same way you do. I have had many, 

many dealings in Saudi Arabia looking for terrorists there. I have 

had many, many opportunities to try to convince the Saudis to do 

something as it relates to these non-custodial parental abductions, 

and it is a brick wall, and it really is time. 

If they are our business partners, if they are our partners in 

fighting terrorism and trying to put down the horrible butchers 

who cut off the heads of innocent citizens, al-Qaeda, then they 

ought to step up to the plate and prove to us that they are our 

partners, absolutely, and that is what this legislation is about 

today. H.R. 4347 is so important. 

Everybody here, almost every member of this panel has had an 

experience with a constituent who has had a non-custodial parental 

abduction. Mr. Smith mentioned it. I think every Congressman I 

have run up to has said, I have a member of my constituency who 

cannot get their kid back from a foreign country. 

You also know firsthand from Congressman Lampson, who is a 

great friend of ours too and Chairman of the Missing & Exploited 

Children’s Caucus, and has worked with Congressman Burton on 

this. Most of the legislation up to now, and most of what has been 

done has been lip service, that is all it is, lip service. 

You know, I appreciate what Maura Harty does, but she is a onewoman band, she really is. She goes to these countries by herself, 

and Secretary Powell is the first member of the State Department 

that has really listened to us. 

I have been working with Congressman Hyde for 20 years. He 

was the original sponsor of the Missing Children’s Bill back in 

1982, dragging the FBI into the search for missing children. He 

was there when we got the Missing Children Assistance Bill passed 

in 1984, when late President Reagan had us speak in the East 

Room of the White House. I will never forget that. That was the 

creation of the National Center that Ernie heads. 

We have had great success in every area except international abductions. We have run up against brick wall after brick wall. We 

cannot seem to make any headway. We finally have a Secretary of 

State that will listen to us. We have a woman that works for him 

that actually gets on a plane and goes and tries to bring these people back. 

But you know what? You are the court of last resort. We are here 

today, Tom is here because he has done every damn thing he could. 

He has talked to every cop. He has talked to every judge. He has 

talked to every FBI agent. He has talked to every prosecutor. He 

has talked to U.S. attorneys. He has gone everywhere and got 

nothing. 

He has got all the paperwork, just like you said, Mr. Chabot. He 

has got mounds of paperwork, and huge amounts of bills. And you 

know what? His daughter has been in Austria for 8 years. 

27

Is Austria not a partner of ours? Did they not sign onto The 

Hague Treaty? Are they not in this war on terrorism and afraid 

that they are going to be the next 9/11 like every other country in 

Europe? So why can they not comply to our laws? 

Because you know what the Austrian Government says? That 

you are full of B.S.; that all the laws you passed here do not mean 

anything; that you are a paper tiger. Absolutely, that is what I 

hear when I go to these countries and try to get these kids back. 

The United States Congress is a paper tiger. There is no guts behind that legislation. 

I want to tell you what this legislation would do. It would do 

three very important things. It will provide the tools to quickly resolve domestic parental abductions, tools like Federal court jurisdiction to resolve disputes between conflicting custody orders; enhance capability for the National Center for Missing & Exploited 

Children to search databases to track down abductors quickly. 

Most of these people get on the planes and are gone for months before anybody really starts to look at the case. 

It will give the National Center the ability to better prevent 

these incidents from occurring by giving authorities the ability to 

detain at the border. Why can we not stop these people at the border? They know the person left behind. You mentioned a couple 

cases where that parent got visitation. The Saudi Ambassador was 

even notified, was he not? The Saudi Embassy was notified here. 

Do not let these people go out of the country. 

How much damn notice do you have to give them? How much notice do you have to give them? They can go get a passport and buy 

an airplane ticket, and that left-behind wife or husband knows they 

are going to the airport. If we cannot stop them at the border, then 

why do we have anybody at the border? 

We need to create a national registry of child custody orders. 

There would be some uniformity. I said this about the NCIC in 

1981. The FBI had a damn computer that stored information on 

stolen boats, planes and cars, and stolen guns, but we do not have 

a national registry on child custody orders. So this is a nightmare 

and everybody falls through the cracks. 

My God, we put a man on the moon, did we not? I keep saying 

to these Committees we have spent billions of dollars to put that 

stupid little module on Mars, and send us back those pictures, and 

we do not have a national registry. I do not give a damn about 

what the other side of Mars looks like. 

Ask Tom Sylvester what it looks like when he does not see his 

daughter for her birthdays, and she has been gone for 8 years. Do 

you think he gives a damn about what is on the other side of Mars? 

I do not think so. 

It will also enhance the international system for addressing this 

problem; strengthening the mechanisms in place at The Hague; 

reaching out to parts of the world that are not a part of The Hague 

Convention; and thorough aggressive judicial training. 

You know what The Hague is asking with this legislation? How 

much this legislation appropriates to The Hague to do this judicial 

training and try to bring some of these countries in order? Take a 

guess—$150,000. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars is all The 

Hague and we are asking in this legislation. 

28

I mean, God, look at the pieces of legislation you pass every day. 

One hundred and fifty thousand dollars is tip money. It is nothing 

to get The Hague in line here. 

I have a basic belief, because most of you know me as a 

manhunter but I also hunt for missing children. Those who break 

the law should pay the consequences. Too often, however, that does 

not happen in cases of non-custodial family abduction. Too often 

family abduction cases do not receive the attention or priority they 

deserve. This bill will change that. 

I mentioned that Maura Harty has worked long and hard, but 

she is a one-woman show. She is a one-woman SWAT team that 

gets on these planes and looks for these kids. 

And I mentioned Secretary Powell. He would love to have the 

ability to do what he wants to do. We have met with him numerous, numerous times. He is a loud, loud advocate for children and 

very involved with the National Center. He cut the ribbon at the 

dedication of our building. He works closely with the boys and girls 

clubs. He says, give me the wherewithal, give me the horses, give 

me the ability and I will go do it. I will make it a priority. I will 

make it a priority. 

I want you to take a look at this video if you would, please. Congressman Burton is involved in one of these cases. He is involved 

in lots of these cases. I just want you to take a look at the pain 

of these mothers and what they went through, and do not forget, 

their children are American citizens. 

[Video tape played.] 

[Technical difficulty.] 

Mr. WALSH. You know what, in the interest of time let me just 

read a couple facts that I have gleaned out of articles that we prepared for today. 

Although the United States and more than 70 other countries 

signed The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, 

many of world’s largest nations refuse to do so, including India, 

Russia, most Islamic countries in the Middle East, China, and 

much of Africa. Each year at least 400 American children are taken 

illegally to such countries, according to State Department records. 

Four hundred American kids every year are taken out of this country. 

I will tell you what, if it were 400 anchormen like Dan Rather, 

400 athletes that went to other countries and did not come back, 

or 400 Members of Congress, it would be a damn big deal, would 

it not? It is just 400 kids, that is all, 400 kids every year. 

In the year 2000 alone, U.S. taxpayers paid hundreds of millions 

of dollars of grants, loans, and aid to many nations that refuse to 

return kidnapped American children, according to this News Day

article. Among nations refusing to sign The Hague Treaty, the top 

five aid recipients received $476 million from the United States despite at least 293 cases of abducted children taken to these countries. One of the United States’ major allies in the Middle East, 

Egypt, gets $2 billion each year in military and economic aid without any requirements to return dozens of children who have been 

taken there. 

29

Egypt, where The Hague Convention does not apply, only returned 121 children out of 959 cases; a rate of 12 percent according 

to Government records of cases handled during a 3-year period. 

For our great friend Egypt, you signed those pieces of legislation that give them that $2 billion, but yet they laugh in your faces and 

at the legislation. I was here and worked really, really hard for the 

parental kidnapping bill that was passed in 1993. Here is what the 

FBI says about that bill: The FBI officials in charge of investigating these cases say they are often hamstrung by lack of international cooperation, even when alleged abductors are indicted by 

U.S. courts and when children’s whereabouts are known. So the 

FBI and everybody that Tom Sylvester has run into says the same 

thing. Where is the guts of this legislation that passed in 1993? 

Where is our message to our partners in the world that we lend 

and give and give and give with no strings attached, billions and 

billions of dollars? 

I was here once before when we bailed out Mexico with the 

NAFTA treaty. The peso was falling apart. I was down in Mexico 

doing shows, drug dealers and cartels everywhere, and we were 

going to lend them billions of dollars. 

And I went to President Clinton myself and then Attorney General Janet Reno, and I said we need one thing. If we are going to 

bail Mexico out, let us make them sign an extradition treaty of fugitives, murders, criminals and get our kids back from Mexico. 

Right? Did not happen. What a perfect time for us to say we are 

going to save your entire country, we are going to lend you billions 

of dollars and shore up your economy, but you know what, since 

that meeting with President Clinton we now have on record over 

3,000 murders and fugitives down there and we do not know how 

many kids. 

I say it is a perfect example. When somebody comes begging to 

us or they want the money, it is so simple for this Committee, for 

this Congress and for the Senate across the hall over there, to say: 

We are your partners, sign The Hague Treaty, we will do business 

with you, we will lend you money, we will support you, we will battle terrorism with you, but you know what, these kids are American citizens. They need to come home. We need to end this rhetoric. 

I could go on forever, but I want to thank Senator DeConcini for 

being here. He is on our board. He is a very loud voice. And you 

know what, I hope that I get to see this Committee in the Rose 

Garden, that is your intention with this piece of legislation. There 

are not billions of dollars attached to this, this is a simple piece of 

legislation with 150 grand attached to it, that is nothing. I hope to 

see you there. 

Because you know what, then I can look at this man, Tom Sylvester. I mean, I searched for my son and could not get him back. 

Those 2 weeks were the worst weeks of my life. I cannot imagine 

what he has been doing for 8 years wondering what his daughter 

is doing, missing those birthdays, missing Christmas, wondering 

what kind of care she is getting from the psycho mother who abducted her. 

A missing non-custodial parental-abducted child can be in great 

trouble. I have done many cases on America’s Most Wanted where 

30

the non-custodial parent killed the children to get even. It is not 

an act of love. It is an act of revenge. I did a guy that was living 

out of dumpsters. I did a guy that we caught in France who had 

never taken his child to school or for dental care. It is not an act 

of love. It is an act of revenge. It is a way to get even with your 

ex-spouse when you did not get custody. 

So you know what, there are so many advocates here on this 

Committee, I really think you are going to do it this time. You are 

going to pull the trigger. You are going to pull the plug and you 

are going to get this legislation passed. And believe me, I think we 

can saddle up and get it passed on the Senate side, and I want to 

be in that Rose Garden because you know what, I can turn around 

and say to this guy, Tom Sylvester, you have listened to nothing 

but B.S. for 8 years. You have listened to nothing but lip service. 

Your heart is broken, and you know what, Tom, we are here today 

in the Rose Garden because you never gave up, and because you 

listened to us. You listened to this panel and you listened to him, 

and maybe that day he will get his daughter back instead of all the 

lip service he has listened to. 

Thank you for your attention, and thank you for the Members 

who are sitting here today listening to this. God bless you. Thank 

you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Walsh follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN WALSH, TELEVISION HOST OF ‘‘AMERICA’S MOST

WANTED’’ AND CO–FOUNDER, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN

I am very pleased to be here to talk about H.R. 4347 and why it is critical to the 

situation regarding family abductions that we face in America today. As you know, 

I have an abiding interest in making sure that those who break the law pay the 

consequences. Too often, however, cases of family abduction are not given the attention they deserve. Thank you, Chairman Hyde and Congressman Lantos, for holding 

this hearing. It’s because of your leadership and determination to move this legislation that we’re going to see some action on international and domestic family abductions soon. I also want to recognize Congressman Lampson who introduced the bill 

with Chairman Hyde and has been pushing to bring internationally abducted children home for years. He has worked tirelessly for the past 3 Congresses introducing 

the Bring Our Children Home Act that has been included in this bill. 

When children are abducted by family members, the abductors are not only breaking the law, they are breaking a child’s bonds with left-behind family members and, 

possible more critically, a child’s spirit. In many cases, the results are much worse—

children taken by despondent or angry parents have been killed because of the 

anger and hurt between the parents. Murder-suicide cases are not uncommon. In 

1995, after the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children entered into a 

cooperative agreement with the Departments of State and Justice on the handling 

of international cases, the Center received a request for the return of two children 

to Canada. The children had been with their father who was supposed to return 

them in the evening. When they didn’t return, the mother called police and expressed her belief that they might be heading across the border to the U.S. It wasn’t 

long, however, before police in Canada discovered that the father had driven the two 

children to a rented storage locker and ran a hose from the tailpipe through the 

driver’s side window killing himself, his daughter and his son by carbon monoxide 

poisoning. 

Even when children are not physically harmed, they can suffer severe psychological effects as a result of being abducted. The children often exhibit a fear of authority, inability to bond, they wet the bed and experience nightmares. This isn’t 

surprising considering the lengths that the abductors will go to in order to succeed 

in keeping the child away from the other parent and family. Abductors tell children 

that the left-behind parent is dead, a drug addict or that they didn’t want the children anymore. They change the child’s name and force them to keep secrets, deny 

their past and avoid the police. In some cases, a child is forced to pretend that he 

31

or she is a son instead of a daughter to make sure they aren’t caught. When the 

abductor does fear that they are on the brink of getting caught, they snatch the 

child from school, from the new friends they’ve made, from any sense of normalcy 

they may have achieved, and run again. When the children are taken internationally, they are not only ripped away from one parent, but they are dropped into a 

foreign land with a foreign language and customs, all of which forces them into even 

greater physical, psychological and emotional reliance on the parent who kidnapped 

them. 

When people come to the U.S., we expect them to abide by our laws. In too many 

instances, people come to the U.S., don’t abide by our laws, and take their children 

back to their countries of origin. Let me show you a short video that illustrates the 

problem. [Show Video.] 

The situations experienced by the parents on that show are repeated across the 

country. The agony that the parents feel having their children taken suddenly and 

being kept out of reach is palpable and real. Parental kidnapping is a crime in the 

United States and it’s a federal felony to take the child across state lines or across 

international borders. I worked to have that law passed. Even so, parents whose 

children are parentally kidnapped feel that the system failed them, that the courts 

failed them and they are frustrated when the U.S. government, with all its power 

and influence, doesn’t bring their children back from foreign countries. 

The bill before you today is focused on preventing parents from illegally removing 

their children from the United States and, if it does happen, creating a system that 

works to bring them home. 

