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

90–622 PDF 2003

S. HRG. 108–200

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S OFFICE OF

CHILDREN’S ISSUES—RESPONDING TO

INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL ABDUCTION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JUNE 26, 2003

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS

RICHARD G. LUGAR, Indiana, Chairman

CHUCK HAGEL, Nebraska

LINCOLN CHAFEE, Rhode Island

GEORGE ALLEN, Virginia

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee

NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota

JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware

PAUL S. SARBANES, Maryland

CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, Connecticut

JOHN F. KERRY, Massachusetts

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin

BARBARA BOXER, California

BILL NELSON, Florida

JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, West Virginia

JON S. CORZINE, New Jersey

KENNETH A. MYERS, JR., Staff Director

ANTONY J. BLINKEN, Democratic Staff Director

(II)

CONTENTS

Page

Brownback, Hon. Sam, U.S. Senator from Kansas, prepared statement ............ 24

Hagel, Hon. Chuck, U.S. Senator from Nebraska, prepared statement submitted for the record ............................................................................................ 28

Harty, Hon. Maura, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs,

Department of State, Washington, DC ............................................................... 15

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

Responses to additional questions for the record from Senator Lugar ........ 36

Responses to additional questions for the record from Senator

Brownback ..................................................................................................... 42

Responses to additional questions for the record from Senator Voinovich .. 46

Responses to additional questions for the record from Senator Lincoln ...... 47

Lincoln, Hon. Blanche L., U.S. Senator from Arkansas ....................................... 3

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 8

Lugar, Hon. Richard G., U.S. Senator from Indiana, opening statement ........... 2

McClain, Margaret, Jonesboro, AR, mother of abducted daughter, prepared

statement submitted for the record .................................................................... 10

Sylvester, Thomas, Cincinnati, OH, father of abducted daughter, prepared

statement, including attachments, submitted for the record ........................... 29

Voinovich, Hon. George V., U.S. Senator from Ohio, prepared statement submitted for the record ............................................................................................ 29

(III)

(1)

THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE’S OFFICE OF

CHILDREN’S ISSUES—RESPONDING TO

INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL ABDUCTION

THURSDAY, JUNE 26, 2003

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

Washington, DC.

The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:01 p.m. in room SD–

106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard G. Lugar (chairman of the committee), presiding.

Present: Senators Lugar and Brownback.

The CHAIRMAN. This hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee is called to order. Today, the committee meets to examine international parental abduction and the response of the U.S.

Government to this difficult and often tragic issue. I would like to

extend a warm welcome to my colleague, Senator Blanche Lincoln,

who has long followed this issue and worked to reunite American

parents with their abducted children. I look forward, as I know all

of you do, to Senator Lincoln’s insights into this issue.

Following her testimony, the committee will hear from Ambassador Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs. Assistant Secretary Harty has recently returned from a trip

to the Middle East, where she focused on the issue of parental abductions. The Foreign Relations Committee will be especially interested to hear her report as part of our ongoing oversight of the important work done by the State Department.

I have an extended statement of my own, and thoughts about the

issue, but for the moment I will put that in the record, and I simply want to give some idea of the parameter of our hearing this

afternoon, dictated by activities on the Senate floor. At approximately 2:40, as Senator Lincoln and I now know, there will be four

critical votes that apparently will decide the fate of the Medicare

prescription drugs bill. As a result, since the votes of the last three

will be accelerated, the committee will not return after we leave for

the first vote. I will extend that period, at least for myself, at least

until 2:50 or thereabouts.

Therefore, we will have Senator Lincoln’s testimony, Ms. Harty’s

testimony, as many questions as can be encompassed in that period, and then we will ask Ms. Harty to respond to other detailed

questions so that the record is as complete as possible. Staff, both,

majority and minority, have worked diligently on this issue, and

the backup materials given to Senators has been voluminous. It is

worthy of that attention, and we want to complete the record and

2

to do it right. Therefore, the cooperation of the State Department

will be very much appreciated, even if all the questions are not a

part of the hearing for reasons that I hope all will understand.

[The prepared statement of Senator Lugar follows:]

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Today, the committee meets to examine international parental abductions and the

response of the United States government to this difficult and tragic issue. I would

like to extend a warm welcome to Senator Blanche Lincoln, who has long followed

this issue and worked to re-unite American parents with their abducted children.

I look forward to hearing Senator Lincoln’s insights into this issue.

Following Senator Lincoln’s testimony, the committee will hear from Ambassador

Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs. Assistant Secretary

Harty has recently returned from a trip to the Middle East, where she focused on

the issue of parental abductions. The Foreign Relations Committee will be very interested to hear her report as part of our ongoing oversight of the important work

done by the State Department.

All to often we hear of a divorced or separated spouse who has either abducted

children back to his or her country of origin, or simply refused to allow them to return to the United States following overseas visitation travel. As a parent and a

grandparent, I can only begin to imagine the pain and suffering of these parents

as they try to regain custody of their children. It is vital that the United States government work with parents and other interested parties to prevent international parental abductions and respond effectively to those that occur.

The international treaty that governs such abductions—the Hague Convention on

Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction—was ratified by the United States

in 1988. The Convention calls for the immediate return of children to the country

of habitual residence prior to the abduction.

To date, some fifty countries have ratified the Convention, though ratification

alone has not guaranteed that parental abduction will not occur. For example, Mexico, Australia, Canada, and Germany—all U.S. allies—have ratified the Hague Convention. Yet they rank first, fifth, sixth, and fifteenth on the State Department’s list

of countries with active parental abduction cases.

Even as we examine the behavior of signatories to the Convention, we must recognize that many of the most notorious cases of international parental abduction involve citizens of countries that are not parties to it. The Middle East has been a

particularly troubling region for parental abduction. Among nations of that region,

only Israel is a Convention signatory.

In Indiana, we have the cases of Mari Huscio from Indianapolis whose son Adam,

was taken in May 2000 by his father to Syria. Mari has not seen her son since. Joanna Tonetti, from Terre Haute, is seeking the return of her three children—Rosemary, Sarah, and Abdul-Aziz—since their father abducted them to Saudi Arabia in

August 2000. I understand that Assistant Secretary Harty met with Ms. Tonetti’s

children during her recent visit to Saudi Arabia. Just last month, Madison Sanchez,

the daughter of Linda Price from Princeton, Indiana, was abducted by her father

and taken to Vera Cruz, Mexico. I would welcome updates on these cases.

Over the years, Congress has attempted to provide greater legal tools for parents

whose children have been abducted. In 1993 we passed the International Parental

Kidnapping Crime Act, which makes it a felony to remove a child under the age

of 16 from the United States—or attempt to retain a child outside the United

States—with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of parental rights. In 1999

we passed legislation requiring the signatures of both parents to obtain a passport

for a child, unless the applicant can demonstrate that they have sole custody of the

child. Additionally, existing procedures allow concerned parents to request that their

children’s names be entered into the State Department’s passport name check system so they can be notified if someone attempts to obtain a passport for them. In

this year’s State Department Authorization bill we have greatly expanded the list

of the overseas family members of the abducting parent who will remain ineligible

for a U.S. visa until the child in question is surrendered to the parent with proper

custody.

These measures represent good progress on the legislative front, but none of them

can prevent a dual national from obtaining a foreign passport for the child and

using it as an official travel document. While there is anecdotal evidence of some

parents alerting the relevant embassy and providing proof of custody documents in

time to prevent passport issuance, such cases are rare.

3

In addition to examining how we can prevent abductions, we also have an interest

today in reviewing the activities of the State Department in responding to cases of

abduction. In 1994, with major involvement on the part of Assistant Secretary

Harty—then in her capacity as Director of the Office of Overseas Citizens Services,

the State Department created the Office of Children’s Issues, which has served as

the focal point for U.S. efforts to address international parental abductions.

Inter-agency information sharing remains a concern, but I commend Secretary

Powell for dedicating significant resources to this office as it tracks more than 1,000

cases. We are anxious to hear how the office is coordinating its databases with those

of the FBI and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.

I also would note that the GAO and others have called for the State Department

to engage in more aggressive diplomatic efforts to bring these children home. I

would like to hear how the State Department views the role of overseas Consular

Officers in preventing and responding to international parental abductions.

It is my hope that Congress and the State Department will work together closely

to assist American families in returning abducted children to their homes. This

hearing is an important step in strengthening this cooperative effort.

Now I would like to recognize Senator Lincoln.

The CHAIRMAN. It’s a real pleasure to have you before us, Senator Lincoln, if you would please proceed with your testimony.

STATEMENT OF HON. BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, U.S. SENATOR

FROM ARKANSAS

Senator LINCOLN. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much to

you and to your staff. I do appreciate your willingness to allow me

to appear before your committee this afternoon to discuss an issue

that is of particular importance to me, and I think for many other

Americans, but again, the willingness of you and your staff to work

with us has been tremendous, and I do very much appreciate that.

As you know, over the last year, I and my staff have devoted a

considerable amount of time and energy to the issue of international parental kidnaping. My goal has been to change government policy in the United States and Saudi Arabia so that U.S.

citizens who are held against their will in Saudi Arabia are able

to return to their rightful home here in the United States.

I recognize that the issue of international child abduction is not

limited to Saudi Arabia. However, the status of female abductees

in the Kingdom is unique, since under Saudi law and custom,

women have very limited autonomy and may never have an opportunity to leave, even as adults.

Primarily, my interest in this issue stems from my constituent,

Heidi Al-Omary, who was abducted to Saudi Arabia in 1997. Heidi

was abducted in Arkansas at the age of 5 by her noncustodial

Saudi-born father, Abdulbaset Al-Omary, and taken to Saudi Arabia in 1997, where she has resided ever since.

At the time of her abduction, Heidi’s mother, Margaret McClain,

had primary custody of Heidi. Therefore, Mr. Al-Omary’s actions

were in violation of U.S. law and a valid custody order issued by

a court in the United States. Heidi’s mother resides in Jonesboro,

Arkansas, and in July 2002 Ms. McClain was permitted to travel

to Saudi Arabia to visit with her daughter, who will turn 11 next

month.

Mr. Chairman, before I continue, I just have to say, my first contact with my constituent, Ms. McClain, was something that when

I left work, which is where you and I come to every day in the U.S.

Senate, and I went home to reflect on my own circumstances, to

put myself in my constituent’s shoes and to think, if I were to lose

4

a child instantly, like that, and to have felt so helpless as to having

no recourse and way to recapture that child, to bring them back,

and then to spend 5 years without them, it immediately dug into

my heart, and I immediately felt compelled to have to do what I

could from my position in the U.S. Senate.

Now, Ms. McClain spent 6 days traveling to and from Saudi Arabia back in July 2002, yet Mr. Al-Omary permitted her to spend

only 3 hours with her daughter, Heidi. This was after having not

seen her child, after an instant abduction, for almost—well, over 5

years. Prior to that visit, Ms. McClain had not seen or spoken to

Heidi since she had been taken from the United States, well over

5 years before.

During Ms. McClain’s trip to Saudi Arabia last July, Mr. AlOmary acted in a verbally abusive manner toward her and took

steps to disrupt Ms. McClain’s planned visit with her daughter. In

addition, officials at U.S. diplomatic installations in Saudi Arabia

report that Mr. Al-Omary had been uncooperative in arranging

U.S. consular visits with Heidi.

At one point following Ms. McClain’s visit to Saudi Arabia last

July, Mr. Al-Omary demanded that the U.S. Government send him

a letter of appreciation for allowing Ms. McClain to visit the daughter he had kidnaped before he would authorize future U.S. State

Department personnel visits with Heidi. Thankfully, Mr. Chairman, our government did not send Mr. Al-Omary a thank-you note,

and a subsequent welfare and whereabout visit did occur after

pressure was applied by U.S. and Saudi officials.

This year, after months of preparation by Ms. McClain, my office,

the State Department, with great help from Ms. Harty’s office and

the Saudi Government, Ms. McClain and Heidi’s two adult siblings

were permitted to travel to Saudi Arabia to see Heidi in May of

this year. Ms. McClain reports that she was permitted greater access to Heidi compared to her first visit. However, Mr. Al-Omary

refused to grant Ms. McClain’s simple request to spend time alone

with her daughter. Despite being watched over virtually every moment, Heidi did make it clear to her mother that she would like

to come home and live in the United States.

Mr. Chairman, I know I speak for Ms. McClain when I express

my deep frustration and dismay that Mr. Al-Omary, Heidi’s abductor and a wanted fugitive, still decides when, where, and if Heidi

can communicate with her mother, who was granted legal custody

of her daughter in a U.S. court.

Further, like Ms. McClain, I question why our government’s policy is to negotiate in these cases with a wanted criminal. We don’t

negotiate with terrorists, so why does a high-ranking government

official like Secretary Harty find herself in a position where our official policy is to meet with a child abductor to attempt to negotiate

minimal visitation rights for a left-behind parent who was granted

legal custody by a United States court?

Even after these meetings with Mr. Al-Omary, Ms. McClain was

informed, upon her arrival to Saudi Arabia, that Mr. Al-Omary had

not yet agreed to allow her to see Heidi. Ms. McClain, understandably, was appalled that she would have to suffer the indignity of

meeting with Mr. Al-Omary to ask his permission to see the daughter that he abducted.

5

As it stands now, Mr. Chairman, our government, which has

demonstrated an impressive ability to protect its interests around

the globe in recent years, apparently must bend to the will of a

child abductor who is wanted on kidnaping charges even when the

only issue under consideration involves minimal visitation rights

for a left-behind parent.