The bill will help prevent international child abductions in a number of ways. It 

authorizes law enforcement to take a child into protective custody to prevent them 

from being abducted out of the U.S. and creates a national registry of custody orders 

so law enforcement and the courts know which parent is the lawful custodian. The 

bill also authorizes the use of supervised visitation centers in cases in which abduction is threatened. In all of the cases I profiled on my show, the children were internationally abducted during a visitation period—one mother had actually asked the 

court to order supervised visitation because of her ex-husband’s threats of abduction 

but was refused. Her children remain in Saudi Arabia today. 

When abductions are not prevented, we must do more to resolve them quickly—

each day that goes by further harms the child and further alienates them from the 

left-behind parent. The bill contains a provision to encourage and support states to 

enact the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, a piece of uniform legislation that is specifically designed to streamline the resolution of stateto-state abductions. 

In addition, the bill will provide the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children with access to information from the Internal Revenue Service that can 

help locate thousands of child-victims of family abduction. The sooner these kids can 

be located, the sooner the disputes can be resolved for the benefit of the children 

involved. Judges, lawyers, law enforcement and other professionals need to understand the legal tools that exist to combat family abduction, they need to understand 

the tremendous risks suffered by children who are abducted by a family member 

and they need to understand the unbearable pain experienced by the left-behind 

parent. This bill provides for critically-needed training so that parents can start to 

experience the legal system helping them. 

Another critical element of the bill is the sense of Congress that funding to the 

Hague Conference on Private International Law should be increased. The U.S. is a 

member of this entity, along with dozens of other countries that are trying to improve their responses to international family abduction. The Hague Conference 

needs additional resources to continue to monitor how countries are doing and provide them with services to help return children quickly and legally. 

So many of the parents I’ve spoken to about family abduction have lost faith in 

the system and in the international cases in particular, they feel abandoned by their 

government. We’ve got to change that, we’ve got to build a better system so kids 

are not stolen by one parent and hidden away from the left-behind parent. It’s hard 

enough to solve these cases when everyone stays in the U.S., but resolving them 

is much more complex when the child is taken to a foreign country. This bill will 

help us provide better ways to stop family abductions from occurring and provides 

us with better tools for getting the kids who are stolen, back to their homes.

32


94505cl.eps
33

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. 

Mr. Sylvester. 

STATEMENT OF TOM SYLVESTER, PARENT OF ABDUCTED 

CHILD, CARINA SYLVESTER 

Mr. SYLVESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify today, and I would also like to especially express my heartfelt 

gratitude to Congressman Chabot for his unwavering support for 

all these years in my case. 

I am Tom Sylvester, father of Carina Sylvester, my Americanborn daughter and only child who was taken by her Austrian mother from the United States to Austria on October 30, 1995. That was 

her last day on American soil. She was then just 13 months old. 

She is now 9 years old, and remains in Austria. 

In the intervening 8 years I have worked unceasingly to be a 

substantial part of Carina’s life, but without success. From the moment I came home from work to discover my baby daughter gone, 

my life has never been the same. I took immediate action. My initial calls were to the police and a lawyer. Through my lawyer I 

learned of The Hague Convention and its civil remedy for the return of a parentally-abducted child. 

Being a law abiding citizen, I chose the legal system to bring my 

daughter home. The Austrian trial court, which heard my Hague 


94505cm.eps
34

Convention case, issued a prompt and favorable order that Carina 

be returned to her home in the United States, and this decision 

was affirmed by the Austrian Supreme Court. 

However, the abductor refused to comply with the court order 

and the Austrian legal system provided no effective mechanism, 

such as contempt of court, to compel her compliance. The one and 

only attempt at enforcement failed. In the end it was merely a 

knock on the door and a request for compliance. 

Time passed. The delay itself created a fatal change in circumstances; namely, that my daughter was settled in the local environment now, and that it would be too traumatic to send her 

back to the United States. The Austrian court decided not to enforce their own valid and final order. 

The situation is best described with circular logic. The child was 

not returned because the order was not enforced. Now the order 

will not be enforced because the child was not returned. The system failed us completely. 

Once The Hague Convention proceedings were completed, I obtained an arrest warrant under the International Parental Kidnapping Act with help from the FBI. In an ironic twist, the existence 

of the warrant is regularly raised against me by the Austrian Government officials and the Austrian court as an obstacle for Carina’s 

return to the United States even for a visit. 

A U.S. court gave me custody of Carina. The Austrian courts refused to acknowledge that order, and instead awarded the abductor 

custody and required me to pay child support retroactive to the 

date of the abduction. 

I remain prohibited by the Austrian courts from seeing Carina 

outside of Austria. I make voluntary payments to the abductor for 

Carina’s benefit. And I am one of the lucky ones. I am allowed to 

spend a few days several times a year with Carina, but always 

under the supervision of the abductor. 

My daughter does not speak English. She is being raised without 

any parenting by her American father who loves her, and without 

any knowledge of her extended family in the United States who 

also love and miss her very much. 

There has been considerable diplomatic intervention in my case 

but without effective follow-up action and results, despite the efforts of Ambassador Harty, prior Ambassadors to Austria, Secretaries of State Albright and Powell, and even the President of the 

United States. No one yet has been able to make a difference. 

As to Carina’s ability even to visit the United States, no matter 

what safeguards we agree to and whatever form demanded, diplomacy has failed. In the end, unless the abductor agrees to allow 

Carina to return to the United States or allow me unsupervised access in Austria, it cannot happen. She remains in complete control, 

and no Austrian authority will contest her wishes. 

My last recourse was the European Court of Human Rights know 

as the ECHR. It is an independent international tribunal which 

sits in Strasbourg, France. Complaints I have filed there in the late 

1990s against Austria on behalf of my daughter and myself were 

determined by the court last year to be meritorious. 

In April 2003, the ECHR entered its decision finding that Austria had violated our human right to respect for family life by failVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:03 Mar 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062204\94505.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
35

ing to take all reasonable measures to enforce the order entered 

under The Hague Convention for Carina’s return to the United 

States. A modest money judgment was awarded to me for Austria’s 

human rights violation. However, there has been no change in access to my daughter as a result of that decision. 

As you can see from my situation, an international parental child 

abduction is multi-faceted. Although it may begin with the abduction, it really does not end until the child is safely returned home. 

My attempts to maintain a life with my daughter began in 1995, 

and I will continue until she has returned home. In the process, I 

have spent nearly a half a million dollars for Austrian and American attorney fees, travel costs, payments to the abductor and related expenses. 

Any legislation enacted that can help similarly situated parents, 

both American and foreign national, to promptly recover their abducted children has my support. However, there are many American parents like me who seek assistance in areas of concern relative to other matters that have not yet been addressed to date. 

I want to thank the House Committee on International Relations 

for holding a hearing on this very important subject, and for listening to my story. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sylvester follows:]

36


94505a.eps
37


94505b.eps
38


94505c.eps
39


94505d.eps
40


94505e.eps
41


94505f.eps
42


94505g.eps
43


94505h.eps
44


94505i.eps
45


94505j.eps
46


94505k.eps
47


94505l.eps
48


94505m.eps
49


94505n.eps
50


94505o.eps
51


94505p.eps
52


94505q.eps
53


94505r.eps
54


94505s.eps
55


94505t.eps
56


94505u.eps
57


94505v.eps
58


94505w.eps
59


94505x.eps
60


94505y.eps
61


94505z.eps
62


94505aa.eps
63


94505ab.eps
64


94505ac.eps
65


94505ad.eps
66


94505ae.eps
67


94505af.eps
68


94505ag.eps
69


94505ah.eps
70


94505ai.eps
71


94505aj.eps
72


94505ak.eps
73


94505al.eps
74


94505am.eps
75


94505an.eps
76


94505ao.eps
77


94505ap.eps
78


94505aq.eps
79


94505ar.eps
80


94505as.eps
81


94505at.eps
82


94505au.eps
83


94505av.eps
84


94505aw.eps
85


94505ax.eps
86


94505ay.eps
87


94505az.eps
88


94505ba.eps
89


94505bb.eps
90


94505bc.eps
91


94505bd.eps
92


94505be.eps
93


94505bf.eps
94


94505bg.eps
95


94505bh.eps
96


94505bi.eps
97


94505bj.eps
98


94505bk.eps
99


94505bl.eps
100


94505bm.eps
101


94505bn.eps
102


94505bo.eps
103


94505bp.eps
104


94505bq.eps
105


94505br.eps
106


94505bs.eps
107


94505bt.eps
108

Chairman HYDE. Thank you. 

Senator DeConcini. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS DECONCINI, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN 

Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and Members, thank you for this hearing today. Thank you for listening to 

concerns of Mr. Sylvester. And nobody expresses those concerns 

more vociferously and clearly than John Walsh. And Mr. Allen, to 

my left, the President of the National Center, and I, as Chairman 

of the Center, are pleased to be here. We are here as kind of the 

hands-on part of what happens under The Hague Treaty. 

I have learned just how serious this is, having served on the 

board of both the International Center and the National Center, 

and as Chairman today. We are committed to doing what we can 

through the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children to 

prevent family abductions from occurring and to fight for the swift 

resolution when they do occur. 

We are working on the international level through the separate 

and nonprofit International Center for Missing & Exploited Children to get all countries to step up their efforts to resolve these 

issues in a consistent, reliable, and swift fashion. 

We need to do more, and I thank you for the efforts that you are 

putting forth in this legislation. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4347 is not 

perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. It is something that 

is overdue. The highlights of that legislation have been pointed out, 

but they are really not that difficult: Bringing about a swift resolution of these cases through granting jurisdiction to the Federal 

courts to resolve conflicts in custody orders between individual 

States. 

Today, because of a Supreme Court decision, there is no way to 

resolve one State versus another State. Common sense is pretty 

easy to adjust and change. Assisting States in adopting the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction that Mr. Walsh pointed out is really not difficult. Locate children and resolve cases. 

The database of the IRS can be used. This is not going to infringe 

on peoples’ privacy. Create a national registry of custody orders so 

there is some place in this country that people can go. And law enforcement, of course, can determine which parent really, truly has 

the latest custody order. 

Empower law enforcement to use protected custody in these 

cases to enable them to detain a child before that child can be 

taken out. Often our law enforcement have no tools. Even if they 

know that the child is getting on the plane with the wrong parent 

that does not have custody, they cannot do anything. This gives 

them that temporary effort to protect this child until it is resolved. 

The registry and the courts can be involved, and providing limits 

to statutory immunity is also in the bill. We at the Center believe 

in The Hague Convention. Yet in too many instances and for too 

many parents, it just does not work. Mr. Sylvester has pointed that 

out so clearly. 

We need to do better. At the last special commission meeting of 

The Hague with the personal presence and support of Congressman 

109

Lampson and Congressman Chabot, we urged the creation of good 

practice guides for member states, a kind of rule book, a road map 

on how the convention should be implemented. 

The Hague responded. Two particular guides have been completed, and a third is on the way. Today, our Center is working directly with The Hague to create a guide on vital issues of access 

for left-behind parents and enforcement of court orders. 

We are making progress. Yet there is a fundamental problem: 

The permanent bureau of The Hague is attempting to implement 

more than 35 separate conventions, of which the Abduction Convention is just one, with very limited resources. Member states pay 

dues, but it is clear that the current Hague budget is not adequate, 

and there is the need to generate additional support. 

Our new International Center for Missing & Exploited Children 

has negotiated a memorandum of agreement with The Hague Conference on private international law committing to work together 

to attack the problems on international child abduction. We are 

promoting the creation of an international training institute for 

judges, opening real dialogue with the Islamic world on this problem, aggressively attacking problems like providing access for leftbehind parents, and enforcing court orders. 

As part of this effort, we have proposed a modest increase in The 

Hague budget. Having served here for 18 years, I could not believe 

it was only $150,000. I wanted to say, well, certainly someone will 

add that on. But this is a modest amount of money in truth, and 

it is a message that the United States is serious about it. 

Let me emphasize that with the increase in funding comes a significant increase in expectations. We believe that it is time to finally provide the body charged with implementing this historic 

treaty with the tools and resources it needs to get the job done. 

Our commitment is to keep the pressure on, and to work with 

them and more than 60 member states to make this treaty work, 

and to bring these children home. We are tired of cases like Mr. 

Sylvester’s, and there are hundreds of these types of cases. 

So, Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a bold step that will bring 

about real change in this complex, frustrating problem, and I thank 

you and the Members for their support, and hope that you might 

move it during this session of Congress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeConcini follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS DECONCINI, CHAIRMAN OF THE

BOARD, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN

Thank you, Chairman Hyde, for the opportunity to appear before the Committee 

to discuss the important issue of international child abduction. 

When I retired from the U.S. Senate, one of the key ways I chose to continue my 

public service was to serve on the Board of Directors of the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Last year, I had the high honor of being 

elected as Chairman of the Board, succeeding Robbie Callaway, long-time child advocate and Senior Vice President of Boys & Girls Clubs of America. I am also proud 

to serve as a member of the Board of Directors of the new International Centre for 

Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC). 

In those two roles I have had the opportunity to become familiar with the crime 

of child abduction. As we have heard from the previous witnesses, child abduction 

has devastating effects on the whole family. We are fortunate that parents who have 

suffered these tragedies are willing to work in the public interest to help create improved laws and responses so other families might be spared. 

110

As many of you know, cases of children being abducted by a family member and 

taken away from the stability of the life they have known is a common occurrence 

in the United States. According to the latest research from the U.S. Department of 

Justice, there are more than 200,000 such cases each year. As the globe shrinks and 

international travel becomes more commonplace, more and more of these cases involve the transportation of a child across a national border. 

As we know from the experience of Tom Sylvester and other parents, existing 

laws don’t provide adequate protection or response. The result is that a parent, like 

Tom, can do everything the right way and according to the law, spend thousands 

of dollars and thousands of emotional hours yet live with constant uncertainty of 

when or whether he will see his only daughter again. By the same token, Tom’s 

daughter, Carina, has a father who is loving, available and committed to her welfare, yet she has been robbed of her fathers’ time and love—something that should 

be every child’s right. 

NCMEC is committed to doing what it can, as an organization, to fight for improvements in our global response to international missing child cases. From the 

day NCMEC began receiving calls through its Hotline 20 years ago, calls came in 

seeking the location and return of U.S. children who had been abducted and taken 

abroad. In 1995, NCMEC entered into a cooperative agreement with the Departments of State and Justice to handle cases in which a parent seeks the return of 

or access to a child abducted into the U.S. under the Hague Convention on the Civil 

Aspects of International Child Abduction. While NCMEC pursues improvements to 

the global system designed to resolve these cases and has aggressively sought the 

return of internationally-abducted children in each case, obstacles to the quick and 

successful resolution of cases remain. 

As other countries face their own tragic cases in both the abduction and exploitation areas, many have sought the assistance of NCMEC to formulate similar services, programs and laws to combat these issues. As the number of cases with a global reach increased, we realized that if we were to really have an impact on abduction and exploitation that affects children within the U.S., we had no choice but to 

operate on the international stage. For these reasons, we created the International 

Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (ICMEC). ICMEC is a separate, nonprofit corporation created to address the abduction and exploitation of children 

worldwide. 

NCMEC and ICMEC work collaboratively to ensure that best practices of NCMEC 

and the U.S. are made available for other countries to adapt and implement. 

ICMEC serves as a global focal point for hammering out strategies to address the 

abduction and exploitation of children in a consistent and effective manner worldwide. In addition, the international policy work and the affiliations made by ICMEC 

create new opportunities and contacts to help individual parents and children whose 

cases are being worked by NCMEC. 

Recently, H.R. 4347, ‘‘The International Assistance to Missing and Exploited Children Act of 2004’’ was introduced. This bill makes improvements to the law to help 

prevent and successfully resolve both domestic and international abductions of children. It is an important piece of legislation. One of the fiercest battles we wage in 

child abduction cases is against time. In stranger abduction cases, this battle plays 

itself out trying to identify the perpetrator and locate the child before harm can be 

done to them. In family abduction cases, the battle is location of the child and the 

speedy resolution of the legal issues in the case so that the child can be legally settled without the child living in hiding or being snatched back and forth as happens 

in these cases. 

SWIFT LEGAL RESOLUTION OF FAMILY ABDUCTION CASES

H.R. 4347 contains several provisions to help quickly resolve family abduction 

cases. It is currently possible for two states within the U.S. to issue conflicting custody orders, each believing it is acting within the law. When courts in different 

states exercise jurisdiction and make conflicting custody decisions, the only recourse 

now available to resolve the conflict and thus determine which custody order is valid 

and controlling, is for the aggrieved party to appeal through the state courts, hopefully getting a resolution along the way. If not, U.S. Supreme Court review is available for truly intractable jurisdictional deadlocks—at least in theory. The reality is 

that Supreme Court rarely grants certiorari in child custody cases, which effectively 

leaves custody contestants without a legal remedy once the highest courts in two 

states have upheld conflicting orders. More importantly, the goal must be swift resolution of these disputes, not countless appeals that only serve to further alienate 

and disrupt the lives of the children and families involved. Custody contestant cannot go to federal court for relief when interstate conflicts first arise because of a 

111

1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 1174 (1988). 

That case held that there is not right under the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) to go into federal court for a determination as to which of the 

two state courts that have issued custody orders has done so consistent with the 

federal law. While the Supreme Court was unwilling to find an implied right of action in the PKPA to go into federal court to resolve jurisdictional conflicts, it did 

note that Congress might choose revisit the issue which is precisely what this legislation does. Many children remain caught in a legal limbo—NCMEC is contacted 

by parents who hold an order giving them custody of their child but who are unable 

to enforce it because the abducting parent also holds a custody order issued them 

by the state to which they abducted. The federal courts should be granted the jurisdiction to decide these rare but intractable conflicts. 

In addition, the bill requires the Attorney General to establish a program to assist 

states to adopt the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act 

(UCCJEA), provide training for lawyers, judges and designated public officials on 

the uniform implementation of the act and provide guidance and funding to states 

to facilitate and expedite implementation of the public enforcement of custody/visitation provisions of the UCCJEA. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved the UCCJEA in 1997 to replace the law that is currently 

relied upon to resolve interstate family abduction cases, known as the Uniform 

Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA). The UCCJEA improves the current law in 

important ways to deter parental kidnapping and to eliminate jurisdictional ambiguities that have often been exploited by parents to draw out litigation, secure conflicting custody orders, and delay or deny enforcement of valid custody and visitation orders. The law provides for an abbreviated, court-assisted process for a parent 

to register their custody order in a new state, and an expedited child recovery remedy. New provisions allow public officials to assist in the civil enforcement of custody determinations and to locate and secure return of a child in international cases 

brought under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The new procedures will simplify child custody enforcement and recovery 

as well as reduce self-help recoveries that can be emotionally and physically harmful to children and legally problematic for their parents. 

Two years ago, NCMEC, in conjunction with the Internal Revenue Service, conducted an experiment in which the names of missing children, along with known 

facts about their cases, were run through the IRS information databases in an effort 

to determine the location of the missing children. The results were astounding. The 

IRS databases contained information that could lead to the recovery of a missing 

child in two-thirds of the cases submitted. Although NCMEC currently has access 

to a number of federal databases for the sole and narrow purpose of discovering information that might lead to the location of a missing child, the IRS is statutorily 

unable to provide access to their database information. This bill contains a carefully 

worded, narrow provision, allowing NCMEC to periodically run the names and case 

information of missing child cases in the IRS databases and have any results provided to investigating law enforcement for the purpose of resolving missing child 

cases. As is the case with other database information to which NCMEC is provided 

access, we have no interest in the financial information contained in the records—

our sole interest is to provide law enforcement with any data that may lead to the 

location of a missing child. 

As we seek to find the best ways to resolve family abductions within United 

States, we must be equally vigilant in resolving cases in which children are brought 

into the United States from another country. The bill before you today contains provisions designed to provide parents seeking the return of children wrongfully taken 

into the United States with better access to courts and to educate those courts about 

the laws of international family abduction. Specifically, the bill allows for the provision of free or reduced-fee legal services, waiver of filing fees and other court costs 

in connection with bringing a proceeding for return of a child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention) 

and for training of federal judges and state judicial and legal education programs 

on both interstate and international parental kidnapping law and practice. Having 

a well-trained judiciary and providing parents with access to legal services and the 

appropriate courts are vital to achieving the goal of providing a stable situation for 

children through the swift resolution of parental abduction cases. 

PREVENTING FAMILY ABDUCTIONS

Given the difficulties involved in resolving parental abduction cases as well as the 

trauma they cause, it is clear that a major focus needs to be placed on preventing 

abductions from occurring in the first place. This is particularly true in the case of 

112

international abductions. The jurisdiction of the United States ends at our borders 

making it very difficult and often impossible to secure the return of a child who has 

been taken to another country. With better systems in place to stop children from 

crossing the border in the hands of an abducting parent, we stand a much better 

chance of ensuring that families stay whole and that children are not unilaterally 

cut-off from one parent. 

This bill calls for creation of a national registry of custody orders. This is not a 

new idea, but is one that is overdue. A national registry of custody and visitation 

orders provides a single point of contact for courts and law enforcement to verify 

the validity of a custody order. In a particularly tragic case, a mother who had lawful custody of her only son, received a phone call from her son’s school alerting her 

that the child’s father had arrived to pick up the son even though he was not authorized to do so. The school also called the police who were on the scene when 

mother arrived. When questioned, the boy’s father produced a previous custody 

order that provided both parents with joint custody but was no longer valid. Because mother did not have her current and valid sole custody order with her, the 

police allowed the child to leave with his father. That night father and son boarded 

a plane and traveled to a country that has not signed the Hague Convention. Despite her best efforts, the child’s mother has had only two visits with her son in over 

5 years—both under the watchful eyes and ears of the abducting father. Because 

of cases like this, other law enforcement officials are understandably hesitant to intervene when faced with conflicting custody orders or the inability to verify an order’s validity. A national registry provides police with the necessary information to 

intervene and provides the courts the background information they need to determine whether or not they have proper jurisdiction to make a decision in a child’s 

case. In addition, this type of registry could serve as a basis for a system that could 

be designed to prevent non-custodial parents from taking a child out of the United 

States without proper authorization and, therefore, prevent many tragedies of international child abduction. 

The bill also strengthens the hand of law enforcement to help prevent family abductions by authorizing them to take vulnerable children into protective custody. 

Currently, when law enforcement, usually on the border, comes across an abducted 

child, they are unable to ‘recover’ the child. A left-behind parent may know the abductor is planning to take the child out of the country and may even know what 

airport they are likely to leave from, but without a warrant for arrest of the abducting parent and/or court-ordered sole custody, law enforcement usually lacks a basis 

for taking the child into protective custody. Parents continue to face challenges in 

obtaining warrants for family abduction, especially in the international context as 

evidenced by information provided at the October 1999 hearing of the Subcommittee 

on Criminal Justice Oversight of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even in the best 

of circumstances, issuance of warrants can take days. Allowing law enforcement officers to recover a child without facts supporting the arrest of the accompanying adult 

will ensure that the U.S. is able to stop attempted abductions when the child has 

been reported as missing to police but before criminal charges issue. 

RESOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL FAMILY ABDUCTION CASES

Understanding that children are as easily taken across country borders as they 

are across state borders, this bill focuses attention specifically on international child 

abductions in several provisions. First, in order to better understand the problem 

we seek to correct, the bill requires annual reports to Congress on federal parental 

kidnapping investigations, prosecutions and extraditions. Congress regards international parental kidnapping as a serious crime, making it punishable as a felony 

under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993, and the Fugitive 

Felon Act. It is an extraditable offense under all U.S. extradition treaties. In previous legislation, Congress required the Department of State to produce reports 

naming those countries signatory to the Hague Convention that are not in compliance with the terms of their treaty obligations. These reports have been enormously 

helpful to courts when faced with the question of whether a parent should be allowed to remove a child to a certain country. In addition, the reports have lead to 

productive discussions between the United States and the countries names in the 

reports providing a real opportunity to facilitate better ways to resolve these cases 

worldwide. In order for Congress to conduct meaningful oversight regarding the implementation of laws on international abduction and to identify obstacles that remain to the successful resolution of cases, information regarding investigations, 

prosecutions and extraditions is critically needed. 

Since 1995, NCMEC has played a vital role in the successful implementation of 

the Hague Convention. It was in that year that the Department of State approached 

113

NCMEC and asked if we would assist in the implementation of this important treaty. Given the vast number of family abductions into and out of the United States 

each year, the State Department was overwhelmed with applications for assistance 

under the Convention. Because of our experience locating children abducted within 

the United States, the State Department asked if we would, in the spirit of reciprocity, use our existing services to locate children who had been abducted from 

overseas. NCMEC has been providing that service for the past nine years. This bill 

provides NCMEC staff processing these cases with the same limited immunity provided to State Department staff working cases under the Convention. NCMEC recognizes the important role we can play in convincing other countries to return children abducted from the United States by properly living up to our obligations to return children wrongfully brought into the United States. This provision provides 

NCMEC with the protection against frivolous lawsuits that we need to continue 

helping children caught in the middle of international conflicts. 

The bill also provides additional funding to the Hague Conference on Private 

International Law to allow it to continue to encourage member States to properly 

resolve cases of international abduction. The Hague Conference is the membership 

entity that overseas the operation of a number of private international law treaties 

including the Hague Abduction Convention. Several years ago, NCMEC and the 

International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (ICMEC) promoted the 

idea of creating reports providing suggested ‘good practices’ that signatory countries 

could adopt to improve the operation of the Hague Convention so that cases could 

be resolved quickly and for the benefit of the children involved. The Hague Conference, through its membership, embraced this idea as an opportunity to encourage 

signatory countries to do a better job of return abducted children to their country 

of habitual residence. The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference has produced two Good Practice Guides, one on the operation of the Central Authority—

the government entity tasked with implementing the Convention within a country 

and the second focused on what systems and legislation countries should have in 

place prior to implementing the Convention. Last year, ICMEC entered into a 

Memorandum of Agreement with the Hague Conference to support additional guides 

to good practice, create a judicial training institute, identify solutions to abductions 

involving Islamic law countries, among other things. One critical element to the success of the Hague Conference’s efforts to improve how international child abduction 

cases are handled is to increase each country’s contribution to the core budget. This 

bill contains a ‘sense of Congress’ that the Hague Conference core budget should be 

increased to strengthen its ability to help countries address the complex and frustrating problem of international child abduction. In so doing, the United States joins 

the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia who have all expressed support for increased funding. ICMEC aims to generate private sector revenue and support in 

order to assist Hague Conference with these special projects designed to improve 

they way cases are resolved. These projects are vitally important to the lives of 

countless children around the world. We must ensure that the Hague Abduction 

Convention remains a vibrant, living document that provides a uniform system for 

the safe return of abducted children no matter what country they are abducted from 

and where they are taken. 

CONCLUSION

It is critical that the United States continue to improve our response to family 

abduction so that we are able to hold up our system as a model for other countries. 

H.R. 4347 contains provisions specifically designed to address identified obstacles to 

the successful resolution of family abduction cases, both domestic and international. 

The United States plays an important role in the world community and we must 

ensure that our own house is in order so that we can stand on the world stage and 

bring others to the table for the benefit of all children.

Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Senator. 

As I have listened to your collective testimony, it occurs to me 

that enforcement is lacking, and as John Walsh said, it is lip service. They have a person serving as Assistant Secretary with a nice 

title, but she is a lone ranger, and the only thing we need is some 

way to get their attention. 

I find money is very effective, and we have the authority to put 

a hold on certain funds, and we have done so for sometimes technical reasons having to do with the transfer of technology and 

114

things like that. I do not see why we could not broaden our perspective and see if we cannot get the attention of some of these 

countries by withholding some money. 

Now, that will make other people mad. I can understand the 

need to assuage Saudi Arabia’s feelings, especially at a time like 

this, but they ought to understand our needs and our requirements, because justice is on our side. 

So I do not promise you any magic results, but I promise you attention to this problem and conversations with people who can 

light a fire, and I am looking for places to withhold money. The 

Egyptian situation is a natural. 

I do not know what we give Austria, but I am sure going to find 

out. 

Okay, well, thank you. This was most interesting, most productive, most useful. 

And now Mr. Chabot. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Once again I want to thank you for holding this hearing, and I 

want to thank all of our witnesses here this afternoon. Senator 

DeConcini, thank you for all your good work, and especially with 

the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. You and our 

good friend, Ernie Allen, and all the good folks at NCMEC do a 

wonderful job. And those of us who work on these issues really appreciate everything that both of you do. 

And, Mr. Walsh, thank you for being here. You and your family, 

of course, suffered a terrible tragedy, and the hearts and prayers 

of our Nation went out to you then and continue to, and we are 

so grateful that you have chosen to work on behalf of other parents 

who are suffering, and we wish you the very best in your endeavors 

as you continue working for the American people. 