For too long, it seems the U.S. Government’s goal in these cases

has been to maximize visitation and contact between U.S. parents

and their abducted children in an effort to avoid confrontation with

foreign governments. It is safe to say, Mr. Chairman, that neither

I nor Ms. McClain are satisfied with that approach. I firmly believe

that our policy should be to aggressively seek to recover abducted

children, especially when they are taken to a country in which

women, regardless of their age, never achieve independence, a right

that we, as Americans, cherish.

As I mentioned earlier, in Saudi Arabia women and girls are

under the complete control of their father, husband, or other close

male relative their entire lives. In this society, women can’t drive,

they cannot ride public transportation alone, or otherwise travel

independently without the permission of a male guardian. Also in

public, women must cover themselves with a garment from head to

toe to avoid seducing Saudi men. Further, according to an Arab

news report I read recently, Saudi women can’t even check themselves into the hospital for medical care unless accompanied by a

male relative.

Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, most troubling to me is that arranged

marriages at an early age are socially acceptable in Saudi Arabia.

As Heidi approaches the acceptable age of marriage in Saudi Arabia, which can occur as young as 12 years of age for girls, I am increasingly concerned that she will be deprived of any meaningful

choice about whom she marries or when she bears a child.

Ultimately, Heidi’s ability or inability to exercise control over

these most personal of matters may very well determine if she is

ever able to return to her rightful home in the United States. Two

recent cases illustrate my point. Within the last month, two American women with children living in Saudi Arabia sought refuge and

assistance from our government at U.S. diplomatic installations in

Saudi Arabia. Even though they were not turned away, as was

Monica Stowers and her children more than 10 years ago, both

women ultimately faced the impossible choice of leaving the Kingdom alone or staying in a potentially unsafe environment with

their children.

One of the women, Sara Saga, from California, has been trapped

in Saudi Arabia since age 6, when her Saudi father defied a U.S.

custody agreement by refusing to return her to the United States

after a 1985 visit to Saudi Arabia. On Tuesday of this week, Sara

left Saudi Arabia without her two children. I cannot fathom being

put in that position, to have to make that decision. She returned

to her home in California for the first time in almost 20 years.

The other female U.S. citizen, after spending several days in a

small room in the U.S. Consulate with her three children, ultimately decided to stay in the Kingdom and return to her husband.

The question, Mr. Chairman, these cases raise in my mind is,

what is going on over there? What would cause two U.S. citizens

6

to risk their lives and to seek refuge at a U.S. diplomatic installation in the Kingdom during the same month? How many other female U.S. citizens are in Saudi Arabia and want to leave?

Further, the lesson I take from these cases is the importance of

seeking a resolution aggressively, before complicating factors make

them difficult or impossible to resolve. For Heidi, it isn’t too late,

although I fear time may be running short.

Mr. Chairman, I applaud the incredible expertise that you have

in international relations. The leadership you have provided this

Nation and the U.S. Senate, the diplomacy that you have exemplified in the many, many decisions and the many, many initiatives

that you have led in the time that you have been in the U.S. Senate.

I know I am not a seasoned diplomat. Also, I recognize that cases

like Heidi’s are difficult to resolve, given the time that has passed

since she was abducted. But I do believe strongly that there has

to be a better approach than offering U.S. citizens refuge and

spending considerable resources simply to gain visitation and access to abducted children without any promise or expectation of return.

After studying the history of Heidi’s case and others, I have sadly

concluded that our own government has failed to stand up for

Heidi and others like her. Perhaps most telling in Heidi’s case is

that, even though Heidi is a U.S. citizen and was kidnaped in August 1997, our government did not formally ask that she be returned until October 2002.

I know Ms. McClain is haunted by the fear that her daughter

may never return to the United States. Unfortunately, given the

similarities between Heidi’s case and previous abduction cases in

which children who are now adults have never returned from Saudi

Arabia, I can’t say that her fears are unfounded.

We must not let the Saudi Government believe that they can run

out the clock on these cases by helping arrange visits and expressing concern when parents and government officials come calling. If

we don’t continue to press this issue at every opportunity, I fear

Heidi and others like her may be lost forever.

Even though I have been critical of Saudi Arabia in my remarks

today, and strongly object to the Saudi policy regarding the abduction and wrongful detention of U.S. citizens, I do not advocate severing our relationship. Saudi Arabia and the United States are and

have been partners on many issues that are important to both

countries and the international community.

However, regardless of how one characterizes our relationship,

Saudi Arabia’s response to Heidi’s case and others will have ramifications beyond this issue. A relationship can only be built on mutual trust and respect. If these cases continue to drag on with no

resolution in sight, other aspects of our relationship will necessarily be affected.

Given the recent terrorist bombings in Riyadh that killed several

Americans, and evidence of possible links between Saudi officials

and known terrorists, we face many challenges in maintaining a

good, productive relationship now and in the future. Clearly, as

State Department travel warnings indicate, American citizens are

at risk in Saudi Arabia, but while nonessential U.S. diplomatic perVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:03 Dec 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 90622.TXT SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
7

sonnel are encouraged and able to leave the Kingdom, not all U.S.

citizens are so fortunate.

I do think that is outrageous, Mr. Chairman. I stand ready and

willing to do my part in Congress to improve our ability to successfully recover abducted children from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

On that front, Mr. Chairman, I’m grateful you included an amended version of legislation that I introduced last year in the State Department reauthorization bill to strengthen the ability of our government to resolve abduction cases, and I applaud you for that effort. This provision expands the category of persons the Secretary

of State may designate as ineligible to receive visas to enter the

United States.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I also want to thank Secretary Harty

for her appearance before this committee this afternoon, and her

hard work. In the past year, she has really devoted a great deal

of time to working with my office, and I am enormously appreciative not only for her willingness to work with my office, but her

tenacity in really working hard on these cases and trying desperately to understand how it is we can resolve them.

I look forward to her testimony, and I hope that she can assure

Ms. McClain, me, and the members of this committee that she believes child abduction and wrongful retention cases in Saudi Arabia

can be resolved, and that American citizens like my constituent can

return to their rightful home in the United States.

I also welcome any suggestions Secretary Harty may have about

what we in Congress can do to help the State Department and

other agencies resolve these cases.

I know the Office of Children’s Issues has improved services to

abducted children and left-behind parents in recent years, much of

that under Ms. Harty’s direction. However, I’m not convinced that

Heidi is any closer to returning to the United States than she was

when she was abducted 6 years ago, or when Secretary Harty took

office 6 months ago.

In her testimony, I hope Secretary Harty can reassure left-behind parents that cases like Heidi’s are viewed by our government

as criminal offenses, not custody disputes, and are considered a top

priority at the highest levels. Ultimately, I hope Secretary Harty

can convince my constituents and others listening to her testimony

that the U.S. Government is ready and able to stand up for the

rights of all of its citizens at home and abroad, especially innocent

United States citizens, children, who are victims of a crime.

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for allowing me to appear before your

committee this afternoon. I thank you for letting me express personally my concerns as a mother and certainly as a United States

Senator representing a constituent who has suffered for 6 years the

loss of a child who, she didn’t need to suffer that loss, and I really

welcome the opportunity to work with you and other members of

the committee on this issue, now and in the future. I thank you for

the committee’s attention, Mr. Chairman.

I’d also like to ask unanimous consent, if I may, of the committee

to include in the committee’s record the written statement of Margaret McClain, who does happen to be my constituent from Arkansas.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be included in full.

8

[The prepared statement of Senator Lincoln follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BLANCHE L. LINCOLN, U.S. SENATOR FROM

ARKANSAS

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your willingness to allow me to appear before your

committee this afternoon to discuss an issue that is of particular importance to me.

As you know, over the last year, I—and my staff—have devoted a considerable

amount of time and energy to the issue of International Parental Kidnaping.

My goal has been to change government policy in the United States and Saudi

Arabia so that U.S. citizens who are held against their will in Saudi Arabia are able

to return to their rightful home in the United States.

I recognize that the issue of international child abduction is not limited to Saudi

Arabia.

However, the status of female abductees in the Kingdom is unique since under

Saudi law and custom women have very limited autonomy and may never have an

opportunity to leave—even as adults.

Primarily, my interest in this issue stems from my constituent, Heidi Al-Omary,

who was abducted to Saudi Arabia in 1997.

Heidi was abducted in Arkansas at the age of five by her noncustodial, Saudi-born

father, Abdulbaset Al-Omary, and taken to Saudi Arabia in 1997 where she has resided ever since.

At the time of the abduction, Heidi’s mother, Margaret McClain, had primary custody of Heidi.

Therefore, Mr. Al-Omary’s actions were in violation of U.S. law and a valid custody order issued by a court in the United States.

Heidi’s mother resides in Jonesboro, Arkansas. In July 2002, Ms. McClain was

permitted to travel to Saudi Arabia to visit with her daughter, who will turn 11 next

month.

Ms. McClain spent six days traveling to and from Saudi Arabia, yet Mr. Al-Omary

permitted her to spend only three hours with Heidi.

Prior to that visit, Ms. McClain had not seen or spoken to Heidi since she was

taken from the United States—five years before.

During Ms. McClain’s trip to Saudi Arabia last July, Mr. Al-Omary acted in a verbally abusive manner toward her and took steps to disrupt Ms. McClain’s planned

visit with her daughter.

In addition, officials at U.S. diplomatic installations in Saudi Arabia report that

Mr. Al-Omary has been uncooperative in arranging U.S. consular visits with Heidi.

At one point following Ms. McClain’s visit to Saudi Arabia last July, Mr. AlOmary demanded that the U.S. government send him a letter of appreciation for

allowing Ms. McClain to visit the daughter he kidnaped before he would authorize

future U.S. State Department personnel visits with Heidi.

Thankfully, our government did not send Mr. Al-Omary a thank-you note and a

subsequent welfare and whereabout visit did occur after pressure was applied by

U.S. and Saudi officials.

This year, after months of preparation by Ms. McClain, my office, the State Department, and the Saudi government, Ms. McClain and Heidi’s two adult siblings

were permitted to travel to Saudi Arabia to see Heidi in May of this year.

Ms. McClain reports that she was permitted greater access to Heidi compared to

her first visit. However, Mr. Al-Omary refused to grant Ms. McClain’s simple request to spend time alone with her daughter.

Despite being watched over virtually every moment, Heidi did make it clear to

her mother that she would like to come home and live in the United States.

I know I speak for Ms. McClain when I express my deep frustration and dismay

that Mr. Al-Omary—Heidi’s abductor and a wanted fugitive—still decides when,

where and if Heidi can communicate with her mother, who was granted legal custody of her daughter in a U.S. court.

Further, like Ms. McClain, I question why our government’s policy is to negotiate

in these cases with a wanted criminal. We don’t negotiate with terrorists. So why

does a high ranking government official like Secretary Harty find herself in a position where our official policy is to meet with a child abductor to attempt to negotiate

minimal visitation rights for a left-behind parent who was granted legal custody by

a U.S. court?

Even after these meetings with Mr. Al-Omary, Ms. McClain was informed upon

her arrival to Saudi Arabia that Mr. Al-Omary had not yet agreed to allow her to

see Heidi. Ms. McClain, understandably, was appalled that she would have to suffer

the indignity of meeting with Mr. Al-Omary to ask his permission to see the daughter he abducted.

9

As it stands now, our government—which has demonstrated an impressive ability

to protect its interests around the globe in recent years—apparently must bend to

the will of a child abductor who is wanted on kidnaping charges, even when the only

issue under consideration involves minimal visitation rights for a left-behind parent.

For too long, it seems the U.S. government’s goal in these cases has been to maximize visitation and contact between U.S. parents and their abducted children in an

effort to avoid confrontation with foreign governments.

It is safe to say that neither I nor Ms. McClain are satisfied with that approach.

I firmly believe that our policy should be to aggressively seek to recover abducted

children, especially when they are taken to a country in which women, regardless

of their age, never achieve independence, a right we cherish as Americans.

As I mentioned earlier, in Saudi Arabia, women and girls are under the complete

control of their father, husband or other close male relative their entire lives.

In this society, women can’t drive, ride public transportation alone, or otherwise

travel independently without the permission of a male guardian.

Also, in public women must cover themselves with a garment from head to toe

to avoid seducing Saudi men.

Further, according to an Arab news report I read recently, Saudi women can’t

even check themselves into the hospital for medical care unless accompanied by a

male relative.

Perhaps most troubling to me is that arranged marriages at an early age are socially acceptable in Saudi Arabia.

As Heidi approaches the acceptable age of marriage in Saudi Arabia, which can

occur as young as 12 for girls, I am increasingly concerned that she will be deprived

of any meaningful choice about whom she marries or when she bears a child.

Ultimately, Heidi’s ability or inability to exercise control over these most personal

matters may very well determine if she is ever able to return to her rightful home

in the United States.

Two recent cases illustrate my point. Within the last month, 2 American women

with children living in Saudi Arabia sought refuge and assistance from our government at U.S. diplomatic installations in Saudi Arabia.

Even though they were not turned away, as was Monica Stowers and her children

more than 10 years ago, both women ultimately faced the impossible choice of leaving the Kingdom alone or staying in a potentially unsafe environment with their

children.

One of the women, Sara Saga, from California has been trapped in Saudi Arabia

since age six, when her Saudi father defied a U.S. custody agreement by refusing

to return her to the United States after a 1985 visit to Saudi Arabia.

On Tuesday of this week, Sara left Saudi Arabia without her two children and

returned to her home in California for the first time in almost 20 years.

The other female U.S. citizen, after spending several days in a small room in the

consulate with her three children, ultimately decided to stay in the Kingdom and

return to her husband.