And finally, let me once again welcome and thank my friend 

from Cincinnati, Tom Sylvester. Tom, we are not going to give up 

until you and I can give Carina a tour of that Capitol building over 

there. 

Mr. SYLVESTER. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. We do tours a lot of time for folks from Cincinnati, 

school groups, families, and church groups, and I will not be satisfied until you are holding her hand, walking through the Capitol 

building, and we are showing you our Capitol, her Capitol. 

Mr. SYLVESTER. Thank you, Congressman. 

Mr. CHABOT. She is an American. 

Mr. SYLVESTER. Thank you. 

Mr. CHABOT. I know that 5 minutes is not a lot of time, Tom, 

so if you would like to elaborate on your earlier testimony, I would 

be delighted to turn over whatever time I have left to you to tell 

us anything about your case that you think would be helpful for 

us to know. Most especially, anything that our Government ought 

to be doing, including this legislation, either additions to this or 

other things that you think we ought to be doing. 

One thing that has always stuck in my mind is something you 

told me; that the abductor, your former wife, told you about our 

Government, and if you could perhaps share that with the rest of 

us again, and again my time is your time, so I will yield my time 

to you at this point. 

115

Mr. SYLVESTER. Thank you, Congressman Chabot. 

I recall vividly, as a matter of fact, I mentioned those words before this very Committee back in its last hearing on October 14, 

1999. I had recently gone to Austria and talked at length with my 

ex-wife, looking to find some workable solution and resolution. And 

she looked at me as we sat across the table from one another, and 

very defiantly said to me, ‘‘Tom, you know, there is one difference 

between me and you.’’ Of course, I thought there were quite a few 

more than one, but anyway I said, ‘‘What is that?’’ And she said, 

‘‘My Government protects me.’’

Please know that, I will be brief here, and please know that 

clearly I am advocating for Carina. But I ask that you consider the 

possibility that when you hear her name, just when you hear her 

name, that you apply a broader message of an acronym that her 

name represents, and that is that all Children Abducted or Retained Internationally Need Assistance. And to me, that is how 

Carina’s spirit lives on for us here, and she is with us here in that 

way, to give rise to the awareness that all children abducted and 

retained internationally need assistance. 

So I certainly support, again, any legislation that can help any 

parent promptly recover their children. And from that standpoint 

I support this legislation generally. This legislation will help certain parents in certain situations, and that is great. 

However, it appears to me there is room for improvement. I 

would like to see some recommendations be considered that would 

help American left-behind parents and American children to have 

additional support. And I have outlined many of those in my written testimony for the record, but just simply to highlight for the 

moment, I clearly would advocate and recommend increased involvement by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, an ambitious advocate, in outgoing cases. They have done a 

stellar job. This legislation appears to give rise to the possibility of 

providing even greater performance on behalf of the United States 

to fulfill its treaty obligations. 

But I clearly feel there is opportunity, we have a right to demand 

and expect other countries to reciprocate. As we raise the bar and 

as we put systems in place and legislation in place that helps us 

be a better treaty partner, I would ask the support from the U.S. 

Government to help American left-behind parents and American 

children to urge the other governments to reciprocate and to do the 

same. 

Once again, there are quite a few recommendations that I have, 

and perhaps I will have an opportunity to participate in some 

markup process or other legislation activities, but I would ask that 

those be addressed as part of the record. 

Mr. CHABOT. And we intend to accomplish that, and we very 

much thank you for your testimony this afternoon. 

I think my time has expired, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HYDE. Your statements are in the record. 

Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our very distinguished panel for that very 

powerful testimony from each of them. 

116

Again, I think your bill does move the ball significantly forward. 

Registries and reporting are very important. If we do not even have 

a handle on the situation, if we do not have sufficient personnel 

dedicated, if you do not have enough people, if you have a onewoman show, as Mr. Walsh pointed out, the possibility and the 

probability of having effective outcomes is absolutely minimized despite good intentions. Personnel equals policy. So I think your point 

was very well taken. 

And when you talk, Mr. Chairman, about, you know, withholding 

some funds, I think we have to look no further than the most recently enacted legislation on human trafficking to show that we are 

serious, we name names, we list countries that are either acting in 

compliance with minimum standards, and that is what we are talking about with The Hague Convention. And when we actually withhold non-humanitarian foreign aid as a way of trying to get their 

attention or using other diplomatic measures that are at our control, we are likely to see significant and profound changes. 

The impact of the human trafficking legislation shows that smart 

sanctions work, and I think we need to be looking at that as well 

as it relates to these child abductions, and I thank you again for 

this powerful testimony. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Chairman HYDE. Our space engineers have finally solved the riddle of our electronic assets, and so I do not want their work to go 

for naught, so if you would play the tape. 

[Video tape played.] 

Mr. WALSH. I think you see the point of what that little girl said. 

We are all American citizens. Why were we not able to walk out 

of Saudi Arabia with our passports? 

It is a nightmare. I know the update on that last family. Now, 

there is a mother who had to go to Malaysia to steal her children 

back because although she had total custody, sole custody, all her 

papers in order, nobody would help her, nobody would go get the 

kids. She went and paid her own way to Malaysia, and took a 

chance and stole that one daughter. The other little girl left behind 

has already been bartered off in an arranged marriage at 15 years 

old. She will probably never come back to the United States. They 

still don’t know where that little boy is. 

But I have to say I brought that video just to show you testimony 

from the mouth of that little girl. I cannot understand, as American citizens, why we could not walk out of that country. 

Chairman HYDE. Well, one thing in addition to pressing the legislation that is before us: I am asking Mr. Chabot, and I will ask 

Mr. Burton, to give me a draft of a resolution condemning Austria’s 

conduct and Saudi Arabia’s, which I will then send to the Secretary 

of State, and say I cannot hold these people back. 

Mr. WALSH. Great. That would be wonderful. 

Chairman HYDE. We had better pay attention to this. It is getting out of hand. 

Mr. WALSH. That would be wonderful. 

Chairman HYDE. And we will generate some action. 

Mr. WALSH. I really think, and I do not just single out the 

Saudis, but I think it is time to end the, you know, the double-dealings: They say one thing, they do not say another. This is not diVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:03 Mar 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\FULL\062204\94505.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
117

rected at all Saudis, but I watched the other day when Prince Bandar came on television and told CNN——

Mr. ALLEN. It was not Prince Bandar. It was a member of the 

Royal family. 

Mr. WALSH. Oh, member of the—no, no, the Prince himself, 

Crown Prince Abdullah, talking about the Khobar Towers, when 

they had the 22 people killed at the Khobar Towers. I was watching with an interpreter, and I watched him on Al-Jazeera turn 

right around and say, we are very concerned about Americans 

being killed here in Saudi Arabia. We are very concerned about 

them being taken, and held hostages and beheaded, but I just want 

to tell you that it is a Zionist plot contrived by members of the 

Israeli parliament and Zionists from Jerusalem. 

I have been there. Where does somebody come up with this? I 

have been to the Persian Gulf hunting terrorists and stuff. They 

tell CNN one thing, and then go on Al-Jazeera and say that the 

kidnapping and murder of Americans is a Zionist plot by Jews from 

Israel. 

I mean, it is time to hold these people accountable for all their 

double-dealings with the people in our country that are ex-patriots 

over there, our partnership, our ability to fight al-Qaeda, and especially our children. 

I mean, they look at us with utter disgust. When I go over there, 

they say any child born of a Muslim father or a Saudi is Saudi 

property, it is not American property, you have no right whatsoever 

here. They do not respect anything we have to say and they do not 

respect our laws. 

You are the lawmakers. Put some teeth in this bill. Put some 

teeth in this, and let us deal with these people the way they should 

be dealt with, okay? 

You know, they may be our partners and we buy lots of oil from 

them and all those other things, and we may be together, but I am 

not so sure in the battle against al-Qaeda. I know that firsthand, 

and I have been profiling this Osama bin Laden since 1993. I know 

how horrible that threat is. But I have been dealing with the 

Saudis, trying to get fugitives out of there, trying to catch terrorists, et cetera. They say one thing on American television and say 

another thing on Arab television. Might want to look at that piece 

yourself. 

But the point I am making is it is time to hold them accountable. 

If they really want to be our partners in this war on terrorism, if 

they really want to do business with us, then hit them where it 

hurts. Hit them in the pocketbook, and put some teeth into this 

legislation. 

I love what you said there, absolutely. I mean, I know that there 

are people in the State Department right now, not just this wonderful lady who goes over there by herself and begs, et cetera. I 

would like to see a couple of U.S. marshals, a couple of FBI agents 

and some people go into that country and say, you want to deal 

with us, you know what, we have got the documents here, we are 

going to come and get these people out of here. It would be worth 

a try. 

But anyway, it is wonderful that you held this hearing here 

today, Chairman Hyde. You have been a loud voice for children. 

118

For 20 years, I have worked with you. I would love to see you mark 

this bill up, get it out. We will take care of it on the Senate side. 

Chairman HYDE. Okay, that is a deal. 

Mr. WALSH. That is a deal. I love that. 

Chairman HYDE. The Committee stands adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(119)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this most important hearing on human 

rights today. As you may know, during my tenure as Chairman of the Committee 

on Government Reform, I launched an investigation into the matter of American 

citizens who have been kidnapped by their non-custodial foreign-national parent, 

often in violation of U.S. custody orders, and are being held in Saudi Arabia against 

their will. 

These American citizens, many of them women and children, have reportedly been 

denied their most basic civil rights, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. A great 

majority of them have been subjected to emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. 

Moreover, the young girls who have been abducted will never be allowed to leave 

Saudi Arabia, at any age, unless they have express written permission from their 

closest male relative, who is often the one who kidnapped them in the first place. 

There are several details regarding Sharia law—the strict fundamentalist code observed in the Kingdom—and Saudi culture that make these particular international 

child abduction cases noteworthy. 

For instance, Sharia law gives Saudi men extraordinary power over their wives 

and children, whereby the men literally ‘‘own’’ them. 

Another disturbing factor in these cases is the fact that Saudi Arabia is not a signatory nation to the Hague Convention Treaty on the Civil Aspects of International 

Child Abduction. The Hague Convention treaty puts general guidelines and procedures into place regarding how to handle international child abduction and custody 

disputes. While this is not a perfect system for maintaining that the rightful parent 

is guaranteed the physical custody of their child, it is a step in the right direction, 

and a positive sign that signatory countries are willing to ensure international law 

is upheld. 

Unfortunately, in lieu of the Hague treaty, there are absolutely NO legal standards governing the return of kidnapped children from Saudi Arabia. 

Our investigation, which began back in the 107th Congress, produced numerous 

hearings, several legislative proposals, and even a Congressional Delegation to Riyadh, the capitol city of Saudi Arabia, in August of 2002. 

Although it has been nearly two years since that visit, I will NEVER forget the 

tears on the faces of American women who literally risked their lives to come and 

speak with me. Nor will I forget how terrified they were of the physical torture—

possibly fatal—that they might face if their Saudi husbands found out that they had 

gone to or been in touch with the U.S. Embassy. These women live in a constant 

state of fear, and it is the duty of the American government to help ensure their 

safe return home to the United States. 

International child abduction is not just an issue in Middle East countries. Thousands of American children have been taken against their will to places around the 

world, such as Ecuador and Honduras. Even more astounding is that abductors 

have not only found safe haven in 3rd World countries, but also in Hague Convention signatory nations such as Spain, France, Germany, and Austria—where witness 

Tom Sylvester’s daughter Carina has been held since 1995. This is simply unacceptable. 

Because of the attention that the issue of international child abduction has received in recent years, we have seen some marked improvements in the way that 

these situations are dealt with. Before, the custodial American parents were given 

NO hope that their sons and daughters would ever be returned to them, now we 

are beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel. 

120

Under the guidance of Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as the personal 

attention that Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Maura Harty has 

given to this issue, many more children are being returned home to the United 

States every year. In addition, the Department of State has recently promulgated 

guidelines on how Embassy and Consulate staff are to treat victims of international 

child abduction should they seek refuge at any U.S. installation. 

While these are positive changes that are to be congratulated, we must also call 

upon Congress and the Department of State to place further diplomatic and legal 

pressure on these non-compliant countries, whether Hague signatories or not, in 

order to guarantee the safe return of these U.S. citizens who are being held against 

their will. 

To assist in this effort, I am currently drafting legislation to include international 

child abduction in the annual Human Rights Report submitted to Congress by the 

Department of State. This would not only be a useful tool for the U.S. government 

to utilize while working on these most important issues, but it would also send a 

clear message to all non-compliant Nations that the United States is keeping its 

watchful eye on the treatment of American citizens who have been illegally abducted. I certainly hope that once this legislation is ready, the Members of this 

Committee will join me in this fight and sign on as Co-Sponsors. 

I would like to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today 

on the heartbreaking issue of international child abduction. 

RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE MAURA HARTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU

OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DIANE E. WATSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Question: 

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has provided the Committee with some disturbing statistics of missing children. In my state the Center 

lists 292 missing children and 26 are from my area in Los Angeles. These numbers 

rank among the highest on the Committee. With a busy Tom Bradley International 

Airport, and the close proximity of the Mexican border, it is not too hard for a domestic abduction to become international. I would like to hear your thoughts as to what 

is the reason for such a high number of missing and exploited children in California? 

Also, what are you and your law enforcement counterparts working on in order to 

reduce that number? 

Response: 

We defer to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and other experts on domestic abductions concerning why the number of missing and exploited 

children in California appears so high, and to provide information concerning efforts 

underway domestically to address the problem. 

The vast number of Mexican immigrants and Americans of Mexican descent in 

California, and the ease of travel between California and Mexico, however, are certainly factors in the number of international parental child abduction cases we handle involving Mexico. Unique in the United States, the California Attorney General’s 

office is authorized under California state law to handle Hague applications for return and access directly, giving that office an important role in our efforts to return 

abducted children to the U.S. We work very closely with the Attorney General’s office and its network of District Attorneys in pursuing both Hague and non-Hague 

cases. We participate with California officials in various outreach activities in California, and have included representatives from the Attorney General’s office in various programs sponsored by the Department, such as seminars hosted by the U.S. 

Embassy in Mexico for local judges, attorneys, and Mexican officials. Over the past 

year, we have also placed increasing emphasis on prevention efforts, including the 

creation of a separate Prevention Unit within the Office of Children’s Issues. 

Question: 

Ambassador Harty, as you know, one example of international child abduction was 

perpetrated by the daughter of the president of Uzbekistan, Gulnora Karimova, who 

was married to an American citizen named Mansur Maqsudi and who absconded 

three years ago from their home in the United States with their two young children, 

both of whom are American citizens. 

These children have not been allowed to see their father for three years, despite an 

New Jersey court order giving sole custody to Mr. Maqsudi and issuing an arrest 

warrant for Ms. Karimova for violating the custody dispute. 

121

Given the fact that Uzbekistan has become a strategic partner of the United States 

in the war against terror and have received large amounts of foreign aid from this 

country, why hasn’t the State Department been able to prevail upon the President of 

Uzbekistan to have his daughter obey the order of an American court and allow her 

children to see their father? 

Why hasn’t the State Department even been able to provide Mr. Maqsudi with photographs of his two children? 

Response: 

Since Mr. Maqsudi contacted the Department in 2002 for assistance, the Department of State has actively pursued parental and consular access to Mr. Maqsudi’s 

children, in keeping with his wishes. This has involved engaging the Uzbek Government at senior levels and, more recently, seeking assistance from the Russian Government as well. Assistant Secretary for European Affairs Elizabeth Jones raised 

the case with Uzbek officials, including Uzbek President Karimov and the Foreign 

Minister. Ms. Karimova, a diplomat with the Foreign Ministry of Uzbekistan, was 

assigned to the Embassy of Uzbekistan in Moscow in 2003. She took the children 

with her to Moscow. Since then, my Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs met with the Uzbek Ambassador to Russia to request consular access 

to the children; the Uzbek Ambassador denied the request. We have also worked 

with the Russian Government to seek consular access. We will continue these efforts 

despite Ms. Karimova’s consistent refusal to allow State Department officials to visit 

with the children or to allow Mr. Maqsudi direct contact with them. We have not 

been able to provide Mr. Maqsudi with a photograph of his children for the simple 

reason that we ourselves have been denied access to the children. 

RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE MAURA HARTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU

OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTER- NATIONAL RELATIONS

Question: 

The Office of Children’s Issues maintains a database that is used as a workload 

manager, containing files on the number of active cases in which a parent is seeking 

custody of a child, and cases where the parent is seeking access to a child. Are you 

able to determine the number of open cases at any given time? Closed cases? Are the 

‘‘closed’’ cases classified as to results, so that one may determine whether it was 

closed due to a recovery, failure to pursue the case, failure to find the parent or child, 

death of the parent or child, etc.? If not, don’t you think that more useful information 

may be kept if case files maintained this information in the ‘‘closed cases’’ index? 

How difficult would it be to maintain this type of information? 

Response: 

The International Parental Child Abduction database used by the Office of Children’s Issues allows us to determine the number of open and closed cases. Although 

the database allows us to capture information on the reasons that a case has been 

closed, it does not currently allow us to readily retrieve this information. We recognized this problem and are working with the systems developers to enhance the 

database’s search capabilities. We agree that it would be very useful to retrieve such 

information. 

Question: 

Congressional Research Service reported that as of May 12, 2004, the Office of 

Children’s Issues had 503 active custody cases, and 98 active access cases, both with 

the majority of the caseloads being from non-Hague countries. How do you count 

your caseload? How many cases does each case manager have? Do you see an increase or decrease in the caseload for non-Hague countries? What can be done in the 

non-Hague countries? 

Response: 

In fact, the Office of Children’s Issues is aware of over 1,000 active abduction 

cases, involving both Hague and non-Hague countries, and over 200 access cases. 

We count those cases where we are actively working with left-behind parents to pursue either a child’s return or parental access. Staff in the Office of Children’s Issues 

involved in abduction casework numbers 18, and each staff member currently handles an average of 72 cases. We have seen an across-the-board increase in the number of cases for both Hague and non-Hague countries. In non-Hague countries, we 

122

actively pursue children’s return using a variety of tools, including civil, criminal, 

and diplomatic remedies. We have emphasized to other countries the importance 

that the U.S. places on resolving cases of international parental child abduction, and 

sought their cooperation in returning children to the U.S. 

Question: 

Although Mexico is a signatory of the Hague Convention, it has the largest number 

of active custody cases of children being abducted from the United States. What is 

the State Department doing to help in these cases? What more needs to be done? 

Response: 

The United States has no more important Hague Abduction Convention partner 

than Mexico. The number of cases we witness of children being taken to or from 

the U.S. and Mexico dwarf those we see with any other country. We are presently 

dealing with 134 active cases of children abducted from the United States to Mexico 

or wrongfully retained in Mexico after a visit, often in violation of the custodial 

rights of a Mexican citizen parent living in the United States. 

In 2003, 21 abducted or wrongfully retained children were returned from Mexico 

to the United States. As an absolute number, that seems impressive; as a percentage of active abduction and wrongful retention cases, and in comparison with return 

rates from other countries with which we have many cases, such as Canada and 

the UK, the number is much less impressive. 

Especially troubling is the number of cases in Mexico that have remained unresolved after more than 18 months. There are presently 22 such cases, some now 

over five years old; in contrast, we have no more than two such cases with any other 

Hague partner. 

Among the underlying causes of Mexico’s poor performance overall under the 

Hague Convention appear to be a woefully understaffed and underfunded Central 

Authority in the Foreign Ministry; a judiciary unfamiliar with, and not infrequently 

hostile to, the Convention; and law enforcement and court authorities unable to ‘‘locate’’ children even in cases in which we and the left-behind parents can provide 

exact addresses. 

In general, Mexico has only partially implemented the Hague Abduction Convention into its legal, administrative and law enforcement systems. As a result, we 

found Mexico to be ‘‘non-compliant’’ in our last Annual Hague Compliance Report. 

There is some encouraging news. Communication between the Mexican Central 

Authority and its U.S. counterpart, the Bureau of Consular Affairs’ Office of Children’s Issues, has noticeably improved over the last three months. Cases have been 

forwarded on to local courts in six weeks instead of eight or ten or more. Director 

Licenciada Rosa Isela Guerrero and her staff are dedicated and work extremely 

hard, despite the small size of their office and their lack of resources. 

Our Embassy in Mexico City has embraced, as one of its explicit goals, a concerted effort to help promote improvement in Mexico’s compliance with the Hague 

Abduction Convention. The Embassy has added a second staff member to its team 

dealing solely with international parental child abduction. In close coordination with 

our Central Authority, it will continue its monthly meetings with the Mexican Central Authority, monitoring and exploring solutions to problematic cases. 

Likewise, our Hague Convention Central Authority, the Office of Children’s 

Issues, has added an additional case officer devoted exclusively to Mexico cases as 

of July 2004. 

We take every opportunity at all appropriate levels, in Washington and in Mexico 

City, to raise the general issue of compliance with the Hague Abduction Convention 

and specific abduction and wrongful retention cases with Mexican officials. Recently, 

the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs met with Mexico’s 

Deputy Attorney General and with the Office of the Attorney General’s Coordinator 

of International Affairs. We specifically raised the issue of Mexico’s seeming inability to locate children and the parents who have abducted them. The General Coordinator has offered himself as a direct point of contact in efforts to locate missing children, and our Central Authority has provided a summary of these cases. In addition, the Justice Ministry has referred all Hague cases now more than 18 months 

old to the Mexican Federal Investigative Agency, Mexico’s equivalent of our FBI. 

Aiming at longer-term, more structural solutions to our challenges with Mexico, 

the judicial training conference on the Hague Convention that our Embassy organized for family court judges from the Federal District of Mexico and the State of 

Mexico in July 2003 was followed up by a similar but longer conference in Guadalajara last month. This was organized by our Consulate in Guadalajara and co-hosted 

by the Jalisco Supreme Court, to target training for judges and officials working 

with children’s issues in the state of Jalisco and surrounding states. 

123

Question: 

Although Germany is a signatory of the Hague Convention, it has traditionally 

had one of the largest numbers of active access cases of children being from the 

United States to Germany. What is the State Department doing to help in these 

cases? What more needs to be done? 

Response: 

Our Central Authority often serves as a conduit between parents in America and 

our German counterparts, helping with communication and attempting to clarify 

contentious issues. We specifically address access cases in our Bilateral Working 

Group with German officials from the Justice and Foreign Ministries. Our goal is 

to help ensure clear communication and explore potential solutions. Our consular 

officers in Germany meet with local agencies, such as the German Youth Authority, 

and with local, regional, and federal officials who may be able to assist in resolving 

access cases. Our consular officers are also available to meet with our U.S. parents 

when they come to Germany. Mediation is a tool that is increasingly being used 

with the support of our Central Authority and the German Central Authority. These 

cases are never easy, but we never stop trying to facilitate access for American parents. 

We have found that the best way to avoid having long-term access cases is effective compliance with the Hague Abduction Convention. Children who are returned 

under the Convention do not become access cases. Germany is a leader in recognizing this fact and that is part of their motivation in working with us on compliance issues. 

Question: 

As you know from Tom Sylvester’s case, he has done everything possible under the 

terms of the Hague Convention to get his daughter back from Austria. He has won 

every legal challenge, including being awarded damages from the government of Austria. Austria continues to enforce (sic) any of these orders. Since we don’t seem to 

gain any traction through the normal Hague Convention negotiations, what do you 

think about pursuing other means of pressure? How can we compel foreign states to 

enforce their own laws? Suspend aid packages? 

Response: 

It is regrettably incorrect to say that Mr. Sylvester ‘‘has won every legal challenge’’ in seeking the return of his daughter. Following his success at every level 

of the Austrian court system in securing an order for the return of his daughter 

under the Hague Abduction Convention and Austria’s woefully inadequate efforts to 

enforce that order, the case was litigated once again in Austria. Mr. Sylvester ultimately lost the second set of proceedings, and his ex-wife was granted custody of 

their daughter. This result has seriously compromised his and our efforts to reunite 

him with his daughter. We will continue to work with Mr. Sylvester to pursue all 

possible options. The Department has conducted numerous high-level meetings with 

the Austrian government with still no satisfactory answers or resolution concerning 

Mr. Sylvester’s efforts to obtain meaningful access to his daughter. We are constantly considering measures that might prompt the Austrian Government—and his 

ex-wife—to take positive steps in his case. We will continue to make clear to the 

Austrian Government that Austria’s record in meeting its obligations under the 

Hague Abduction Convention, and in resolving this case, will remain a critical issue 

in U.S.-Austria bilateral relations. 

In response to the question of whether the U.S. should withhold aid to countries 

that fail to enforce their own laws in the Hague Abduction Convention, Austria is 

not a recipient of U.S. aid. 

Question: 

Some have argued that the State Department should include information on each 

country’s child custody and visitation system in the children’s rights section of the 

annual human rights reports. What do you think about this idea? 

Response: 

Each year, the Department considers whether to address new issues in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, and we welcome specific comments and suggestions for improving the Country Reports and promoting human rights. 

In early Country Reports, The Department used some of the key provisions of the 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the basis for fulfilling the legislative 

mandate to cover internationally recognized human rights. Since the first Country 

Reports was published in 1977, contents of the report have been broadened by specific additional legislative mandates and by Department decisions to expand covVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:03 Mar 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00127 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\062204\94505.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
124

erage to certain areas not necessarily linked directly to the Universal Declaration. 

At the same time, we have had a mandate to shorten the report and make it less 

duplicative of other reports to Congress. 

The issues of child custody and international parental child abduction have been 

covered in previous Country Reports, to the extent that particular laws have involved restrictions on freedom of movement or other rights covered in the Universal 

Declaration. For several reasons, however, we have not made child custody issues 

or parental child abduction a separate topic in each Country Report. First and foremost, federal law requires that the Bureau of Consular Affairs provide an annual 

report on compliance with Hague Convention. Given the suffering occasioned by parental abductions, however, we will continue to look for other opportunities to highlight the issue, including, when warranted, in specific annual Country Reports. 

Question: 

Who sits on the U.S. government’s interagency working group on international 

child abductions? How often does it meet? What is its mission? 

Response: 

The interagency working group on international child abductions meets 6–8 times 

throughout the year. Representatives from the Office of Children’s Issues, the Office 

of the Legal Adviser, and the Office of Diplomatic Security in the Department of 

State participate in the working group, along with representatives from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and several branches of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Crimes Against 

Children Unit, the Criminal Division’s Child Exploitation and Obscenities Section, 

the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and U.S. INTERPOL. 

The group shares information about agency activities related to parental child abduction and identifies ways to work together to improve coordination of U.S. efforts 

to prevent international parental child abduction, get children returned to their habitual residence, and successfully prosecute kidnapping cases. 

Question: 

The United States government certainly gives a lot of foreign aid to Colombia, yet 

it is listed as one of the ‘‘Noncompliant’’ countries with its obligations under the Convention. Because of the seriousness of this issue, I’d like to take a moment to single 

out some of the other countries that fall into this category: Austria, Ecuador, Honduras, Mauritius, Mexico and Turkey. Does the United States, or any other Convention country, have any tool at hand that can force these countries to become compliant? Do we consider suspending any aid packages to these countries until they become compliant? 

Response: 

The issue of whether to adjust economic aid as a way of inducing countries to 

comply with the Hague Abduction Convention is complex. In some countries, a fundamental problem with the Central Authority is its lack of adequate resources, so 

that withholding assistance would likely not promote better compliance with the 

Convention. 

In addition to humanitarian goals, foreign aid serves a whole range of U.S. national security, economic and other interests. The question of whether to increase 

or reduce foreign aid has to be considered within the full context of all of those interests. A judgment must also be made, on a case-by-case basis, as to whether adjusting foreign aid would be likely to influence the outcome of international child 

abduction cases generally or individual cases in particular. We are not aware of 

other countries that use foreign aid as a tool in seeking improved compliance with 

the Hague Abduction Convention. 

Question: 

Aside from country ‘‘flyers’’, what does the State Department do to educate U.S. 

courts and the public on the consequences of foreign custody jurisdiction over American children? Are there ‘‘flyers’’ for countries that have demonstrated patterns of 

noncompliance with the Convention? Or even those not belonging to the Convention? 

Response: 

We currently have posted flyers for 53 countries on our Internet website, providing information on both Hague and non-Hague countries. A number of other flyers are in production, and we intend to expand the list with assistance from our 

overseas Embassies and consulates. Our annual Hague Compliance Report to Congress is posted on our Internet website as a resource for judges, attorneys, and the 

125

public, including for left-behind parents or parents involved in custody cases in a 

U.S. court. 