The question these cases raise in my mind is what is going on over there? What

would cause two U.S. citizens to risk their lives and seek refuge at a U.S. diplomatic

installation in the Kingdom during the same month? How many other female U.S.

citizens are in Saudi Arabia and want to leave?

Further, the lesson I take from these cases is the importance of seeking a resolution aggressively before complicating factors make them difficult or impossible to resolve.

For Heidi, it isn’t too late. Although, I fear time may be running short.

I know I am not a seasoned diplomat. Also, I recognize that cases like Heidi’s are

difficult to resolve given the time that has passed since she was abducted.

But I do believe strongly that there has to be a better approach than offering U.S.

citizens refuge and spending considerable resources simply to gain visitation and access to abducted children without any promise or expectation of return.

After studying the history of Heidi’s case and others, I have sadly concluded that

our own government has failed to stand up for Heidi and others like her.

Perhaps most telling in Heidi’s case is that even though Heidi is a U.S. citizen

and was kidnaped in August, 1997, our government did not formally ask that she

be returned until October . . . 2002!

I know Ms. McClain is haunted by the fear that her daughter may never return

to the United States.

Unfortunately, given the similarities between Heidi’s case and previous abduction

cases in which children—who are now adults—have never returned from Saudi Arabia, I can’t say her fears are unfounded.

10

We must not let the Saudi government believe they can run out the clock on these

cases by helping arrange visits and expressing concern when parents and government officials come calling.

If we don’t continue to press this issue at every opportunity, I fear Heidi and others like her may be lost forever.

Even though I have been critical of Saudi Arabia in my remarks today and strongly object to Saudi policy regarding the abduction and wrongful detention of U.S. citizens, I do not advocate severing our relationship.

Saudi Arabia and the United States are and have been partners on many issues

that are important to both countries and the international community.

However, regardless of how one characterizes our relationship, Saudi Arabia’s re- sponse to Heidi’s case and others will have ramifications beyond this issue.

If these cases continue to drag on with no resolution in sight, other aspects of our

relationship will necessarily be affected.

Given the recent terrorist bombings in Riyadh that killed several Americans, and

evidence of possible links between Saudi officials and known-terrorists, we face

many challenges in maintaining a productive relationship now and in the future.

Clearly, as State Department travel warnings indicate, American citizens are at

risk in Saudi Arabia.

But while non-essential U.S. diplomatic personnel are encouraged and able to

leave the Kingdom, not all U.S. citizens are so fortunate.

I think that is outrageous!

I stand ready and willing to do my part in Congress to improve our ability to successfully recover abducted children from Saudi Arabia and elsewhere.

On that front, Mr. Chairman, I am grateful you included an amended version of

legislation I introduced last year in the State Department reauthorization bill to

strengthen the ability of our government to resolve abduction cases.

This provision expands the category of persons the Secretary of State may designate as ineligible to receive visas to enter the United States.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Secretary Harty for her appearance

before the committee this afternoon.

I look forward to her testimony. I hope she can assure Ms. McClain, me and the

members of this committee that she believes child abduction and wrongful retention

cases in Saudi Arabia can be resolved and that American citizens like my constituent can return to their rightful home in the United States.

I also welcome any suggestions Secretary Harty may have about what we in Congress can do to help the State Department and other agencies resolve these cases.

I know the Office of Children’s Issues has improved services to abducted children

and left-behind parents in recent years.

However, I am not convinced that Heidi is any closer to returning to the United

States than she was when she was abducted six years ago or when Secretary Harty

took office six months ago.

In her testimony, I hope Secretary Harty can reassure left-behind parents that

cases like Heidi’s are viewed by our government as criminal offenses—not custody

disputes—and are considered a top priority at the highest levels.

Ultimately, I hope Secretary Harty can convince my constituents and others listening to her testimony that the United States government is ready and able to

stand up for the rights of all of its citizens at home and abroad, especially innocent

children who are victims of a crime.

Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to appear before your committee this

afternoon. I would welcome the opportunity to work with you and other members

of the committee on this issue now and in the future.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McClain follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARGARET MCCLAIN, JONESBORO, AR, SUBMITTED

THROUGH HON. BLANCHE LINCOLN, U.S. SENATOR FROM ARKANSAS

In 1997, my daughter, Machael Heidi Al-Omary, a U.S. citizen and native of

Jonesboro, Arkansas, was kidnapped by her non-custodial father, Abdulbaset Ahmed

Mohammed Al-Omary, to Saudi Arabia. The kidnapper was assisted by employees

and officials of Saudi Arabian Airlines, a high official of the Saudi National Guard,

his two brothers who are Swedish citizens, and his wife who is an American citizen.

In 2002, I submitted evidence to Congressman Burton’s Committee on Government

Reform to indicate that Ambassador Bandar bin Sultan and the Saudi Embassy in

Washington were complicit in my child’s abduction.

Until the events of 9-11-2001, in which the government of Saudi Arabia, including

its Washington diplomats, has been implicated, the State Department took little inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:03 Dec 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 90622.TXT SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
11

terest in holding the Saudis to account for any of their violations of U.S. law and

their hostage-taking of American citizens like my daughter. As a prelude to the Burton hearings, at which I testified three times, the State Department suddenly began

scrambling to do damage control. As a result, I was able to have a short, but very

disturbing visit with my daughter in July 2002. Heidi appeared to have serious

mental problems for which she was not receiving any help. Even during that visit

to Saudi Arabia, the kidnapper temporarily absconded with my daughter in an attempt to sabotage my visit. Even the State Department will confirm that Mr. AlOmary has displayed his violent tendencies at times.

In 2002, I was informed by Heidi’s caseworker at the State Department’s Office

of Children’s Issues, Beth Payne, that Secretary of State Colin Powell had officially

asked for the return of Heidi to the United States. Despite a request for confirmation, I have as yet received no proof that such a request was ever made of the

Saudis. I received no report of any telephone conversation between Colin Powell and

his Saudi counterpart, nor a copy of any letter written by Secretary Powell regarding my daughter. I have asked for details about the Saudis’ response to Secretary

Powell’s request, but have received no response.

In May of 2003, I received permission to visit Heidi again, along with my other

two children, thanks to negotiations among the State Department, their Consulate

in Dhahran, and Saudi officials. Our 2003 visit went much better than the 2002

visit. Regardless of the relative ‘‘success’’ of this visit, it is unconscionable on the

part of the State Department that it took them six years to achieve this ‘‘success.’’

I will not call the State Department’s performance a success until my Americanborn daughter is back home in the United States. The State Department must tell

the Saudis that serious reprisals will occur unless American children are repatriated. Every official in the State Department has sworn to uphold the Constitution

of the United States; instead, these officials violate their oaths as long as they allow

the Saudis to trample on my child’s Constitutional rights.

The week before my 2003 visit, Maura Harty of the Office of Children’s Issues

was supposed to enter negotiations with the Saudis regarding three American hostages, including my daughter. I had my doubts to begin with, since I knew that the

Saudis would not negotiate with a woman on any issue, according to their own laws

against women holding public office. The State Department is well aware of this

Saudi policy, and it is my opinion that the State Department purposely sent a

woman to negotiate with the Saudis, knowing that any such negotiations would be

totally ineffectual. Only a few days before my scheduled departure, the State Department called to inform me that Maura Harty had had a ‘‘lengthy’’ meeting with

my ex-husband, the kidnapper. I was incensed and disgusted that a top official of

our government would stoop to negotiate with a criminal! As far as I have been able

to determine, Ms. Harty never met with any Saudi officials regarding my daughter’s

virtual imprisonment. If she did, I have never received any report of such a meeting

or its outcome. I would not be at all surprised to learn that the male Saudi officials

had refused to meet with an American female official.

My family and I are not in a financial position to make frequent trips to Saudi

Arabia, and I have been refused financial assistance by the National Center on

Missing and Exploited Children, as well as the Department of Justice’s Office of Victim Assistance. Only a few weeks before our proposed trip, Beth Payne at the State

Department advised me by email that Mr. Adel Al-Jubeir, the Saudi Embassy’s PR

guru, had offered to foot the bill for the entire trip. I was not told whether Al-Jubeir

had approached the State Department first or whether they had advised him that

he could buy some valuable PR by offering his largesse. My legal representatives

advised me against accepting any money from Al-Jubeir, unless there was no other

way that I could see my daughter. Every fiber of my being rebelled at accepting any

dirty money from the Saudis. I was only too conscious of how Al-Jubeir, in his infamous post-9-11 press conference, had denied that there were any American citizens

being held against their will in Saudi Arabia. I was only too aware that he had lied

on national television to Mike Wallace when he denied that he had any knowledge

of the plight of Monica Stowers and her two children; I was angry because Monica’s

mother Ethel is a personal friend of mine. Al-Jubeir’s lies were played on the giant

screen at Congressman Burton’s hearings.

I had already accepted Al-Jubeir’s offer when, at the eleventh hour, a kind offer

for financial assistance came from a private donor. This offer came to me out of the

blue on Good Friday, and I will always call it my Easter Miracle.

Before Maura Harty’s trip to Saudi Arabia, I was assured that part of her mission

would be to make all the arrangements for my visit with Heidi. I was left with the

impression that Ms. Harty was there to ensure that this year’s visit would not be

a repeat of the 2002 visit. I was under the impression that she would be estabVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:03 Dec 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 90622.TXT SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
12

lishing the ground rules for my family’s visit with Heidi, including locations and

times. Such was not to be the case, as I discovered on my first day in Saudi Arabia.

Upon our arrival, we were informed that we had to meet with officials of the

Emir’s (governor’s) office the following morning to discuss our visit. I was dismayed

that I could not see my daughter immediately, after having traveled thousands of

miles. I told the U.S. officials from Dhahran and Riyadh of my displeasure that they

had not arranged everything beforehand as promised. I asked them why they and

Maura Harty were wasting my time by bringing me here for a repeat of last year’s performance. On the following day, when my family and I showed up for the meeting with Saudi officials, we were ushered into a courtroom, complete with video

equipment and a videographer who was setting up his equipment to tape the entire

proceedings! I turned to Margaret Scobey from the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh and

adamantly stated that I had come to see my daughter, not to participate in any

show trial, Kangaroo Court, or Arab Inquisition. I told the Saudi officials that if I’d

wanted to be filmed, I would have given an interview to Al-Jazeera TV! Apparently,

the cameras were the kidnapper’s idea, for he argued at length that if anyone committed perjury, there would be a record of it. I could only imagine that he wanted

a copy of the video to be played in private for his and his family’s amusement. After

a half hour of discussion, Margaret Scobey convinced the Saudis to remove the

equipment.

Upon discovering that this ‘‘hearing’’ was going to be an attack on me personally,

I resolved that I would not say a word. It was ridiculous that a mother should have

to appear and defend her reasons for wanting to see her own child. It was ridiculous

that the rantings of a criminal be given any credence by my own government. I told

the Saudis and U.S. officials that I was authorizing the U.S. officials to speak on

my behalf and present my demands, which were to see Heidi a minimum of 6 hours

a day and to have unsupervised visitation. Margaret Scobey informed me that she

doubted I would receive unsupervised visitation and, in fact, she did not even pursue this demand. Al-Omary, the kidnapper, was allowed to filibuster and rehash all

his reasons for terminating our visit immediately. He became verbally abusive and

displayed paranoid behavior. At the conclusion of the meeting, I was still not sure

if I could see Heidi or not. It was already our second day in Riyadh, and we still

had not seen our loved one. I was convinced that the Saudis would keep stalling

for the rest of the week.

However, later that day, at our hotel, we received a call instructing us to get

ready for our first visit with Heidi. During that visit, Al-Omary got into a verbal

altercation with one of the U.S. officials from the Embassy in Riyadh; the sad part

about this was that the altercation occurred in front of Heidi and her young cousins.

However, the girls seemed to take Al-Omary’s rage in stride. The American official,

to his credit, threatened to report Al-Omary to the Foreign Minister if he did not

allow our visit with Heidi to go forward. On the following days, Al-Omary ‘‘ditched’’

the U.S. officials as he gave us the grand tour of Dhahran, Al-Khobar, and

Dammam. He seemed to relax somewhat away from official eyes.

On the last day of our visit, which was the first day of Secretary Powell’s scheduled tour of Saudi Arabia, a terrorist bombing occurred in Riyadh. I had been informed previously that Mr. Powell intended to bring up Heidi’s case again, but I figured he would forget about Heidi in the confusion surrounding the bombing. In a

recent email from Russell Brown, Heidi’s temporary caseworker at the Office of

Children’s Issues, I was informed that Secretary Powell did discuss Heidi’s case.

Again, I have not been informed of the outcome of any discussions he might have

had in Riyadh.

Between June 16 and 20, 2003, I paid a follow-up visit to the United Nations

Commission on Human Rights, which meets in Geneva, Switzerland. Represented

by two non-governmental organizations (International Educational Development and

the Washington Center for Peace and Justice), I testified at the Working Group on

Contemporary Forms of Slavery regarding my daughter’s enslavement at the hands

of the Saudis. Another witness, a young American man who, along with his sister,

had been separated from his mother, Monica Stowers, for 14 years by the Saudi government, testified about the abuses his family suffered at the hands of the Saudis

and the State Department. He told of how his family had been thrown out onto the

street by a former U.S. Ambassador to Saudi Arabia when they sought refuge at

the Embassy in Riyadh. Written reports from two other American female kidnapping victims of the Saudis were entered into the record as well. The two victims

were afraid to appear in Geneva due to threats upon their lives from Saudi nationals.