Question: 

How many incoming Hague cases are there each year? Outgoing? 

Response: 

As of June 2004, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, with 

which the State Department has a Cooperative Agreement to assist with the processing of Hague cases involving children abducted into or wrongfully retained in the 

United States, was aware of outstanding cases involving 414 children whose return 

from the United States was sought by foreign parents living in Hague partner countries and another 112 children in the U.S. whose parents sought access to them 

through the Hague process. 

The Office of Children’s Issues is currently aware of 364 children abducted from 

the U.S. to Hague countries whose left-behind parents have filed for the children’s 

return under the Hague Abduction Convention. 

Question: 

Some parents feel that the U.S. policy that allows the Justice and State Departments to file amicus briefs and otherwise assist foreign parents at U.S. taxpayer expense in Hague-related litigation in U.S. courts is particularly offensive, when no 

U.S. government agency intervenes on their behalf overseas. Is there anything that 

can be done to alleviate the seeming disparity of fairness? Also, with regard to paid 

legal assistance overseas? 

Response: 

It is simply not accurate to suggest that we intervene in U.S. Hague cases to assist foreign parents while declining to do so for American parents involved in cases 

seeking the return of children overseas. The State Department, both in its capacity 

as the Central Authority for the Hague Abduction Convention and otherwise, remains strictly neutral on the merits of all Hague Convention petitions. 

On very rare occasions, a court or a party will request the views of the United 

States Government concerning a legal or policy question at issue in a case. On even 

rarer occasions, and only if the subject matter of the court’s or party’s request is 

something on which the Department of State has unique expertise, the Solicitor 

General of the United States will decide to grant the request and will ask us to assist with the preparation of an amicus brief that the Solicitor General will submit 

to the court on behalf of the United States Government. 

With respect to funding for litigation and related costs, when the U.S. signed the 

Hague Abduction Convention in 1980 and when the Congress ratified it, the United 

States took a reservation from the treaty’s provisions concerning financial assistance 

to parents in Hague cases. Congress and the President made it clear that the 

United States would not be obligated to make such assistance available. At present, 

no law permits the Department to help parents financially with legal expenses in 

abduction cases and the Department has no funds available to it for that purpose. 

In contrast, some other countries decided to make significant funding available for 

parents pursuing or defending against Hague cases. We note with great interest 

that one provision within the proposed HR 4347 would provide funding that so far 

has not been available to American parents; such funding would no doubt help to 

offset the disadvantage some American parents have perceived when the other parent in a Hague proceeding receives financial assistance from his or her government. 

Question: 

The 2000 GAO report found that while roughly 90% of children abducted to the 

United States are returned to their host countries, approximately 24% of children are 

returned to the United States. Why the disparity? What should be done about it? 

Response: 

It is important to note that the two statistics you have cited are not taken from 

comparable data. The 90% figure cited in the GAO Report and elsewhere refers to 

returns of children under the Hague Convention in cases that are brought to court 

in the U.S. We believe that the high 90% percent rate of court-ordered return of 

children from the United States to other countries reported by the GAO reflects a 

sound understanding, on the part of U.S. judges hearing Hague cases, of the Hague 

Abduction Convention as implemented in the U.S. by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. The Department of State has played an active role in educating 

U.S. judges about the Convention and these high percentages of court-ordered returns in Convention cases indicate that those efforts have been successful. The perVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:03 Mar 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00129 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\062204\94505.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
126

centage does not, however, reflect those additional Hague cases in which the child 

has not yet been located, cases involving children abducted to the U.S. from nonHague countries, or cases in which a child’s return was pursued using mechanisms 

other than the Hague Abduction Convention. In contrast, the 24% return rate cited 

in the 2000 GAO report reflected both cases involving children abducted or wrongfully retained in both Hague and non-Hague countries. Regardless of what the current return rate is in cases involving various circumstances and countries, we believe we can always do more to promote the return of abducted and wrongfully retained children to their habitual residences in the U.S. 

Question: 

Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, how many individuals have been excluded from entering the United States who are in violation of a 

custody order of the U.S.? How many individuals would have been subject to exclusion, if they were not holding a child in a country that has ratified the Hague Convention? 

Response: 

Our records indicate that 53 persons have been found ineligible for visas under 

Section 212(a)(10)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act since that provision 

was enacted into law. It is important to note that a finding of ineligibility cannot 

be made unless and until the individual applies for a visa. This provision of the INA 

also only applies to visa applicants who have abducted a U.S. citizen child to a nonHague country in violation of a U.S. custody order. It therefore does not apply in 

a large number of the abduction cases we are trying to resolve. 

It is not possible to ascertain how many additional applicants might have been 

inadmissible had they taken their child to a country party to the Convention instead 

of to a non-Hague party country. The inadmissibility provision in the INA’s Section 

212(a)(10)(C) applies only in cases of U.S. children abducted to or wrongfully retained in non-Hague Abduction Convention Countries in violation of a U.S. custody 

order; the Convention does not require that a left-behind parent have a custody 

order in order to apply for relief under the Convention. 

Question: 

Since 2000 Germany has had significant improvement in its application of the 

Convention. There have been specific systemic changes as well as a bi-national group 

that meets semi-annually that have contributed to these changes. Is it possible to use 

Germany as a model for dealing with those countries listed on the ‘‘Noncompliant,’’ 

‘‘Not Fully Compliant,’’ and ‘‘Countries of Concern’’ lists? 

Response: 

We have established formal and informal bilateral working groups similar to 

those we have had with Germany since 2000. Critical to the success of these working groups is a senior level policy commitment to resolving areas of conflict. We 

draw upon and encourage this political will in high-level meetings when visiting 

countries of concern or hosting visitors in Washington. Our embassies and the Office 

of Children’s Issues follow up at the policy and the working level in formal and informal meetings. We raise cases, we propose solutions, and we encourage our partners to find creative solutions. Germany made significant improvements by adapting 

its court system, by improving judicial training, and by expanding outreach to local 

law enforcement and youth authorities. We encourage others to take this same 

proactive approach. 

Unfortunately, not all non-complaint countries have the political will to engage 

with us in a serious effort to resolve their compliance problems. Even with those 

countries, the Department works actively to promote improvements in Hague Convention compliance. 

As countries improve we note their efforts in the compliance report and, when improvements lead to overall systemic improvements in Convention implementation, 

we no longer name them in the compliance problem section of the report. That does 

not mean that our job is finished. It just means we have made significant progress 

and continued vigilance and follow-up is required. 

Question: 

In your 2004 Hague Compliance Report, of the 41 applications for return that have 

remained open and active for eighteen months after the filing date, 22 of them were 

cases involving the taking parent being living in Mexico. Of those 22 cases 16 of them 

involve children that have not been located. What actions is the Mexican Central Authority taking to locate these children and the taking parent? 

127

Response: 

We take every opportunity at all appropriate levels, in Washington and in Mexico 

City, to raise the general issue of compliance with the Hague Abduction Convention 

and specific abduction and wrongful retention cases with Mexican officials. Recently, 

the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs met with Mexico’s 

Deputy Attorney General and with the Office of the Attorney General’s Coordinator 

of International Affairs. We specifically raised the issue of Mexico’s seeming inability to locate children and the parents who have abducted them. The General Coordinator has offered himself as a direct point of contact in efforts to locate missing children, and our Central Authority has provided a summary of these cases. In addition, the Mexican Justice Ministry has referred all Hague cases now more than 18 

months old to the Mexican Federal Investigative Agency, Mexico’s equivalent of our 

FBI. 

Question: 

Your office estimates that there are 1,100 active cases on any given day. Due to 

legal costs ranging in the thousands, how many more cases do you think have occurred but the left behind parent has not taken action because they could not afford 

to do so? 

Response: 

It is not possible to estimate how many abduction or wrongful retention cases are 

not brought to our attention, whether because legal costs deter a parent from using 

the Hague Abduction Convention mechanism to seek a child’s return or because 

other facts lead to a parent’s decision not to request the Department’s assistance. 

Whenever we become aware of an international parental child abduction or wrongful 

retention case, we strive to assist parents regardless of their financial situation. 

Question: 

What actions have been taken by the State Department to maintain better records, 

work with other agencies on cases, and insure that the applicant is contacted on a 

regular basis about the status of their application? 

Response: 

The State Department has worked with software developers to improve the operation and reporting abilities of the database that the Office of Children’s Issues uses 

to track international child abduction and access cases. We plan to share information from the database directly with our consular offices abroad and agencies participating in the interagency working group, but even now we have strong working 

relationships that encourage case officers from the Office of Children’s Issues to 

share case information with interagency group members and our consular officers 

overseas. For example, State Department caseworkers are in regular contact with 

FBI field offices that work individual cases. They also regularly contact U.S. 

INTERPOL to confirm whether international alerts have been issued in child abduction cases. 

The Office of Children’s Issues promotes outreach both within the State Department and with other agencies and organizations to improve understanding of the 

issue of international parental child abduction and the State Department’s role. The 

Office of Children’s Issues trains Diplomatic Security officers, consular officers and 

locally employed staff of our embassies and consulates abroad, in sessions held in 

Washington and overseas. The Office of Children’s Issues also trains FBI officers 

from the field, employees from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and foreign law enforcement officials through a variety of workshops and conferences. 

As a standard part and important part of their case-work responsibilities, officers 

from the Office of Children’s Issues contact left-behind parents or their legal representatives regularly by telephone or in writing to report new developments. 

Question: 

In 2000, both the House and the Senate passed a Resolution urging several countries (Sweden, Austria, Germany, Honduras, Mexico) to comply with the Hague Convention. How have these countries done with respect to fully implementing the Convention tenets since that time? The Resolution also called for the Secretary of State 

to disseminate to all Federal and State courts the Department of State’s annual report on Hague compliance and related matters. Has this been done? 

128

Response: 

In the cases of Sweden and Germany, we believe significant progress has been 

made in addressing our concerns and complying with the Convention. However, in 

both countries, access issues, especially in long-term cases, remains a concern. 

In view of Germany’s significant improvement since 2000 in its application of the 

Convention in the context of return applications, the State Department has recognized and detailed Germany’s improved efforts in our Compliance Reports to Congress. Problems in Germany with enforcement of access orders do, however, persist, 

as noted in our April 2004 report. 

Specific systemic changes that have produced positive results in Germany’s processing and adjudication of return cases include consolidating the number of courts 

that hear Convention cases, streamlining the processing of applications, and educating judges about their role in applying the Convention. Moreover, the German 

Central Authority has been prompt in responding to requests from the U.S. Central 

Authority, efficient in moving Convention applications forward for resolution, and 

available to discuss proposed solutions for difficult or problematic cases. The U.S.-

Germany bi-national working group continues to meet semi-annually to discuss specific long-standing cases, new cases and/or other issues as they relate to the Convention. Increasingly since 2000, and including in the past year, German courts have 

consistently rendered legally sound decisions that are in accord with the Convention 

and have ordered the return of children wrongfully removed from the U.S. or retained in Germany. Bailiffs and police now more effectively intervene to enforce return orders when necessary in comparison with prior reporting periods. The latter 

development reflects a greater awareness among German authorities of the means 

at their disposal for enforcing orders and a greater sensitivity to the need to exercise 

the available legal authority to ensure that court-ordered returns in fact take place. 

Sweden’s progress in addressing return cases has also been addressed in our Compliance Reports to Congress in the past few years. In our view, Sweden has been 

responsive to the concerns raised in 1999 and 2000 regarding such issues as locating 

abducted children, enforcing return orders and issuing judicial decisions that are 

consistent with the law of the Convention. Although access concerns persist in Sweden, too, we continue to monitor closely Sweden’s performance in each new case and 

will continue to seek resolution of long-standing cases of concern. 

Austria, Honduras, and Mexico remain countries where significant compliance 

problems remain unresolved. As stated in our April report to Congress, we consider 

Austria, Honduras and Mexico to be noncompliant with the Convention. 

The Department’s concerns about Austrian compliance and willingness to address 

chronic problems persist. Bilateral interaction at the highest levels has increased in 

recent years and numerous Austrian officials have proved willing to meet to discuss 

problems, but we are troubled that these meetings have not yet resulted in any tangible progress in resolving the case. Legislative changes in Austria that will consolidate adjudications of return applications under the Hague Convention in fewer 

courts and provide those courts’ with special training are not scheduled to go into 

effect before 2005, so it may be several years before we can begin to determine the 

effects of the legislation on judicial processing of return applications. 

Until earlier this year, Honduras refused to process Hague applications for the 

return of children to the United States, maintaining that the Convention had not 

been ratified by the national legislature and was therefore not in effect between the 

U.S. and Honduras. The Honduran legislature ratified the Convention in January 

2004 and we hope to see positive movement on pending applications. 

As mentioned in answer to a previous question, serious compliance problems persist in Mexico, despite our efforts to work closely with the Mexican Central Authority and other officials involved in children’s issues in Mexico. The underlying causes 

appear to be a woefully understaffed and underfunded Central Authority in the Foreign Ministry; a judiciary unfamiliar with, or unwilling to apply, the Convention; 

and law enforcement and court authorities unable to ‘‘locate’’ children even in cases 

in which we and the left-behind parents can provide exact addresses. 

Regarding the dissemination of our Compliance Report to Congress, in addition 

to posting the document on our website, the Department reached out to all state 

governors in 2003 to request their assistance in identifying coordinators for each 

state who can help disseminate information about international parental child abduction, including our Compliance Report. 

Question: 

Parents have consistently claimed that they have been left in the dark about their 

missing children’s cases. What is the State Department doing now to let parents see 

their children’s case files, if requested? 

129

Response: 

Our case workers strive to keep parents informed about significant developments 

in their cases but we are restricted by law from releasing complete case files or government-to-government communications directly to parents. Parents can use the 

Privacy Act to obtain information from their children’s files and we work hard to 

move those requests quickly. The Privacy Act permits, but does not require, release 

of information about minors to either parent regardless of which one has custody. 

In fact, it has been our administrative practice to accommodate all such requests 

for information except when there is documented evidence of physical abuse by the 

requesting parent. In addition, we exercise caution in not releasing information 

about the other parent, although this requires considerable care since the minor 

often resides with the non-requesting parent. 

There are specific instances when we are able to expedite formal release of documents. That said, we are always willing to work with requesting parents to informally release documents when the ‘‘expedite’’ requirements cannot be met but the 

requesting parent is agreeable to an informal release. 

Question: 

The State Department publicizes the number of cases in which children are ‘‘resolved’’. How does State differentiate the number of those cases in which the child 

is actually returned home versus the ones closed when a foreign government denies 

a return request? Or the ones not pursued due to inability to fund the case? 

Response: 

We do not consider a case to be ‘‘resolved’’ unless the left-behind parent is satisfied with the outcome. We close cases once the child is returned, as issues of custody 

and the child’s welfare then become the responsibility of the competent court and 

social welfare authorities. On the other hand, if a child remains abroad because a 

return application is denied or a left-behind parent does not pursue the child’s return to the U.S. under the Convention, the Office of Children’s Issues and our consular officers abroad provide the left-behind parent additional assistance. This may 

include seeking the child’s return through other means, as well as monitoring the 

child’s welfare, identifying mediation resources, or otherwise assisting the parent to 

maintain contact with the child. In such instances, although the Hague return application file is closed because no further proceedings pursuant to the Convention 

are anticipated, the State Department opens a non-Hague case file and works with 

the left-behind parent to provide the parent information on his or her remaining options and how the State Department can assist them. 

Question: 

Should the U.S. Departments of State and Justice have offices to proactively engage countries on these types of cases, so that they can globally resolve these issues? 

The U.S. has procedures for resolving international tax disputes and other intergovernmental conflicts. Why not have offices that proactively work on cases involving 

international child abduction in the same fashion? 

Response: 

The Department of State, often in cooperation with the Department of Justice, 

does work proactively on the problem of international parental child abduction, both 

in the context of the overall issue and individual cases. The Hague Convention on 

the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provides a mechanism for resolving abductions by requiring the return of a child to his or her country of habitual 

residence. Where the Hague Abduction Convention is not an option, or where it does 

not function as it should, we also pursue other means for seeking the return of an 

abducted child. Our ‘‘tools’’ include civil, criminal and diplomatic remedies, depending on the facts of the case, the country involved and, above all, the wishes of the 

left-behind parent. 

Some of the greatest challenges we face concern children abducted to, or wrongfully retained in, countries that are not party to the Hague Abduction Convention 

and that have legal systems or cultural norms incompatible with the Convention. 

This is particularly true in various Middle Eastern countries where children and 

foreign national parents find their entry and departure strictly controlled, and easily 

blocked, by an abductor parent. Parents who have been granted custody rights by 

U.S. courts often find those custody rights ignored, unenforceable, and contradicted 

by local custody law. 

Over the past two years, I have led Department of State discussions with leaders 

in non-Hague countries including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, 

Pakistan, India, the Philippines, the UAE, and Morocco to explore developing closer 

bilateral cooperation to assist parents in abduction and access cases. In meeting 

130

with my counterparts throughout the world, and particularly in the Middle East, 

I have encouraged the mutual recognition of the importance of facilitating parents’ 

access to their children and to information about their children’s welfare. Central 

to these discussions is the premise that, except in highly unusual and limited cases, 

children deserve and need to have contact with both parents. 

Some of our discussions have resulted in joint statements that express our mutual 

concerns and shared principles concerning contact between parents and children. In 

October 2003, the governments of the United States and Egypt signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Consular Cooperation in Cases Concerning Parental Access to Children. In April 2004, the U.S. and Lebanese governments signed 

a similar MOU. Both MOUs anticipate future consultations concerning how consular 

officials can cooperate to assist parents to obtain meaningful access to their children. 

These memoranda confirm our shared belief that, while voluntary resolution of 

custody and access arrangements between parents should be encouraged, there are 

situations in which our respective governments can cooperate to overcome barriers 

to contacts between parents and their children. They also stress the shared principle 

that access by parents to their children is not a substitute for the return of abducted 

or wrongfully retained children. Any future arrangements on consular cooperation 

to promote such access would not operate to justify a failure to return children, or 

to prevent parents from attempting to establish or enforce rights of custody and access through the legal systems of either country. 

The Department will continue to push, both bilaterally and multilaterally, for improved international cooperation to assist abducted children and their left-behind 

parents. 

131

RESPONSES FROM DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE

RECORD TO THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. BRYANT BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE

ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS


94505cc.eps
132


94505cd.eps
133


94505ce.eps
134


94505cf.eps
135


94505cg.eps
136


94505ch.eps
137


94505ci.eps
138

RESPONSE FROM TOM SYLVESTER TO QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY

MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

In response to your questions following my testimony of June 22, 2004, I provide 

the following answers concerning the execution of the judgment in favor of both my 

daughter and myself in the European Court of Human Rights entered in the case 

of Sylvester v Austria. 

Once the court’s judgment became final in July 2003, oversight of its execution 

was transferred to a Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is the responsibility of the Committee of Ministers to ensure that the Republic of Austria, 

the violating party, comes into compliance with the judgment both as to the payment of the money damages awarded and as to Article 8 (the right to a family life 

free from state interference) of the European Human Rights Convention. 

As a result, in addition to ensuring that the money damages have been paid, the 

Committee of Ministers investigates and oversees two important areas of Austria’s 

compliance with the judgment: (1) individual measures—whether the violation of 

Article 8 has now ceased and whether my daughter and I are, as far as possible, 

in the same position as we were prior to Austria’s violation and (2) general measures—what steps will be taken by Austria to ensure that Article 8 will not be violated again under the same circumstances so as to take all reasonable measures to 

timely enforce a return order entered under the Hague Convention. 

Individual Measures 

As pertaining to individual measures, it is my position to the Committee of Ministers that the violation of Carina’s and my human rights has not ceased and that 

we are without question not in the same position as prior to Austria’s violation of 

Article 8. In contrast, the Austrian government asserts that they are not in continuing violation of Article 8 in that I have an ‘‘agreement’’ with my ex-wife concerning my access to Carina because I have no petition for access now pending and 

therefore I have chosen the current arrangement of limited supervised contact with 

her. This is untrue. The current situation is not consensual. It is the result of duress. I do not now nor will I ever ‘‘agree’’ to the contrived and unnatural conditions 

for contact with my daughter imposed upon me by my ex-wife. At present, I am permitted by her to see my daughter only if I am under her continuous supervision 

in Austria, only for times and dates chosen by her, never on a holiday nor on 

Carina’s birthday and never, ever alone. These periods of access to my daughter 

occur customarily three to four times a year for a two and a half day weekend. I 

have purchased this time with my daughter with payments of $1,000 per month to 

Carina’s mother. This system arose when she originally extorted the funds from me 

upon her realization that she benefited from the abysmal and now predictable failure of the Austrian legal system to provide me any order for access to my daughter. 

Indeed, the characterization of the current situation as an agreement, in and of 

itself, should shock the conscience. The bizarre circumstances that have created this 

non-consensual situation were created by the irresponsible and reprehensible legal 

procedures established for the operation of the Austrian courts. Just as the rules 

of procedure allowed for the delays which resulted in Austria’s failure to timely enforce the order for Carina’s return to the United States, so that same system of procedures has systematically disallowed me relief to obtain even a timely order for 

contact with my daughter. 

The origins of this situation are as follows. In early 1996, I obtained a favorable 

ruling from the Austrian Supreme Court which had finalized the December 1995 

order under the Hague Convention that my daughter was to be immediately returned to the United States. In early April 1996, the court of the first instance permitted an initial and unsuccessful surprise enforcement of the return order. When 

that effort failed, I learned that I must apply again to the court for a second attempt 

for enforcement. When the abductor countered with four frivolous unrelated motions, the appeals taken on the decisions on those motions resulted in a stay of all 

other proceedings, including my request for a second enforcement. With the passage 

of time, no voluntary compliance by the abductor and no sanctions for her failure 

to comply, the same court accepted her request that the return order not be enforced. The reasoning of the court was that due to the passage of time, my daughter 

was now well-settled in that environment and further she did not know me because 

she had not had contact with me for years! 

Following my appeals of these decisions, I was forced to petition this same court 

for access to my daughter in the year ahead. Thus, although I had a valid and final 

order of the Austrian court that my daughter be immediately returned to the United 

States, I had been precluded by Austrian legal procedure from petitioning for enforcement of that order and, because of the delay resulting from this procedural limVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:03 Mar 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00142 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\062204\94505.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
139

itation coupled with the mother’s non-compliance, I was now forced to petition the 

same court for time with my daughter. Not only was this state of affairs grotesquely 

unfair and illogical but it also was inhumane to both my daughter and myself. Indeed it turns the rule of law on its head. It is this Kafkaesque situation which forms 

the underpinnings for the favorable decision by the European Court of Human 

Rights in Sylvester v Austria and the backdrop for my position on the issue of individual measures which must now be taken by the Republic of Austria to fulfill its 

obligations under Sylvester v Austria. The result of my first petition for access to my daughter filed under Article 21 

of the Hague Convention was an order for just six hours of access for all of 1997, 

taken in Austria in June and December, one hour at a time, supervised by a group 

including the mother, the judge, the grandparents and a psychologist. I was then 

billed and ordered by the court to pay $2,500 for this supervision. For just that 

small bit of supervised time in a group setting for which I was to pay, I had worked 

through the Austrian courts one and one-half years. This was my first sight of my 

daughter since her adjudicated abduction almost two years earlier. This was thus 

the end-product of the two and one-half years of litigation wherein I had received 

every conceivable judgment in my favor on two continents necessary for the return 

of my child and the guarantee of fair proceedings as to her final custody: a valid 

and final order from the Austrian courts that Carina be returned; a custody order 

from the Michigan courts and a safe harbor order of the Michigan court guaranteeing safeguards upon Carina’s return to Michigan. 

In early 1998, I was thus forced to submit yet another access request to the Austrian court under Article 21 of the Hague Convention. As can be seen from the chronology attached, under the Austrian legal procedure, no access was ordered for 

1998. This was repeated in 1999. After nearly two years of petitions, only three days 

were ordered by the court, always in Austria and always supervised by the mother. 

In nearly every instance, my application to the Austrian court for specific dates 

for access to my daughter was presented, considered, referred to the so-called ‘‘expert,’’ decided and appealed by the abductor, making the entire year’s request moot 

by the time of its final resolution. Throughout this time, the mother would deny me 

any contact with my daughter as a punishment for seeking to exercise my rights 

through her courts. 

Understanding the ludicrous and futile nature of continuing to work through the 

Austrian courts, I stopped. Instead, I managed to buy my way into a cursory life 

with my daughter. By paying the mother $1,000 per month I was able to obtain 

‘‘pay per view.’’ I pay the mother money and buy her and Carina lots of things, and 

she makes Carina available to see me three or four times per year according to her 

schedule, under her supervision, always in Austria, never on a holiday and never 

alone. Although I am not subject to a child support order because of my award of 

custody of Carina by the Michigan courts, I have nonetheless paid her mother 

$60,000 for a total of 60 days supervised time with my daughter. 

Thus, after having my right to family life annihilated by the Austrian legal system’s failure to enforce the return order, I have been put in a position either to futilely pursue an attempt at a legal remedy in their courts or purchase scant moments with my daughter. Since I am completely without remedy in the Austrian 

courts, I have no choice but to pay for brief moments with my daughter. To characterize this situation as and an ‘‘agreement’’ because I do not now have a petition 

for access pending before the Austrian courts, is not only illogical but also violative 

of my and my daughter’s human rights to share a life together. In this situation, 

as before, Austria is and has been interfering with our human right to live as father 

and daughter. 

Moreover, if my situation vis-a-vis Carina’s mother were consensual, the United 

States Department of State would not have been involved in discussions with the 

heads of state of Austria since 1997 nor would they had found Austria non-compliant under the Hague Convention in each of the five Compliance Reports prepared. 

A chronology of the State Department’s diplomatic involvement in attempting to improve my access to Carina is attached. Most recently, the State Department even 

communicated in writing its close interest in the proper and full execution of the 

Sylvester v Austria judgment to the Council of Europe. 

Hence, prior to Austria’s violation of Article 8, I had a custody order for my 

daughter from, and free access to, the Michigan courts, an order from the Austrian 

courts for her immediate return to the United States and a legal expectation and 

understanding that my normal life with her would resume upon the execution of the 

return order and Carina’s return here. 

As a direct result of Austria’s failure to enforce the return order, I was denied 

her return here to the United States, her learning of English, her understanding 

her American heritage and culture and her knowledge of and love of her American 

140

extended family. Instead, Carina remained sequestered in Austria, shielded by the 

Austrian legal system from even knowing me. I have been forced to participate in 

the bizarrely circuitous and ineffectual Austrian legal process concerning my requests for access to my daughter and have been denied both a remedy from the 

courts and time with my daughter in the process. The Austrian government cannot 

therefore be permitted to advance my refusal to do a useless and impossible thing 

such as further petitioning their courts as an excuse not to provide individual measures as required under Sylvester v Austria. I can and must be placed in the same position as I had prior to Austria’s violation. 

To do so I must recover my life with my daughter and she her life with me. The 

existing Austrian legal system has shown that it can never provide any relief in this 

regard. Therefore, other specific individual measures must be taken by Austria to 

remedy the fact that I cannot obtain an order for contact with my daughter in the 

Austrian court. This must happen promptly because although Carina was 13 

months at the time of her abduction from the United States, she is now 10 years 

old. Specific, extraordinary, individualized measures must be taken by Austria so 

as to cease the continuing violation of our human rights. 

General Measures 

As to general measures I submit the following. Austria must now demonstrate to 

the Committee of Ministers that ‘‘measures have been adopted, preventing new violations similar to that or those found or putting an end to continuing violations.’’ 

Consequently, Austria must prove that is has implemented a method by which litigants will enjoy all reasonable measures that can be taken to promptly enforce return orders entered under the Hague Convention. The Austrian delegation has responded to this requirement by indicating that it intends to reduce the number of 

courts competent to hear Hague Convention cases and further that it now accepts 

the legal concept of joint custody. These purported remedies are not responsive to 

the wrong found. There is no relationship between the number of courts competent 

to determine whether or not there is a violation under the Hague Convention and 

the enforceability or executability of any order ultimately entered by that court. For 

example, in my case, Judge Katter was extremely well-informed of the Hague Convention and the obligations of the Austrian government under this multi-national 

treaty. The education and competency of the court in no way affected the failure 

to enforce my particular judgment. Nonetheless, the order was not timely enforced. 

Similarly, statistics show that the number of courts competent to decide Hague 

cases bear no relationship to the ultimate enforcement of the orders entered. In the 

United States, for example, there are over 30,800 courts competent to hear Hague 

Convention cases! Nonetheless, the judgments entered under the Hague Convention 

in the United States, however, are enforceable in all instances by the contempt powers of the court, so that a court can in fact compel a reticent party to come into 

compliance with an order for the return of a child under the Hague Convention. 