The thrust of our testimony was that forced and early marriage, gender discrimination, and denial of an equal education—all of which the kidnapped American girls

are subject to in Saudi Arabia—constitute contemporary forms of slavery.

13

Saudi delegates were allowed to present their rebuttals to our testimony, in which

they denied that their country practiced any of the abuses we mentioned. We attended a private meeting with the Saudi delegates, in which they raised objections

to the use of the words ‘‘abduction’’ and ‘‘slavery’’ in reference to the kidnappings

and illegal detention of American children in their country. At the conclusion of the

week’s proceedings, the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery affirmed

that early marriage—below the age of 18, forced marriage, trafficking of human

beings, gender discrimination, as well as other practices that do not affect the American children held hostage in Saudi Arabia, could indeed be categorized as Contemporary Forms of Slavery. This document officially puts the Saudi government on notice that the United Nations considers the abuses they have perpetrated on my

daughter and other American children as ‘‘slavery.’’ The recommendations made by

the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery will not force the Saudis to

return our American children, but will only exacerbate the public relations nightmare that the Saudis have been experiencing since 9-11 and the Burton hearings.

The American public relations firms and the former U.S. government officials who

represent the Saudis will have to decide whether they wish to continue to sacrifice

their reputations for financial gain.

At our meeting with the Saudis in Geneva, they mentioned that there was an existing ‘‘bilateral protocol’’ between them and the United States to deal with the

American abducted children. The Saudis said that their part of the protocol was

completed and that it was now sitting on some nebulous American State Department official’s desk, waiting only for the signature of some other nebulous American

official. When pressed by our sponsors, the Saudi official could not come up with

a name for this protocol, let alone a copy of it. Our representatives asked for a copy,

which we never received. On the advice of legal counsel, I emailed the State Department from Geneva asking for details on this alleged protocol; the reply from Russell

Brown was that there was no such protocol that he knew of. But then, Russell is

only a temporary replacement, and has been on the job only since May of 2003. I

emailed my circle of friends who are also victims of the Saudis, and we could only

conclude that the Saudi official must have been referring to the infamous ‘‘Solomon’s Protocol,’’ written by Kristine Uhlman—according to her own resume—under contract to the State Department and the National Center on Missing and Exploited

Children. After Al-Jubeir touted the abilities of the NCMEC in his 2002 national

press conference, ‘‘Solomon’s Protocol’’ was presented to the Burton Committee by

one of the American PR firms hired to find a solution to the ‘‘custody cases.’’ In rebuttal to the Saudis’ contention that there was some kind of bilateral protocol, our

legal representatives managed to enter into the official record of the United Nations

Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery their opinions of the ‘‘discredited’’ Solomon’s Protocol. Our representatives also challenged the Saudis to provide

a copy of the alleged protocol.

Calls to the NCMEC were made early this spring by other victims of the Saudis

in an attempt to research the mysterious ‘‘Solomon’s Protocol.’’ The National Center

on Missing and Exploited Children has disavowed any knowledge of this document;

in fact, they took it off their web page this spring. However, I managed to find an

unequivocal reference to it in an NCMEC publication, in which Ernie Allen in his

‘‘President’s Message’’ bragged about the efficacy of this ‘‘Solomon’s Protocol’’ in solving international abductions. If this is such a wonderful document, how come it has

never been used to return a missing child? If this is such a wonderful document,

why hasn’t anyone seen it? Why are the parents in the dark about it? Why have

both the State Department and the NCMEC disavowed any knowledge of its existence? How much have the Saudis donated to the NCMEC to buy Ernie Allen’s cooperation in keeping American children held in enslavement in Saudi Arabia? I urge

this committee to investigate the financing of the NCMEC to determine the ties between it, the State Department, and the Saudi government or Saudi individuals. I

further urge this committee to follow through on Congressman Burton’s attempts

to subpoena all documents from all PR firms hired by the Saudis relating to kidnapped American children held hostage in Saudi Arabia. Congressman Burton’s expert witness on diplomatic immunity has already testified before Congress that such

documents held by these PR firms do not fall under the claim of diplomatic immunity. I urge this committee to direct the State Department to enforce all U.S. custody orders relating to American children held overseas, whether in Hague or nonHague countries. I was told by the State Department that the Secretary of State

was not allowed to threaten sanctions against foreign governments; I was told that

this was a matter for Congress. A few days after I heard these words from Beth

Payne, I heard Secretary Powell threaten Syria with diplomatic and economic sanctions if they harbored any fugitive Iraqi officials or hid Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction. I am wondering why the State Department is in the habit of lying to us

14

‘‘ignorant’’ parents of the missing, why they protect and defend criminal actions of

foreign governments, and why they have stalled the parents of missing Americans

for up to 20 years in some cases? The inevitable results of the State Department’s

actions in my daughter’s case will be that she is sold off in marriage and doomed

to live out her days as a possession rather than as a person in her own right. That

is exactly what the State Department is hoping for, as they have proved time and

time again. They were there when the Saudis sold off Pat Roush’s daughters and

kidnapped them to London, without even notifying the mother; they were there

when they kicked Amjad Radwan out of the Embassy in Riyadh and allowed her

to be sold off at the age of twelve.

The United States prides itself on being a generous country. I agree that we are

generous when it comes to ensuring human rights abroad. We have spent millions

to reopen the hospitals and schools in Afghanistan. We have made sure that Afghan

and Iraqi girls can get an education. We topple ruthless dictators. We make sure

that the governments of Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan have female delegates. My

tax dollars have gone into such noble causes as making sure that every terrorist

in Guantanamo Bay has his own copy of the Koran, while the brothers of these

Wahhabi scum are responsible for the enslavement of my child. As my tax dollars

are wasted to ensure the civil rights of the aforementioned people, their hatred of

the United States grows incrementally. Yet when it comes to rescuing one 11-yearold American citizen (who has told me she is desperate to escape) and the other

American children being held against their wills by foreign dictators, our government is largely silent. I would like my tax dollars spent to rescue my daughter and

other American children before another penny is spent to rescue those who hate us.

A country that turns its back on its own children should be ashamed to call itself

a generous country. I say charity begins at home.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank you very much for that eloquent and

moving testimony, and for your own championship and for focusing

our attention on this issue.

As a parochial concern, but one that you will understand, I researched recent cases in Indiana. There have been three since May

2000, that is, in the last 3 years, that are conspicuous: Adam

Huscio from Indianapolis, the son of Mari Huscio, who was taken

by his father to Syria—and so that introduces the fact that other

countries in addition to Saudi Arabia are involved in this, which,

of course, you have mentioned; three children of Joanna Tonetti

from Terre Haute who were abducted to Saudi Arabia in August

2000 and still are in much the same situation, as I understand it,

as the young lady you have talked about today; and just last month

Madison Sanchez, the daughter of Linda Price from Princeton, Indiana, abducted by her father and taken to Vera Cruz, Mexico.

My opening statement, which I put into the record, does ask Ms.

Harty to investigate and update those three cases. There are others

that we have uncovered along the duration you have mentioned, 6

years of trauma in that case. You have the research as a part of

this record.

As of 24 June, as regards the number of abductees, Mexico leads

the list with 69. Mexico is a Hague Convention signatory, whereas

Egypt, Japan, India and the next three are not: Egypt 25, Japan

19, India 18, Australia, 16, Canada, 15. This hops across continents.

I make the point that this is not an attack on the Muslim world

or on the Middle East or on the Saudis. As a matter of fact, there

are circumstances involving abductions to all sorts of places on

Earth. Our State Department and all of us will be tested in a variety of circumstances. I know this is all a part of the repertoire of

your background, because you have looked at this more than all the

rest of us.

15

It was anticipated that there would be many here. We reserved

this room, Dirksen 106 today, which as you can observe has maybe

four times as many seats as a normal hearing room. Fortuitously

this also made it possible for all 80 Boy Scouts of Troop 399 from

Evansville, Indiana to be a part of this meeting today, and we’re

very pleased they are here as a part of civic education in the ways

of the Congress and on a very important issue involving children.

At this point I will thank you for your testimony and call now

upon Assistant Secretary Harty for her testimony. Thank you very

much.

Secretary Harty, we appreciate very much your coming. The contributions you’ve already made in this field, and your long and distinguished career as a public servant are well-known to all of us

in the hearing room today. We look forward especially to your concentration on the issues raised by Senator Lincoln and by other

Americans who have come to you and to your Department.

STATEMENT OF HON. MAURA HARTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY

OF STATE, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT

OF STATE, WASHINGTON, DC

Ms. HARTY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I very much

appreciate the opportunity to be here and the time that you’re taking to hold this hearing today. I would like to thank Senator Lincoln as well for her comments and suggestions and recommendations.

I would also like to thank the Boy Scouts for being here today.

I agree with you completely that it is absolutely imperative that we

all understand civics and how our societies work. I’m pleased to

have a chance to report today on an issue that is not only one of

great importance to the State Department, but it is one that engages me, sir, on a very personal level, and that is the protection

of children wrongfully retained or taken abroad by their noncustodial parents.

I mention civics because I believe you can actually understand a

lot about society by the way it treats its most vulnerable members,

and I think that the time, the energy and attention devoted to children’s issues at the State Department and within the Congress and

other elements of the U.S. Government in fact reflects quite well

upon our society.

We at State are rapidly approaching the 10th anniversary of the

creation of the Office of Children’s Issues, where we handle matters

of international adoptions, abductions, and the return of children

to their habitual residence under the Hague Convention. I think

that makes it a good time to take stock of how far we have come

in helping parents in this country, and also where we would like

to go in the future.

I would be surprised if anyone present in the room right now

hasn’t, in fact, been riveted by the recent experience of one young

American mother in Saudi Arabia already mentioned by Senator

Lincoln, who sought and received refuge in our consulate in

Jeddah. I think her story is illustrative of the painful realities of

these cases, and also demonstrative of how diligently we work to

ensure that the rights of Americans abroad are protected.

16

Unfortunately, it also displays the limits of our ability to deliver

what is always our goal, and I would like to assure you, sir, today,

that our goal is to guarantee the ability of a U.S. citizen parent to

return to the United States with his or her children. In the recent

case cited by Senator Lincoln, we provided the young woman with

immediate and unquestioned access and refuge to the consulate.

We also provided the basic support that she and her children needed at that moment in time so that in a safe place she could make

the decisions that ultimately were hers to make.

We will continue to be engaged in cases like this, and in the

cases of all other American parents who might find themselves in

need of our help. When they come to us for help, we will aggressively pursue them, sir.

I would like to note that the U.S. Congress has been extremely

helpful to the Department in securing the return to the United

States of abducted and wrongfully retained children, or wrongfully

abducted children, that your personal efforts and your institutional

efforts have been extraordinary. The bill popularly known as the

‘‘Amber Alert’’ law, among its many other accomplishments, made

the attempt to abduct a child from the United States a crime.

In addition, the International Parental Abduction Prevention Act

of 2003 would expand the State Department’s authority to refuse

or revoke a U.S. visa for certain family members of non-U.S. citizens who abduct American children. This bill would enable the

State Department to be more effective and to use the tool that Congress provided us in the Immigration and Nationality Act to persuade parents to return abducted or wrongfully retained American

citizen children.

The amendments to the Immigration and Nationality Act that

that bill proposes would allow the Secretary of State to designate

as inadmissible relatives who are most likely to have an influence

over an abducted parent and in a wider range a family and kinship

circumstances than we have previously been able to use. These are

tools that actually add new teeth, Mr. Chairman, to our ability to

raise the stakes for those who would defy a U.S. court order and

kidnap a U.S. child.

I also want to mention those Members of Congress, and specifically many members of this committee, sir, who have backed our

efforts to recover children abducted to foreign countries. You have

raised these cases in your travels abroad, where you have access

to the highest levels of leadership in countries where many of our

children are wrongfully retained.

Your willingness to do so demonstrates convincingly to foreign

governments that the United States is totally committed to the return of our most vulnerable citizens. I certainly thank you for your

willingness to deliver the message, and want to underscore how

very helpful it is. When we then deliver that same message, sir,

they can see a U.S. Government that is completely united on a

topic of great importance to all of us.

When I came before this committee last fall to ask for confirmation in this job, I spoke about abducted children and my commitment to their return to the United States. Since then, I’ve done everything I can think of to further demonstrate that commitment.

In January, I traveled to Saudi Arabia, Lebanon, and Syria, and

17

raised the issue of international parental child abduction with government officials in each country. Since I made that trip, we have

seen seven Americans return to the United States from those countries.

I visited Saudi Arabia again in April to emphasize the same concerns. We meet regularly with Saudi officials both in Washington

and in Riyadh to seek solutions to specific cases and to find more

systematic ways to address the problem of international parental

child abduction.

I hosted a town hall meeting in February that was attended by

over 60 left-behind parents. During that meeting, parents identified ways they think that we can serve them better, and I found

the meeting to be extremely useful and helpful. I’m going to hold

a second such meeting next month. Also next month I will visit

Germany, Austria, and Sweden to pursue both Hague return and

access cases. This past May alone, we have seen 15 children returned from abroad, and close to 100 have come home since November.

Sir, I’m certainly not here to claim personal credit for these

cases. Where there is credit to be taken, it properly belongs to the

left-behind parents who never abandoned the fight to regain their

children no matter what the odds. I want you to know that we at

the State Department also never lose sight of the goal or the fact

that so long as one child is wrongfully retained our job is incomplete.

Since the United States became party to the convention in 1988,

State has worked to improve its implementation. During that first

year, we created a new Child Custody Division to coordinate our

work in this area, and in 1994 we consolidated our efforts on behalf

of children abroad in our Office of Children’s Issues, an office now

staffed by 28 people, who devote all of their time to helping in the

international adoption process, as well as assisting in the return of

children wrongfully taken or retained abroad.

Over the years, we’ve expanded a cooperative arrangement with

the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which was

formalized in an agreement between State, Justice, and the Center

and signed in September 1995, that provides additional assistance

for parents and children in all international child abduction cases.

The United States, I believe, has long taken the lead in creating

a mechanism for the return of children abducted internationally.

We were instrumental in the negotiation of the 1980 Hague Convention, which provides a civil legal mechanism in the country

where the child is located for parents to seek return of and access

to their child. It applies only to cases where children habitually

resident in one Hague country have been abducted and wrongfully

retained in another country that is also party to the convention.

The Hague Convention is a far from perfect instrument, but it

codifies a shared set of principles for resolving child abduction

cases. At this point, approximately 60 percent of the international

child abduction cases in which we have provided assistance are

now covered by the convention. When the United States joined

back in 1988, only nine other countries were party. Today, the convention is in effect between the United States and 52 other countries.

18

The Hague Convention does not guarantee a satisfactory result

for every left-behind parent. Compliance with the convention in

fact varies among foreign jurisdictions, and even when the left-behind parent has filed an application and done everything right,

that may be the case that from time to time that parent and the

United States may still be very disappointed with the result.

There have been some decisions by foreign courts in Hague cases

with which we don’t agree. However, these decisions have been

made by independent judiciaries and independent sovereign States.

The Hague Convention cannot make a biased judicial system more

fair or a nationalistic judge more objective. That is why we continue to work to improve compliance with the convention through

our contributions to the Hague Permanent Bureau’s, Good Practices Guide, through judicial training programs, through hosting

visits by delegations from other Hague countries to explain how we

apply the convention.

We will also continue to make our concerns known in our Annual

Compliance Report, where we identify instances where foreign

courts in Hague Convention countries deny return of children to

the United States for reasons that we believe are inconsistent with

the convention. In next year’s report, due next March, we will also

expand that report to look at access in Hague Convention countries.

Abduction cases to countries that are not Hague Convention signatories, and whose judicial systems, cultural traditions, and family law are often radically different from our own, present particularly compelling challenges for all of us. When dealing with such

countries, we work with other Federal and State authorities and

with the foreign governments concerned to explore ways to recover

the children.

This may include withholding or revoking the U.S. visas of abducting parents or people who support them and their family members; revoking U.S. passports at the request of a Federal law enforcement agency; and pressing foreign governments nonstop for

assistance in returning children, and either deporting or extraditing their abductors.

We also seek to visit abducted children to verify their well-being

and facilitate communication between the parents and the children.

In some countries with legal systems and practices that vary dramatically from our own, we’re exploring the viability of consular arrangements that could improve mediation and access provided to

parents even as we continue to seek mechanisms to arrange for the

child’s return.

We see no difference between the rights of left-behind parents in

cases involving Hague and non-Hague countries, and our aim is always the same, the return of the child to the United States. We

must, however, work in the manner most likely to be effective in

pursuing that aim, and we don’t neglect those measures that, while

they fall short in some instances of meeting that ultimate goal of

return, nonetheless enable the left-behind parent to have a place

in the child’s life.

Every situation in this area is unique. There really is no tailormade solution that can be applied across the board, but we will not

hesitate to use every tool we have when we and the left-behind

19

parent believe them to be relevant and likely to promote a positive

outcome. Our ambassadors and staffs will push foreign governments to recognize the rights of left-behind parents, to facilitate

visitation, to help advance Hague compliance where that remedy is

available, and constantly to remind foreign interlocutories that the

U.S. Government cares about, supports, and works for the rights

of left-behind parents. I have no higher responsibility in this job,

sir, and I aim to fulfill it to the utmost.

I very much appreciate the opportunity to speak with the committee today and to try and answer your questions. Thank you, sir.

[The prepared statement of Assistant Secretary Harty follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. MAURA HARTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE,

BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to report on the work done by the Department of

State’s Office of Children’s Issues in the areas of international child abduction and

international adoption. I believe that you can understand a lot about a society by

the way it treats its most vulnerable members and I think that the time, energy,

and attention devoted to children’s issues at the Department of State and within

the U.S. Government reflects well upon the United States as a society. We at the

Department of State are rapidly approaching the tenth anniversary of the creation

of the Office of Children’s Issues—where we handle matters of international adoptions, abductions, and the return of children to their habitual residence under the

Hague Convention. It seems an appropriate time to take stock of how far we have

come in helping parents in this country and where we would like to go in the future.

Before I do that, however, I would like to note that the U.S. Congress has been

of inestimable help to the Department in securing the return of abducted and

wrongfully retained children from overseas through both your institutional and your

personal efforts. The bill popularly known as the ‘‘Amber Alert’’ law, among its

many other accomplishments, made the attempt to abduct a child from the United

States a crime, while the International Parental Child Abduction Prevention Act of

2003 expands the Department’s authority to refuse or revoke U.S. visas for certain

family members of non-U.S. citizens who abduct American children. These are tools

that add new teeth to my ability, and that of my officers in Children’s Issues and

in consular sections around the world, to raise the stakes for those who would defy

a U.S. court order and kidnap their children from the United States. I also want

to mention those members of Congress and specifically many members of this very

committee who have backed our efforts to recover children abducted to foreign countries. You have eagerly raised these cases in your travels abroad, where you have

access to the highest levels of leadership in the countries where many of our children are wrongfully retained. Your willingness to do so demonstrates convincingly

to foreign governments that the United States is totally committed to the return of

our most vulnerable citizens. I thank you for your willingness to deliver this message; it really helps us at the State Department to have your support.

When I came before this committee last October to ask for your confirmation in

this job I spoke about abducted children and my commitment to their return to the

United States. Before I describe our work in assisting Americans who choose to

adopt overseas, let me discuss the question of international child abductions and the

work I have done since my swearing-in, to make that commitment a reality. In January, I traveled to Saudi Arabia, Lebanon and Syria and raised the issue of international parental child abduction with government officials in each country. Since

I made that trip we have seen seven Americans returned to the United States from

those three countries. I visited Saudi Arabia again in April to emphasize the same

concerns. We meet regularly with Saudi officials, both in Washington and Riyadh,

to seek solutions in specific cases and to find more systematic ways to address the

problem of international parental child abduction. I hosted a ‘‘Town Hall’’ meeting

on February 24 that was attended by over 60 left-behind parents. Parents identified

ways they think we can serve them better, and the meeting was extremely useful.

We are planning a second such meeting for later this summer.

Results often are slow in coming and the wait for the left behind parent excruciating, but our efforts can produce success. In the month of April of this year, we

have seen fifteen children returned from eight different countries, including two

from Saudi Arabia. In May of this year, an equal number of children were returned

20

to the United States from abroad. I am certainly not here to claim personal credit

for these cases. Where there is credit to be taken it properly belongs to the determination of the left behind parents to never abandon the fight to regain their children no matter what the odds. I do however want you to know that we never lose

sight of the goal, nor of the fact that, so long as one child is wrongfully retained

abroad, our job is incomplete.

We all know that institutional efforts are the most effective over time, which is

why I began my testimony noting the ten years since the founding of the Office of

Children’s Issues. Since the U.S. became party to the Hague Convention on the Civil

Aspects of International Child Abduction in 1988, the Department of State has

worked to improve the Convention’s implementation in this country. During the first

year we created a new child custody division to coordinate our work in this area.

In 1994 we consolidated our efforts on behalf of children abroad in our Office of

Children’s Issues, now an office of 28 people who devote all their time to helping

in the international adoption process and assisting in the return of children wrongfully taken and/or retained abroad. Over the years, we have expanded our cooperative arrangement with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, formalized in an agreement between the Department of State, the Department of Justice, and NCMEC and signed on September 1, 1995, to provide additional assistance

for parents and children in all international child abduction cases. They are our

partners and our friends; NCMEC is an extraordinary organization.

When a parent takes or keeps a child from his or her home, and prevents the

child from having a relationship with the other parent, the trauma to the child is

immediate and compounded each day the child is not returned home. International

child abductions are often complicated by the fact that many abducted children are

from multi-cultural and multinational families. The children themselves are often

citizens of both the United States and the country to which they were abducted. Our

position, which I have made clear in my meetings with foreign government officials,

is that a child abducted from the U.S. in violation of custody rights recognized under

U.S. law should be returned. The taking parent should not be allowed to benefit

from the abduction. Ultimately, however, the fate of these children is decided by the

courts, or other authorities, in the countries to which they have been abducted or

in which they have been wrongfully retained. U.S. court orders, as we all know, are

often not enforceable abroad. Even when everyone involved is a U.S. citizen, these

cases are often difficult to resolve once the child has been removed from the United

States.

THE HAGUE CONVENTION

Recognizing that abductions are individual tragedies that the courts of most countries legitimately wish to resolve in good faith for the benefit of the affected children, the United States has long taken a lead in creating a mechanism for the return of children abducted internationally. The United States was instrumental in

the negotiation of the Hague Convention. The Convention provides a civil legal

mechanism in the country where the child is located for parents to seek the return

of, and access to, their child. It applies only to cases where children habitually resident in a Hague Convention country have been abducted to, or wrongfully retained

in, another country party to the Convention. The Bureau of Consular Affairs’ Office

of Children’s Issues acts as the Central Authority for the Convention in the United

States.

Under the Convention, a Hague proceeding does not decide custody; instead, it decides in which country a custody determination should be made. A Hague proceeding should, with very few and limited exceptions, result in an order from the

court where the abducted child is located for return to the country of habitual residence so that the parents may pursue the resolution of custody there. While the

Convention is far from 100% successful, it does provide a legal channel for left behind parents in a foreign court, and results in children’s return to the United

States. We also believe that the existence of the Convention’s return mechanism has

deterred an untold number of abductions.

Approximately 60% of the cases in which we provide assistance are now covered

by the Convention. When the U.S. joined the Convention in 1988, only nine other

countries were party. Today the Convention is in effect between the U.S. and 52

other countries. We encourage countries which embrace the Convention’s basic principles to become members as the best possible means of protecting children from the

harmful effects of abduction. As we look to improve the Convention’s effectiveness,

we must remember the many parents who wish that they had even this less-thanperfect mechanism to seek return of their children.

21

While The Hague Convention has facilitated the return of many children to the

United States, and while it is a vast improvement over the lack of any international

mechanism whatsoever, it is an imperfect instrument. The Hague Convention does

not guarantee a satisfactory result for every left-behind parent. Compliance with the

Convention varies among foreign jurisdictions. Even when the left-behind parent

has filed an application in a timely fashion, hired legal counsel, and literally done

everything ‘‘right’’, that parent, and the United States, may be bitterly disappointed

with the result. There have been some decisions by foreign courts in Hague cases

with which we do not agree. However, these decisions are made by independent judiciaries in independent sovereign states. The Hague Convention cannot make a biased judicial system fair, or a nationalistic judge more objective, nor can it remove

gender bias from a society or its judicial system.

This reality offers little comfort to the left-behind parents who have suffered the

frustration and anguish of losing contact with a beloved child. Nor does it comfort

the traumatized child who has been abruptly wrenched from the arms of one parent

and asked in effect to choose sides. That is why we continue to work to improve

compliance with the Convention. Among the steps we take to improve Hague compliance are:

• Contributions to the Hague Permanent Bureau’s ‘‘Good Practices’’ Guide;

• Provision of judicial training programs;

• Hosting visits by delegations from other Hague countries, to explain how we

apply the Convention.

• Identifying instances where foreign courts in Hague Convention partners deny

return of children to the United States for reasons that we believe are inconsistent with the Hague Convention so that we may raise these cases diplomatically with the relevant government.

HISTORY—OFFICE OF CHILDREN’S ISSUES

Since the U.S. became party to the Hague Convention in 1988, the Department

of State has worked to improve the Convention’s implementation in the United

States. During the first year we created a new child custody division to coordinate

our work in this area. In 1994, we formed the Office of Children’s Issues, redoubling

our efforts on this important subject and increasing the level of attention it received

in the State Department. The Bureau of Consular Affairs saw the need for a comprehensive interagency coordinated response to address the scourge of international

parental child abduction—from prevention, to recovery, to reunification.

In an effort to coordinate assistance to abducted children and their families, the

Office of Children’s Issues entered into a cooperative agreement with the Department of Justice and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children on September 1, 1995, to work together on these cases. While NCMEC had always helped

us locate missing children, the agreement formalized this arrangement and expanded NCMEC’s work to include Hague cases in which children from other countries were abducted to, or retained in, the United States.

Interagency coordination and communication is critical. We have repeatedly seen

examples of how our increased interagency communication has aided the return

process. Children have returned home thanks to extensive interagency cooperation

involving the FBI, Department of Justice, local law enforcement and NCMEC, efforts coordinated by Children’s Issues.

While the Hague Convention does not guarantee the return of all abducted or

wrongfully retained children, the Convention provides us an invaluable tool that is

absent in our efforts to resolve abduction cases from countries that are not Hague

signatories and whose judicial system, cultural traditions, and family law are often

radically different from our own. The Department, when dealing with such countries, works with other federal and state agencies and the foreign governments concerned to explore ways to recover the children. This may include withholding or revoking the U.S. visas of abducting parents, people who support them, and their family members; revoking U.S. passports at the request of federal law enforcement authorities if a federal warrant is issued for the arrest of a U.S. citizen; and pressing

foreign governments for assistance in returning children and either deporting or extraditing their abductors. We also seek to visit abducted children to verify their

well-being and facilitate communication between the parents. In some countries

with legal systems and practices that vary drastically from those of the U.S., we

are exploring the viability of bilateral consular arrangements that could improve

mediation and access assistance provided to parents, even as we continue to seek

mechanisms for a child’s return. We are working to expand and revise our Standard

Operating Procedures to provide more comprehensive and consistent service to leftVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:03 Dec 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 90622.TXT SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
22

behind parents. We will soon establish a Prevention Unit within CA/OCS/CI to focus

more attention on this important function.