Sanctions, including imprisonment, can flow from the failure to comply with the 

court’s order under its contempt of court powers. 

Hence, Austria is incorrect in submitting that reducing the number of competent 

courts addresses the systemic problem for which the violation was found in my case. 

In fact, reducing the number of courts would have no effect on enforcement whatsoever. It is ultimately necessary that Austria legislate powers to their courts in order 

to allow them to exercise contempt of court in Hague Convention cases. Current 

Austrian legislation under their Code of Non-Contentious Procedure provides for 

some types of surprise attempts at enforcement of child-related orders generally. 

This was, in fact, the Code utilized in my case. Even with the so-called surprise enforcement, conducted at 7:00 a.m. with the Judge, police, social worker and others 

present, my return order was not promptly enforced, indeed it was never enforced. 

Instead, the Austrian legal system provided that if a second attempt at enforcement 

were to be had, a separate application was required to be filed with the Court of 

the first instance. Since the abductor had filed a panoply of frivolous motions, all 

under appeal, my request for a second enforcement was not able to be heard on the 

grounds that ‘‘the file was with the Court of Appeal,’’ thereby staying all final court 

proceedings. In the time it took to hear the appeals of the frivolous motions, the 

trial court had determined that the order would not be executed at all under the 

same Code of Non-Contentious Procedures due to the passage of time. 

Therefore, the existing Code of Non-Contentious Procedures alone is insufficient 

to ensure that new violations under Article 8 such as mine will not happen again. 

Indeed, under the same circumstances, the same result would occur today. Further, 

reduction of the number of courts competent to hear Hague Convention cases does 

not remedy this situation in any way whatsoever. There must in fact be separate 

enforcement procedural rules implemented by Austrian legislation specifically conVerDate Mar 21 2002 14:03 Mar 31, 2005 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00144 Fmt 6601 Sfmt 6621 F:\WORK\FULL\062204\94505.000 HINTREL1 PsN: SHIRL
141

cerning the prompt enforcement of Hague Convention return orders separate and 

apart from the ineffectual Code of Non-Contentious Procedures. That is the type of 

general measure required under Sylvester v. Austria in order to rectify the violation 

of Article 8 adjudicated. 

It further goes almost without saying that enabling its courts to adjudicate a joint 

custody order has no relationship whatsoever with whether or not a return order 

entered under Austria’s obligations under the Hague Convention is timely enforced 

by its courts. 

The Committee of Ministers has now asked for further information to be supplied 

by Austria concerning the means available within its legal system for creating conditions necessary for executing return orders entered under the Hague Convention. 

Specific information is requested concerning the means available to ensure effective 

interim access rights while enforcement proceedings are pending, including the 

means available to ensure that authorities locate children which are hidden by their 

parents with a view to avoiding compliance with such decisions. The Committee will 

next address this case at the end of November 2004. 

Austria has complied with the payment of the money damages awarded by the 

European Court of Human Rights. 

I greatly appreciate the Committee’s interest in this matter and ask that you contact me at any time if you have any further questions. 

Very truly yours, 

THOMAS R. SYLVESTER

CHRONOLOGY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS ON ACCESS 

Case of Sylvester vs. Austria (Judgment of 24 April 2003) 

1995

10/30/95 ....................... Carina’s Abduction from Michigan 

12/22/95 ....................... Order of Graz Court for Specific Visitation (12/24&12/27) 

(no compliance)

Result: No access in 1995.

1996

9/26/96 ......................... First Petition for Access

Result: No access in 1996 while enforcement attempts made.

1997

2/12/97 ......................... Order that ‘‘expert’’ is to conduct investigation and make recommendation on access request 

2/24/97 ......................... Monika Sylvester files response to access request 

3/26/97 ......................... ‘‘Expert’’ opinion rendered on access request 

4/22/97 ......................... Tom Sylvester files objection to ‘‘expert’s’’ report 

4/29/97 ......................... Order for supervised visitation at Institute for Family Learning for one hour each on 6/2/97, 6/4/

97, and 6/6/97

10/21/97 ....................... Order for supervised visitation at Institute for Family Learning for one hour each on 12/12/97, 

12/13/97, and 12/14/97

Result: Six hours court ordered access in 1997.

1998

3/3/98 ........................... Tom Sylvester files Application under Article 21 of the Hague Convention for access on April 10, 

11, and 12, 1998 and June 27 through July 4, 1998

4/22/98 ......................... Order denying Article 21 access request on basis of inapplicability of the Hague Convention 

5/25/98 ......................... Court of Appeals reverses decision of trial court and remands denying specific request as to 

dates in April now moot. Austrian attorney claims that a court order for access on June 27 

through July 4, 1998 was now no longer possible due to insufficient time for court review 

7/02/98 ......................... New dates on access are submitted to the court for September 6–14, 1998 and December 20–31, 

1998

7/22/98 ......................... Monika Sylvester files objections to access request for remaining dates of September 6–14, 1998

and December 20–31, 1998

7/27/98 ......................... Order for supervised visitation, 2 hours per day, Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays between dates

requested 

142

CHRONOLOGY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS ON ACCESS—Continued

Case of Sylvester vs. Austria (Judgment of 24 April 2003) 

1998

8/13/98 ......................... Monika appeals visitation decision above 

10/12/98 ....................... Court of Appeals remands to expert again; all September dates are moot 

11/24/98 ....................... Supreme Court denies appeal of Court of Appeals decision

Result: No court ordered access in 1998.

1999

3/2/99 ........................... U.S. Department of State delegation meets with Austrian government in Vienna to discuss access

3/16/99 ......................... Tom Sylvester submits to Austrian courts three proposals for access for the 1999 and 2000 calendar years 

4/15/99 ......................... Tom Sylvester submits revised access proposal because April dates are now moot. 

4/27/99 ......................... Monika Sylvester files objections 

6/24/99 ......................... Tom Sylvester meets with Dr. Kraft concerning whether visits by the father are in the interest of 

the child 

7/23/99 ......................... Tom Sylvester begins paying $1,000 U.S. per month to Monika Sylvester at her demand 

8/4/99 ........................... Further opinion of ‘‘expert’’

9/4/99 ........................... Tom Sylvester obtains approval from Monika Sylvester of three days of unordered visits in September 

10/28/99 ....................... Order approving visits supervised by mother for 3 days from 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.: 12/31/99, 1/

1/00 and 1/2/00; 4/28/00, 4/29/00 and 4/30/00; 9/15/00, 9/16/00 and 9/17/00; and 12/29/00, 

12/30/00 and 12/31/00. Other 1999 dates mooted. All other requested access dates were denied. 

11/11/99 ....................... Tom Sylvester appeals above decision based on being granted only 1 of 41 days requested in 

1999, and 11 of 78 days requested in 2000. Also, no visitation was granted unsupervised and 

there were no provisions for visitation in the United States 

11/22/99 ....................... Court of Appeals denies appeal as to dates past and future 

12/27/99 ....................... Tom Sylvester appeals to the Supreme Court 

12/28/99 ....................... Austrian Court enters child support order retroactive to date of abduction.

Result: One day court ordered access in 1999.

2000

1/18/00 ......................... Tom Sylvester’s appeal denied 

9/13/00 ......................... Monika Sylvester files objections 

11/13/00 ....................... New access petition with new schedule submitted to trial court 

12/18/00 ....................... Hearing with judge on access request 

12/28/00 ....................... Hearing with Judge Lautner—‘‘Statement by Minister of Justice submitted re: Complaint to 

ECHR’’

12/29/00 ....................... Dr. Kraft appointed ‘‘expert’’ again and given 8 weeks to expand on his opinion of 8/4/99 to determine whether request of 11/14/00 are in Carina’s best interests

Result: Eleven days court ordered access in 2000.

2001

1/5/01 ........................... Tom Sylvester files formal objection to appointment of Dr. Kraft as ‘‘expert’’

5/21/01 ......................... ‘‘Expert’’ report completed without interview of or input from Tom Sylvester 

7/17/01 ......................... Order of interim access on September 14–16, 2001

9/12/01 ......................... Request to Judge Lautner to change visitation due to September 11 attack in U.S.—denied by 

Judge Lautner 

9/14/01 ......................... Formal request to President of the Court for different dates 

9/18/01 ......................... New order entered for 2001 access 

10/5/01 ......................... Supplemental opinion of ‘‘expert’’

12/3/01 ......................... Order for access 12/29/01, 12/30/01 and 12/31/01

Result: Six days court ordered access for 2001.

2002

2/14/02 ......................... Tom Sylvester provides a detailed access request schedule for the year to his attorney in Austria 

143

CHRONOLOGY OF COURT PROCEEDINGS ON ACCESS—Continued

Case of Sylvester vs. Austria (Judgment of 24 April 2003) 

2002

3/4/02 ........................... Monika Sylvester’s attorney calls Tom Sylvester’s attorney in Austria to report that Monika Sylvester will allow access on March 22, 2002 in the afternoon, March 23, 2002 and March 24, 

2002. 

................................. No further petitions for visitation were made through the courts.

Result: No court ordered access in 2002.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT’S INTERACTION WITH THE AUSTRIAN GOVERNMENT IN THE 

HAGUE ABDUCTION CASE OF CARINA SYLVESTER 

3/02/99 ......................... Department of State Office of Children’s Issues Director and other representatives from the Bureau of Consular Affairs and Office of the Legal Advisor met with officials of the Austrian Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justice in Vienna to discuss the case. 

9/13/00 ......................... U.S. Ambassador to Austria Hall, the U.S. Consul General in Vienna, Thomas Sylvester, and his 

U.S. attorney met in Vienna with the Austrian Minister of Justice Boehmdorfer, Minister of Justice 

official Schuetz, and counsel for Monika Sylvester in an attempt to mediate access issues. 

9/25/00 ......................... Secretary of State Albright discussed the Sylvester matter by telephone with Austrian Chancellor 

Schuessel. 

11/08/00 ....................... Secretary Albright and U.S. Ambassador to Austria Hall met with Austrian Foreign Minister 

Ferrero-Waldner in Washington D.C. and raise the Sylvester case. 

11/26/00 ....................... Secretary Albright met with Austrian Foreign Minister Ferrero-Waldner and Austrian Chancellor 

Schuessel in Vienna and again raised the Sylvester case. 

3/22–28/01 .................. Department of State sent a delegation to participate in the Fourth Special Commission to review 

the operation of The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction at 

The Hague and raised the case with the Austrian delegation. 

6/28/02 ......................... Secretary Powell contacted the Austrian Foreign Minister Ferrero-Waldner, expressing his dissatisfaction with the status quo in the Sylvester case and asking her to help find a solution. 

7/01/02 ......................... U.S. Ambassador to Austria Brown met with Austrian Minister of Justice Boehmdorfer to discuss 

the Sylvester case. Ambassador Brown wrote and hand delivered a letter dated June 10, 2002 

noting that the Sylvester case was creating an irritant to otherwise outstanding bilateral relations and asking for assistance in reaching a humane and just resolution. 

1/14/03 ......................... Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Harty met with Austrian Ambassador Moser and 

discussed the Sylvester case, urging the Austrian government to develop proposals to expand and 

normalize Thomas Sylvester’s access to his daughter. Ambassador Moser agreed to ask authorities in Vienna to help develop a workable access plan. 

3/21/03 ......................... Personnel in U.S. Embassy Vienna met with officials of the Austrian Foreign Ministry to discuss

the case per instructions from the Department of State to follow-up on the meeting in Washington D.C. between Assistant Secretary Harty and Austrian Ambassador Moser. U.S. Consul General in Vienna reviewed all of the efforts made to date to obtain broader effective access rights, 

especially the right to unsupervised visitation both in Austria and the U.S. and requested concrete suggestions from the Austrian side on how to achieve these goals. Austrian officials promised to look into the case further and provide a response to the U.S. Embassy and Washington. 

5/02/03 ......................... Assistant Secretary Harty approved a diplomatic note to the Austrian Embassy in Washington D.C.

forwarding a copy of the European Court of Human Rights’ unanimous decision in the case of 

Sylvester v. Austria, insisting that Austria urgently take steps to expand Thomas Sylvester’s access to Carina Sylvester. 

7/14/03 ......................... Assistant Secretary Harty met with Austrian authorities in Vienna to discuss the matter of Carina 

Sylvester and urged the Austrian government to develop proposals to expand and normalize 

Thomas Sylvester’s access to his daughter. 

7/16/03 ......................... Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs Jones discussed the Sylvester 

matter with Austrian Foreign Minister Ferrero-Waldner in Vienna and urged the Austrian government to develop proposals to expand and normalize Thomas Sylvester’s access to his daughter. 

8/20/03 ......................... Assistant Secretary Jones raised the case in a meeting with Austrian Ambassador Moser. 

8/25/03 ......................... Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Grossman raised the Sylvester case in a meeting 

with Ambassador Moser. 

9/18/03 ......................... Secretary of State Powell raised the case in a meeting with new Austrian Ambassador to the U.S.

Nowotny. 

144

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT’S INTERACTION WITH THE AUSTRIAN GOVERNMENT IN THE 

HAGUE ABDUCTION CASE OF CARINA SYLVESTER—Continued

10/14/03 ....................... State Department Legal Advisor Taft raised the case in a meeting with Ambassador Nowotny. 

10/29/03 ....................... Assistant Secretary Jones raised the case in a meeting with Amb. Nowotny. 

11/13/03 ....................... Under Secretary Grossman raised the case in a meeting with Austrian Foreign Ministry Secretary 

General Kyrle. 

12/04/04 ....................... President of the United States George W. Bush raised the Sylvester case with new Austrian Ambassador to the United States Nowotny as she presented her credentials. 

1/16/04 ......................... Assistant Secretary Harty met with Amb. Nowotny to discuss the case of Carina Sylvester and 

ways for Thomas Sylvester to expand access to his daughter. 

1/26/04 ......................... U.S. Attorney General Ashcroft raised the Sylvester matter with the Austrian Minister of Justice 

while in Vienna. 

6/22/04 ......................... Assistant Secretary Harty raised the case in a letter to Amb. Nowotny for renewed possibility of 

increased access for Thomas Sylvester to his daughter Carina. 

145

LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY DAVID L. LEVY, J.D., PRESIDENT OF THE

CHILDREN’S RIGHTS COUNCIL


94505cj.eps
146

Æ


94505ck.eps