Let me be completely clear on the main question here: we see no difference between the rights of left behind parents in cases involving Hague and non-Hague

countries and our aim is always the same, the return of the child to the United

States. We must, however, work in the manner most likely to be effective in pursuing that aim and we should not neglect those measures that, while they fall short

of meeting our ultimate goal of return, nonetheless enable the left behind parent

to have a place in their child’s life. Children, as they grow older, are far more likely

to exert useful pressure towards reunion with the left behind parent if that parent

is known to and important to them.

Let me close my discussion of international abductions with an observation that

is perhaps obvious, but whose implications are not necessarily self-evident: every

situation in this area is unique and there is no tailor-made solution that should be

applied across the board. The coercive tools we have at our disposal are vitally important and we will not hesitate to use them when we, and the left behind parents,

believe them to be relevant and likely to promote a positive outcome. Often, however, the most effective way to handle these cases is through the consistent use of

our most vital resource: the persuasive power of our diplomatic efforts abroad. Our

Ambassadors and their staff will push foreign governments to recognize the rights

of left behind parents, facilitate visitation, help advance Hague compliance where

that remedy is available, and constantly remind foreign interlocutors that the U.S.

government cares about, supports, and works for the rights of left behind parents

whose children have been wrongfully removed from the U.S. and retained abroad.

INTERNATIONAL ADOPTIONS

In FY 2002, Americans adopted over 21,000 children from overseas, more than the

citizens of any other country. Families throughout the United States have been enriched by the addition of these children while the children themselves are afforded

the opportunity to grow up in loving homes. Everyone wins in this work, and we

are committed to providing the best service we can to adoptive parents overseas. Let

me give you some examples of our commitment to this process at our two largest

orphan visa-processing posts, Guangzhou and Moscow.

In Guangzhou, where we processed over 6,000 orphan visas last year, we modified

our orphan processing procedures in short order to respond to the threat posed by

the SARS epidemic. On an emergency basis, we allowed one parent to process their

child’s case in Guangzhou, minimizing the SARS risk to other family members (including the child being adopted). We also waived the requirement to bring the child

to be adopted into our facilities for processing. The Chinese government subsequently suspended adoptions in order to cope with the danger of SARS, but we remain in close contact with them, with the CDC, and the adoptive parents to ensure

that, once this danger has passed, we can quickly do our part to resume this vital

work.

Centralizing Immigrant Visa processing for the Newly Independent States in Moscow made great sense in the immediate aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union.

The facilities and capabilities at our Embassy in Moscow were far superior to those

available at newly established posts in the former Soviet Union. However, with time

it has become clear that adopting parents traveling to many former Soviet Union

nations were accruing greater and greater hardship in traveling to Moscow to complete their orphan cases, especially as visa regimes between Russia and several of

the former Soviet Union states were tightened.

Accordingly, this year we have begun processing Kazakhstani orphan cases in

Almaty and Georgian orphan cases in Thilisi. Based on last year’s figures, this reconfiguration of IV processing responsibilities will allow over 800 prospective American parents to avoid traveling to Moscow. We hope to implement a further devolution of visa processing from Moscow in the coming months and years, with our embassies in Almaty and Thilisi taking on cases from some neighboring countries.

During the past year, we also committed a significant increase in resources to better our training for consular officers overseas with regard to adoption processing.

We added a new adoptions module to our Advanced Consular Course at the Foreign

Service Institute, a course that is provided to consular officers going to their first

management assignments overseas. And we held our first-ever Consular Affairs Bureau Workshop on International Adoptions, bringing back Immigrant Visa chiefs

from our largest adoption processing posts for an intensive discussion of orphan visa

issues with adoption experts from inside and outside the government.

Despite this significant progress, we realize that there are still adoption issues

that have not yet been resolved. One of the most complicated of these issues over

23

the past two years has been the adoption situation in Cambodia. On December 21,

2001, the Immigration and Naturalization Service suspended adoption processing of

Cambodian orphans after consular and immigration officers uncovered significant

evidence of fraud and irregularities in the Cambodian adoption process. In order to

assist those parents in the process of adopting Cambodian children when the suspension on adoption processing was announced, the INS and Department of State

set up a special Joint Humanitarian Initiative in conjunction with the Cambodian

government to investigate and process these cases.

On September 11, 2002, INS and the Department of State agreed to a final expansion of the criteria used to identify cases for this special humanitarian initiative.

As part of this agreement, unlike the previous special humanitarian initiative cases

that we have processed, the final expansion cases are being processed on a government-to-government basis in order to minimize fraud concerns. To date, the Department of State has issued 295 orphan visas under the auspices of the special humanitarian initiative. There are approximately 76 cases from the final expansion group

that have not yet been completed. I believe that the end is in sight for those families

still waiting to complete processing of Cambodian ‘‘pipeline’’ cases.

In conjunction with the international community and the Cambodian government,

our Embassy in Phnom Penh has begun discussions regarding what steps Cambodia

can undertake in the longer term to establish a transparent adoption process that

would safeguard the interests of children, birth parents, and adopting parents and

prevent child trafficking. When Cambodia establishes such an adoption process, the

U.S. government will be ready to review a resumption of Cambodian orphan processing.

Another country that I know has been of concern to the international adoption

community is Vietnam. In July 2002 the Government of Vietnam issued a new decree on international adoptions, which took effect on January 2, 2003. The decree

imposes a number of new requirements on international adoptions, including the requirement that there be a bilateral agreement between Vietnam and each country

whose nationals seek to adopt children from Vietnam before such adoptions can take

place. The new Vietnamese law, if properly implemented, will go a long way toward

protecting the rights of children, birth parents, and adoptive parents, and preventing baby selling. We are actively discussing with the Vietnamese Government

a proposed bilateral arrangement on adoptions.

The Department of State is committed to the twin goals of rapid processing of

international adoptions and the safeguarding of an adoption process free of fraud

and baby selling. As with abductions, we believe that international adoption practices and procedures will be ameliorated by acceptance of The Hague Adoption Convention, to whose principles the United States is committed. In addition to legitimizing the principle that adoptions are superior to institutionalization for orphans,

the aim of the Convention is to ensure that such adoptions take place when they

are in the child’s best interests and that the abduction of and trafficking in children

and other abuses are prevented.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Secretary Harty. The

questioning period will now begin. I’m going to ask two questions

that have been prepared by Senator Lincoln and her staff. She has

four, and if we have an opportunity we will get to those, but I will

then recognize my colleague, Senator Sam Brownback, who has

joined us, for questions or comments that he may have as a part

of this hearing record.

The first question I want to ask is, as you understand it, what

is the current position of the Government of Saudi Arabia regarding the demand by the State Department that Heidi al-Omary be

allowed to return to her rightful home in the United States?

Ms. HARTY. Well, I hesitate to speak directly for the Government

of Saudi Arabia, Mr. Chairman. What I will say is that we have

a very firm commitment to do something that I mentioned in my

remarks, and that is to continue speaking about it and at the same

time to try and provide as much access as possible so that there

is at least a continued relationship between Mrs. McClain and her

daughter.

24

It is for us not the final and the best solution. We believe that

access is important, and so we have pressed for access. We continue to press for her return, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Has the State Department received any communications from the Government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

that would indicate authorities in Saudi Arabia intend to comply

with the demand from the U.S. Government that Heidi be returned

to the United States?

Ms. HARTY. Sir, what we have from the Government of Saudi

Arabia is the continued desire to help us arrange access, as we saw

this summer, as Mrs. McClain traveled to Saudi Arabia. We do not

have a firm commitment for the return of Heidi to the United

States. I can guarantee you, sir, that it is a never-ending conversation. We will continue to press the point. We will continue to work

as diligently as possible.

I thank Senator Lincoln for expressing concern about the time

that I have spent on this particular case as well as others. It is

time well-spent, sir. I simply won’t stop doing it until we get the

answers that we want to hear.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Brownback, at the beginning of the

hearing I mentioned that we would conclude the hearing at 2:50

because of the four stacked votes, the first of which has begun, so

we have approximately 6 minutes left in the hearing, and I recognize you for comments or questions you may have at this time.

Senator BROWNBACK. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to

include my full statement into the record, if that would be permitted.

[The prepared statement of Senator Brownback follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK

Thank you Mr. Chairman for your willingness to have this hearing. This issue,

parents abducting their own children in contravention to international norms and

standards, often wrongly protected by their home governments and to the detriment

of the child, is an important issue to my colleagues and me.

I have some very serious questions about the role and commitment of the Department of State to helping Americans have access to their children. In addition, it is

important for the committee to know the overall cooperation of our friends and allies

on having laws that meet rational norms, and their commitment to enforcing their

laws so that the rights of parents are protected.

I am concerned that the U.S. Government does not serve as an effective advocate

for American parents and children. The Secretary of State is publicly committed to

children and the Deputy Secretary has nurtured many children (including many

adopted and foster children).

Despite four major congressional hearings, legislation, GAO investigations, and

significant media attention, the State Department has a hostile approach to helping

Americans with this regard and ensures that American children and their left-behind parents continue to face a two-front war.

Of the four left-behind parents who appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations

Committee in its last full hearing on this subject on October 1, 1998, three of the

four have made no progress in achieving the return of their children (Lady Catherine Meyer, Tom Sylvester, and Tom Johnson), and the fourth (Paul Marinkovich)

only obtained the return of his child because the American abductor was foolish

enough to leave her safe haven in Sweden.

Ultimately, most American left-behind parents who are not dealing with a common law country must choose between complete loss of the child or a rescue operation (with the risk of extradition by the U.S. back to the abductor’s country).

I have been told that the State Department has prevented abducted American

children and their left-behind parents from having an effective advocate by blocking

the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) from adequately

assisting American parents, while at the same time using U.S. tax dollars to force

25

NCMEC to help foreign parents who already have ample support from their own

governments and the U.S. Government.

In addition, I understand that the State Department refuses to report adequately

the only statistic that matters—how many American children actually come home— and thus fails to inform American judges and law enforcement of the massive problems concerning international abduction and retention abroad of American children

and the dangers of sending children to countries where is no enforceable access or

visitation for the American parent.

I am under the impression that we have done nothing to negotiate bilateral access

and visitation agreements with the worst offending European countries (Austria,

Germany, Sweden) or the worst Middle Eastern countries.

The State Department submitted 2001 and 2003 reports to Congress on Hague

Convention compliance that ignored remedial legislation in the State Department

Authorization bill, again violated 5 out of 7 paragraphs of the legislative reporting

requirement, and was thus inaccurate and misleading in several respects.

I hope that Assistant Secretary Harty can address these points satisfactorily to

the chairman and myself. This is a serious issue and it needs to be seriously addressed by the one institution representing the interest of Americans abroad. Again,

I thank the chairman for seizing upon this important issue.

Senator BROWNBACK. I would like to submit several written

questions to Ms. Harty as well, because we will not be able to get

through all of it.

Ms. Harty, you and I have met extensively about this. I have

questions about your coming into this position because of prior activities at the State Department that have been raised by a number of individuals. I continue to get complaints. I continue to get

a number of complaints, and I want to go through some of those,

and I want to hear your comments about it.

I understand the State Department refuses to report statistically

how many American children have actually been abducted you get

reported to you, and how many have actually come home. Now, is

that correct?

Ms. HARTY. No, sir, not exactly. It is sort of a constant—— Senator BROWNBACK. I have a real short time. How many have

been abducted that have been reported to the State Department?

Ms. HARTY. Sir, I will have to take the question and get back to

you on a specific number. I’m not refusing to answer. It’s just at

any given time there are approximately 1,000 cases open. Sometimes people come back and we don’t hear about it, sometimes people are abducted and we don’t hear about it, so I’m somewhat loath

to give a hard number, because we’re never, in fact, sure of what

the number is, but sir, I will give you a snapshot and we will send

it to your office expeditiously.

[The following response was subsequently received.]

As of June 1, 2003, we were aware of a total of 904 current cases of abduction,

the majority of them involving American citizen children. Please note that our database tracks cases, some of which involve more than one child. We estimate, therefore, that these cases involve approximately 1,500 children. In addition, we are

aware of 156 open access cases, involving an estimated 270 children. Many but not

all of these access cases involve a child or children abducted from the United States.

This count of children who remain overseas only includes ‘‘open’’ cases. Open

cases involve instances in which the left-behind parent has informed the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues that a child was abducted to or unlawfully

retained abroad, whether or not the parent has taken steps such as the filing of a

Hague application to request the child’s return. An open case is either ‘‘preliminary,’’ ‘‘active,’’ or ‘‘inactive.’’ ‘‘Preliminary’’ cases include instances in which the parent has informed the Office of Children’s Issues that a child has been abducted

internationally but has not yet initiated steps, such as the filing of a Hague application, for the child’s return or access to the child. ‘‘Active’’ is defined as a case of

international abduction for which a final determination to grant or deny return or

26

access has not been made and in which the parent and the Department maintain

continued contact to move the case forward. A case changes from ‘‘active’’ to ‘‘inactive’’ when the facts of the case do not allow, or the parent does not permit, a further reasonable pursuit of the child’s return or access to the child. Cases that have

become inactive may be reactivated upon the left-behind parent’s request if further

action is warranted.

Senator BROWNBACK. If you could, so that we at least have how

many are reported to you, and so I can get some benchmark of how

many have actually come home that you know about, or that you

don’t have any tracking of still. Do you report when children have

been returned home?

Ms. HARTY. Sir, in my opening remarks I mentioned, for instance, that 15 came home in May, 15 in April, and approximately

100 since November when I took the job, but I’m happy to give you

a little bit more on that, sir. I will get a snapshot for you.

[The following response was subsequently received.]

Sir, in my opening remarks I mentioned, for instance, that 15 came home in May,

15 in April, and approximately 100 since November when I took the job. Our database indicates that, since 2000, we have had returns in a total of 700 cases, involving approximately 1,200 children. I should note that we are not always promptly

notified when children return based on a voluntary arrangement between parents.

The actual number of cases involving the return of children may therefore be higher

than our statistics indicate.

Senator BROWNBACK. If you could, because this has been the subject of three congressional hearings, a GAO study, and media reports, and my guess is there are a number of people here in the

audience that have children that have been abducted that are here

because they are so passionate about it and continue to believe

their government is not adequately responding, and that is why

they’re here, and in my work and in my office, if people don’t think

I’m fully engaged and behind it, they get pretty irritated, because

that’s what my work is. I work for them, and you’re getting the

same thing because they still don’t feel like you’re really leaning

into it.

Let me cite an example to you. In 1999 testimony before the

House International Relations Committee—and you were not in

this job at this time, Mary Ryan was Assistant Secretary then. We

had a series of cases. It said that the overall rate of return to the

United States from other countries is about 90 percent, American

children who have been internationally abducted. What was the

rate of return in 1999, and what is it today? We don’t have those

sets of numbers.

At a hearing of the four left-behind parents who appeared before

the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at its last full hearing on

the subject, October 1, 1998, three of the four have made no

progress in achieving a return of their children. Katherine Myer,

Tom Sylvester, Tom Johnson, the fourth, Paul Markinovich only

obtained the return of his child because the American abductor was

foolish enough to leave her safe haven in Sweden.

You were not in that job then, but people continue to believe

we’re not advocating sufficiently.

I’m under the impression we have not done much to negotiate bilateral access treaties with visitation agreements with some of the

worst offending European countries, like Austria, Germany, and

27

Sweden, or some of the worst of the Middle Eastern countries.

Have we engaged in a pressing effort to get bilateral access and

visitation agreements?

Ms. HARTY. Sir, in the time I’ve been in the job I’ve gone twice

to the Middle East. In Saudi Arabia and in Syria and in Lebanon,

each country, I left a draft document with a proposal for how we

could work better, since they are non-Hague countries. We are

working through those documents now.

Senator BROWNBACK. Are we negotiating bilateral access treaties

with them?

Ms. HARTY. Not treaties, sir. We would like an arrangement, not

a treaty per se.

Senator BROWNBACK. Bilateral access agreements?

Ms. HARTY. Actually, sir——

Senator BROWNBACK. Are those being negotiated?

Ms. HARTY. With specific reference to Saudi Arabia we already

have an agreement, sir, that they will do two things. One is that

adult American females who would like to leave the Kingdom may

leave, and we have the Foreign Minister’s personal guarantee that

an American citizen who wants to go to the Kingdom to see his or

her child——

Senator BROWNBACK. My time is so limited, what about Austria?

Ms. HARTY. I’m going to Austria, Sweden, and Germany next

month. I have a trip already scheduled, sir.

Senator BROWNBACK. Do you have bilateral access and visitation

agreements pending with those countries?

Ms. HARTY. Well, sir, those are Hague Convention countries, so

there is both an access and a return clause in the Hague Convention, so we’re going to go talk about those more, but basically we

have a Hague Convention agreement with each of those countries.

Senator BROWNBACK. But that’s as I have, and the numbers

here, these are some of the worst offending European countries.

Ms. HARTY. That’s why I’m going there, sir.

Senator BROWNBACK. Do you need to negotiate additional access

and visitation over and above the Hague treaty?

Ms. HARTY. No, sir, I don’t think so. I think the Hague is not a

perfect instrument, but it is a good one and it works quite well. I

need to have those conversations with those countries. I need to

personally assess what the issues and problems are, and that’s why

I’m going there.

Senator BROWNBACK. Now, the State Department submitted

2001 and 2003 reports to Congress on Hague Convention compliance that, the information I have, ignored remedial legislation in

the State Department authorization bill and violated five out of

seven paragraphs of the legislative reporting requirements, thus, in

the estimation of the people reviewing this, it was inaccurate and

misleading in several respects.

Now, I hope these points can be adequately addressed,

incompliance by the State Department, and that you will take an

aggressive look at these items, and Ms. Harty, the reason I’m being

so pointed on this is, this is something we talked about before your

confirmation. I noted to you the strong feeling on a number of people’s part that their government was not adequately advocating for

28

them, and I don’t think anybody expects that you’re going to solve

all of these problems——

Ms. HARTY. But we owe you our best effort.

Senator BROWNBACK. They don’t feel like we’re giving them our

best efforts, and in particular we’ve got three European countries

that were having some of the most significant violations, and you

understand people’s hearts about this. This is involving their children, and we have to do everything we can to bend over backward

to make this work for our people, and a number here would say

that we are not doing that.

Mr. Chairman, I will submit other questions for the record. I do

want to know the snapshot of what we believe are missing children, and how many American children are actually coming home

on a regular basis, so that we can track here’s how many are missing as of this date, maybe it’s July 1, and here’s how many are

being reported back home, so we have some objective standard of

measure, because as you can rightly say back to me, I’m being very

subjective in my criticism, but it is because we don’t have the objective numbers, and we need to have those objective numbers, and

I would think you would want them for your office until you figure

a way to measure it, you can’t really determine how you’re doing

on it, and we need those numbers to be able to objectively measure,

because otherwise you’re going to, I think rightfully so, continue to

get a lot of subjective criticism, so I really want you to work on,

and I would really appreciate the objective numbers here.

The CHAIRMAN. I thank the Senator for his attention and participation.

Let me say that the record for the hearing will remain open

through the close of business on Monday, and questions from Senator Brownback will come to you. There are 10 questions that I

have that will come to you, and the additional questions from Senator Lincoln, and there may be others. Please respond so that our

record will be complete, and so that we will have a basis, on your

recommendations and our own, for further activity of the committee, but we thank you very much for coming today to testify,

and for your preparation.

Ms. HARTY. Thank you so much, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. The hearing is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 2:55 p.m., the committee adjourned, to reconvene

subject to the call of the Chair.]

ADDITIONAL STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR CHUCK HAGEL, U.S. SENATOR FROM NEBRASKA

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the committee for organizing today’s

hearing on International Parental Child Abduction, and the outstanding work of the

Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues in addressing this issue—from prevention, to recovery, to reunification.

The focus of today’s hearing is a critical matter. I can think of no two individuals

who are more committed to ensuring the safety and return of children who are victims of abduction than our two witnesses today—U.S. Senator Blanche Lincoln and

Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs, Maura Harty.

Our first witness, Senator Blanche Lincoln, has become a leader on this issue in

the United States Senate. Just over one year ago, she began advocating for the safe

return of Heidi Al-Omary—age 5—who was abducted from her home-town in ArkanVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:03 Dec 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 90622.TXT SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
29

sas by her father and taken to Saudi Arabia in 1997. I look forward to Senator Lincoln’s testimony highlighting her first-hand experience with this case.

The committee will also hear today from Assistant Secretary of State for Consular

Affairs, Maura Harty, in whom I have the greatest confidence and respect. She is

an asset to America’s diplomatic corps. The issue of international parental child abduction has always been one of Harty’s highest priorities as Assistant Secretary of

State for Consular Affairs. Assistant Secretary Harty has committed much of her

time and energy, and many resources, to finding ways to better assist left-behind

parents and children who have been victims of international parental child abduction.

Her conviction and capacity to deliver results in this area, and so many others,

is remarkable. Since taking over as Assistant Secretary in November, 2002, approximately 100 children have been returned to their parents in the United States. I look

forward to her testimony and that of our other distinguished witness.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, U.S. SENATOR FROM

OHIO

I would like to thank the Chairman, Senator Lugar, for convening this hearing

today to highlight the urgent need to address the issue of international parental

child abduction.

As the witnesses will testify today, parental child abduction impacts too many

parents in the United States, whose children are taken suddenly and unexpectedly

from their lives. This is true for Thomas Sylvester of Cincinnati, Ohio, who lost his

13-month old daughter, Carina, when she was abducted by her mother to the Republic of Austria in 1995.

In the fall of 1998, this committee conducted a hearing to examine the issue of

international parental child abduction in the context of the failure on the part of

certain European nations to fulfill their obligations under the Hague Convention.

At that time, Tom Sylvester was one of four parents who addressed the committee

on the unfortunate aftermath of their children’s abductions to Austria, Sweden and

Germany.

Despite involvement at the highest level, including a phone call from Secretary

of State Colin Powell to the Austrian Foreign Minister, I am disheartened to learn

that no substantial change has occurred in the circumstances of Tom Sylvester since

that hearing took place five years ago. There can be no doubt that a parental child

abduction is a wrenching experience, be it to Europe, Asia, Australia, Africa, or the

Americas. The matters addressed today concerning the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are

grave indeed. A solution to the problems there must be found.

However, let us not fail at this time to recognize those American parents who

have fought for many years to obtain justice in such Hague Convention countries

as Austria, Sweden and Germany and elsewhere in the world. In doing so, it is crucial that the U.S. Government do all that it can to assist those American parents

who have been left behind.

We are in an advantageous position to do, particularly as to the Republic of Austria. It has been brought to my attention that Mr. Sylvester and his daughter Carina have successfully sued the Republic of Austria in the European Court of

Human Rights in Strasbourg, France. That Court found that the human rights of

both the father and daughter had been violated by Austria in failing without delay

to take all reasonable measures to enforce the order entered by their own courts

that Carina be returned to the United States.

Armed with this decision, I am hopeful that the State Department will call on

Austria to explain fully and immediately how it intends to come into compliance

with the Hague Convention and the European Convention of Human Rights.

It is my sincere hope that the Department of State will take action on what we

will hear today to effectively assist American parents whose children are abducted

to Saudi Arabia and elsewhere so as to restore to them a meaningful and rich family

life.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THOMAS SYLVESTER, CINCINNATI, OH, PARENT OF AN

AMERICAN CHILD ABDUCTED FROM THE UNITED STATES TO AUSTRIA

I am Thomas Sylvester, father of Carina Sylvester, my American-born daughter

and only child who was taken by her Austrian mother from the United States to

30

Austria on October 30, 1995. That was her last day on American soil. She was then

13 months old. Despite my having won the litigation which ensued in Austria under

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, my

daughter was never returned because Austria was unable to enforce its own court

order. Carina is now eight years old and remains in Austria as a result.

I testified at length on the unfortunate aftermath of Carina’s abduction to Austria

at a hearing that was held before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations on

October 1, 1998. This Committee may recall that special hearing which was entitled

‘‘United States Responses to International Parental Abduction.’’ I was one of four

parents who addressed this Committee on the harsh reality of their children’s abductions to Austria, Sweden and Germany. I am disappointed to report that over

the past five years, no substantial change has occurred in the circumstances of three

out of those four parents’ cases. It was only due to the movement by the abductor

in the fourth from Sweden to the U.K., which resulted in her capture and the child’s return to the U.S. Had the abductor known to stay put in Sweden, she likely would

have continued her safe haven there.

The Senate joined the House in unanimously adopting Concurrent Resolution 293

on June 23, 2000 addressing the issue of international parental child abduction in

the context of the failure on the part of certain European party nations, including

Austria, to fulfill their obligations under the Hague Convention. Specifically, the

Resolution urges all contracting parties to the Hague Convention: (1) particularly

Austria, Germany and Sweden, to comply fully with their international obligations;

(2) to ensure their compliance by enacting effective implementing legislation and

educating their judicial and law enforcement authorities; (3) to honor their commitments and return abducted or wrongfully retained children to their place of habitual

residence without reaching the merits of any underlying custody dispute and to remove obstacles to the exercise of parental access rights; and (4) to further educate

their central authority and local law enforcement authorities regarding the Convention, the severity of the problem of international child abduction, and the need for

immediate action when a parent of an abducted child seeks their assistance.

The Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues has taken action in responding to the international parental child abduction case of Carina Sylvester. Since the

Senate hearing in the fall of October 1998, the former Director of Children’s Issues,

Mary Marshall and other representatives from the Bureau of Consular Affairs met

with officials of Austrian Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justice in Vienna to discuss the case on March 2, 1999. The former Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular

Affairs, Mary Ryan, testified at a hearing held before the House Committee on

International Relations on October 14, 1999 to address implementation of the Hague

Convention and discuss this case. In working in coordination with former Secretary

of State Albright, the former U.S. Ambassador to Austria Kathryn Walt Hall discussed the case in a meeting with me, my attorney and the Austrian Minister of

Justice in Vienna on September 13, 2000. Former Secretary of State Madeleine

Albright met with Congressman Steve Chabot, a representative from Congressman

Rob Portman’s office and me on September 21, 2000. Secretary Albright then discussed the Carina Sylvester case with the Austrian Chancellor and the Austrian

Minister of Foreign Affairs.

Under the leadership of the current Administration, the Department of State’s Office of Children’s’ Issues has continued to respond to the international parental abduction case of Carina Sylvester case. The Department of State sent a delegation

to participate in the Fourth Special Commission to the operation of the Hague Convention and took the opportunity to raise the Carina Sylvester case with Austrian

officials at The Hague on March 22-28, 2001. Secretary of State Colin Powell met

with Congressman Chabot and me on June 27, 2002. Secretary Powell promised

during the meeting to: 1) contact the Austrian Foreign Minister, 2) continue to remain personally involved in Carina Sylvester case, and 3) do everything in his

power to help resolve the situation. The U.S. Ambassador to Austria Lyons Brown

met with the Austrian Minister of Justice to discuss the Carina Sylvester case on

July 1, 2002. The Assistant Secretary of State Bureau of Consular Affairs Maura

Harty met with the Austrian Ambassador to discuss the Carina Sylvester case on

January 14, 2003. At the direction of the Department of State, U.S. Embassy in Vienna personnel met with officials of the Austrian Foreign Ministry on March 21,

2003. Assistant Secretary Harty approved a diplomatic note to the Austrian Embassy in Washington, D.C. on the case, which was sent on May 2, 2003.

The Department of State has published a Report on Compliance with The Hague

Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction on four occasions

(April 1999, September 2000, April 2001 and May 2003). These reports identify

those countries that the Department of State has found to have demonstrated a pattern of non-compliance or that, despite a small number of cases, have such systemic

31

problems that the Department believes a larger volume of cases would demonstrate

continued non-compliance constituting a pattern. In addition, the Department recognizes that countries may demonstrate varying levels of commitment to and effort

in meeting their obligations under the Convention. The Department of State considers that countries listed as noncompliant are not taking effective steps to address

deficiencies. In all reports, Austria has been identified as ‘‘Noncompliant.’’

Despite all that has gone on both in Austria and the United States relative to

this case, there continues to remain no meaningful progress toward resolution. I appreciate the efforts made by the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues

on behalf of Carina and me; however, there have been no positive results to date.

I request the Department of State to do everything possible to end this miscarriage

and travesty of justice so that Carina and I can enjoy the normal relationship that

a child is entitled to have with her father.

On April 24, 2003, The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg, France

decided the lawsuit I filed on behalf of myself and my daughter against Austria for

its failure to enforce the order entered under the Hague Convention that Carina be

immediately returned to the United States for a custody determination here. The

Court found in our favor, determining that Austria had violated our human rights

as guaranteed by Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights. Money

damages are now payable to me by the Republic of Austria. This decision, by an

independent European tribunal, is unequivocal proof that Austria’s participation in

the Hague Convention fails to such an extent as to violate fundamental human

rights.

Now that Austria has been adjudicated as having violated our human rights, I

ask what specific, immediate actions will be taken by Austria to assist in the return

of Carina Sylvester to the United States, if only for a visit? As we have learned from

the decision in the European Court of Human Rights, delay can cause irremediable

damage to a parent-child relationship. Given this decision, I ask the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and the Department of State’s Office of Children’s

Issues make demands of Austria to explain fully and immediately how it intends

to come into compliance with The Hague Convention and Article 8 of the European

Convention of Human Rights. I have done all that I can do and now it is up to the

U.S. government to compel the Austrian government to ensure that Carina returns

to the United States to meet her American family and see her homeland.

I want to thank the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations for holding a hearing

on this very important subject. It is my hope that the Department of State’s Office

of Children’s Issues will take action to effectively assist American parents whose

children are internationally abducted so as to restore to them a meaningful and rich

family life.

Question: In responding to the international parental abduction case of Carina

Sylvester, the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues has conducted highlevel meetings as well as scheduled future meetings with still no answers provided

by the Austrian government. Given the continuous avoidance and delay by the Austrians, and now that Austria has been adjudicated by the European Court of Human

Rights as having violated the human rights of Thomas and Carina Sylvester, why

doesn’t the Department of State demand answers from Austria and what specific,

immediate actions will the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues take

which compels Austria to cooperate in the practical aspect of bringing Carina back

to the United States?

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

Appendix 1. Questions submitted to the Department of State’s Office of Children’s

Issues for the Town Hall meeting on February 14, 2003 that have not been answered.

Appendix 2. Chronology of the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues

actions since the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations hearing on October 1,

1998.

Appendix 3. Case Summary.

Appendix 4. Biography.

32

APPENDIX 1

QUESTIONS RELATIVE TO INTERNATIONAL PARENTAL CHILD ABDUCTION TO BE ADDRESSED AT THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE TOWN HALL MEETING ON FEBRUARY 24,

2003

Submitted by Tom Sylvester—February 14, 2003

(1) NOTIFICATION OF MEETINGS AND INFORMATION SHARING

In problematic abduction cases, would the State Department agree to inform leftbehind parents of all contacts the State Department makes or plans with representatives of the country into which the child was abducted?

(2) PARENT PARTICIPATION/STATE DEPARTMENT PREPARATION

Will the State Department allow parents to directly participate in preparing members of the Department to meet with their colleagues of the countries to which the

child was abducted and permit the left-behind parents to attend those meetings?

(3) CASE MANAGEMENT

Would the Department of State work as Central Authority be more effective if

problematic cases were handled comprehensively with clearly defined objectives

which could be implemented through the team approach including the Department

of Justice, FBI, members Congress, NCMEC and always the parent as team members?

(4) THE HAGUE CONVENTION COMPLIANCE REPORT

(A) Will the Department of State publish a complete, accurate and renewed report

on foreign government compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects

of International Child Abduction and disseminate such a report to American parents, judges, family law attorneys, and law enforcement authorities?

(B) What are the Department of State objectives in preparing the Hague Compliance report?

(5) HUMAN RIGHTS

What efforts will be taken to include information on each country’s child custody

and visitation system, including enforcement measures, if any, and the human

rights aspects of international child abduction/retention cases and related access/visitation matters in the Children’s Rights sections of the Department of State’s annual country human rights reports?

(6) FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT

What actions are being taken by the Department of State to adhere to the law

regarding giving parents documents in the files related to their case and within the

established time frame as stated under the law?

(7) COOPERATION WITH NCMEC

What is the Department of State doing to ensure that the National Center for

Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC) is able to provide as much assistance to

American parents of abducted/retained children as it does to foreign parents whose

children are in the United States?

(8) ACCESS AGREEMENTS

Is the Department of State considering the negotiation of bilateral child access

and visitation agreements with offending countries for parental access to abducted/

retained children?

(9) CHILD SUPPORT

Will the State Department support measures to eliminate the possibility of a leftbehind parent’s being subject to income withholding for a child support order following his or her child’s abduction to another country?

(10) FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE

What specific actions will be taken by the Department of State to help provide

financial assistance for left-behind parents given that the Victims of Crime Compensation Program does not help with expenses related to international child abduction?

(11) PRIORITIZATION OF THE SUBJECT

What action will be taken to ensure that the subject of international child abduction of American children is given greater attention on the Department of State list

of priorities?

33

APPENDIX 2

CHRONOLOGY

SINCE THIS COMMITTEE’S HEARING ON OCTOBER 1, 1998 THE DEPARTMENT OF

STATE’S OFFICE OF CHILDREN’S ISSUES RESPONDING TO THE CASE OF CARINA SYL- VESTER

10/01/98—Thomas Sylvester testifies at the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

hearing to review the U.S. government’s response to international parental

child abduction.

3/02/99—Director of Children’s Issues, Mary Marshall and other representatives

from the Bureau of Consular Affairs and Office of the Legal Advisor met with

high officials of Austrian Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Justice in Vienna

to discuss the case.

10/14/99—Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, Mary Ryan testifies at

the U.S. House International Relations Committee hearing on implementation

of The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. She states: ‘‘Austria was found to be noncompliant due to an apparent

lack of understanding in the Austrian judiciary about the aims of the Convention. This fact was most clearly illustrated in the case of Carina Sylvester,

whose father, Thomas Sylvester, will be testifying today. The mother’s refusal

to comply with the return order has become the basis for the court’s subsequent decision not to enforce the original return order. This outcome is a perversion of justice. The abducting parent must not be allowed to generate the

justification for non-return of an abducted child.’’ 9/13/00—U.S. Ambassador to Austria Kathryn Hall, Jan McMillan and Thomas Sylvester meet with the Austrian Minister of Justice in Vienna.

9/21/00—Secretary Albright meets with Thomas Sylvester in her office to discuss his case. 9/25/00—Secretary Albright calls to the Austrian Chancellor Schuessel to discuss

the case.

11/08/00—Secretary Albright and U.S. Ambassador to Austria Kathryn Walt Hall

meet with Austrian Foreign Minister Ferrero-Waldner and raise the Sylvester

case. 11/26/00—Secretary Albright meets with Austrian Foreign Minister FerreroWaldner and the Austrian Chancellor Schuessel in Vienna and again raises

the Sylvester case.

3/07/01—Secretary Powell remarks at the hearing before the House Committee on

International Relations ‘‘Theses are terrible tragedies, each and every one of

them, and these nations are acting irresponsibly. I was familiar with the Sylvester case.’’ 3/22-28/01—Department of State sends 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 raise the

case.

6/27/02—Secretary of State Colin Powell meets with Thomas Sylvester in his office

in Washington, D.C. Congressman Steve Chabot and Assistant Secretary Bureau of Legislative Affairs Paul Kelly are also in attendance. Secretary Powell

promises to: (1) contact the Austrian Foreign Minister, (2) continue to be personally involved in the case, and (3) do everything in his power to help resolve

the situation.

6/28/02—Secretary Powell contacts the Austrian Foreign Minister Ferrero-Waldner

indicating to her his grave dissatisfaction with the status quo in the Sylvester

case.

7/01/02—U.S. Ambassador to Austria Brown meets with the Austrian Minister of

Justice Boehmdorfer to discuss the Sylvester case. Ambassador Brown hand

delivers a letter dated June 10, 2002 which states: ‘‘This case poses a bilateral

irritant to our countries’ otherwise outstanding relations’’ and ‘‘I am sure you

will agree with me that the Sylvester case needs a humane and just resolution.’’

1/14/03-Assistant Secretary Harty meets with Austrian Ambassador Moser to discuss the case of Carina Sylvester and urges the Austrian government to develop proposals to expand and normalize Tom Sylvester’s access to his daughter. Ambassador Moser agreed to ask authorities in Vienna to help develop

a workable access plan.

2/12/03—Secretary Powell hears remarks by Congressman Steve Chabot on the subject of international child abduction generally and the case of Carina Sylvester at the hearing before the House Committee on International Relations.

34

3/21/03—U.S. Embassy in Vienna personnel meet with officials of the Austrian Foreign Ministry to discuss the case per instruction from the Department of

State to follow up on the meeting in Washington D.C. between Assistant Secretary Harty and Austrian Ambassador Moser on January 14, 2003. Jim

Pettit, Consul General reviewed all of the many effort made thus far to obtain

broader access rights, especially the right to unsupervised visitation both in

Austria and the U.S. He told them that the Foreign Ministry needed to understand that this was an important bilateral issue and that the U.S. expected fresh ideas from the Austrian side on how to achieve these goals. The

Austrians promised to look into the case further and provide a response to

the U.S. Embassy and Washington in the near future.

3/26/03—Assistant Secretary Harty meets with Jan McMillan to further discuss the

case.

5/02/03—Assistant Secretary Harty approves a diplomatic note to the Austrian Embassy in Washington D.C. forwarding a copy of The European Court of

Human Rights unanimous decision which adjudicates Austria for its violation

of human rights and respect for family rights in the Sylvester case, insisting

that Austria urgently take steps to expand Thomas Sylvester’s access to Carina Sylvester.

APPENDIX 3

CASE SUMMARY: ABDUCTION OF CARINA M. SYLVESTER

Thomas Sylvester married Austrian native Monika Rossmann in Cincinnati, Ohio

in 1994. In that year, their only child, Carina, was born in Royal Oak, Michigan.

When Carina was just 13 months old, Monika Sylvester abducted Carina from

Michigan to Austria. On December 20, 1995, an Austrian trial court found Monika

Sylvester to have violated the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Parental Child Abduction (Hague Convention), ordering her to immediately

return Carina to Thomas Sylvester in Michigan as follows:

The child’s mother, Monika Sylvester, is ordered by otherwise forced action,

to return Carina immediately to her father, Thomas Sylvester, in Michigan.

. . . It should be expected from the child’s mother, if she puts the well-being

of the child higher than her own, that she returns with the child to the

United States.

Monika Sylvester refused to comply with the court order and did not voluntarily

return Carina. She also ignored an Austrian court order requiring her to provide

Thomas Sylvester with visitation with Carina on two occasions at Christmas that

year. The Austrian Court of Appeals affirmed the order for Carina’s immediate return. The Austrian Supreme Court likewise affirmed the return order stating:

a return of the child to her father would not pose an immediate physical or

psychological danger for the child . . . the goal is to restore the original conditions, until a decision about custody is made by the U.S. courts.

Monika Sylvester ignored the appellate decisions and continued to refuse to comply with the return order. On May 10, 1996, Austrian judicial authorities made

their sole attempt to enforce the return order by appearing at Monika Sylvester’s

house to ask for the child. They were unsuccessful when she denied that Carina was

at home at the time.

In Michigan, Thomas Sylvester obtained a Judgment of Divorce on April 16, 1996

granting him sole physical custody of Carina in the U.S. Following the failure of

the enforcement attempt in Austria, authorities in Michigan issued an indictment

and warrant for Monika Sylvester’s arrest for international parental kidnapping on

May 29, 1996. Thereafter INTERPOL issued red and yellow notices.

In September 1996, at Monika Sylvester’s request, the Austrian trial court agreed

to reopen the Hague Convention case due to the passage of time. Although not permitted under the terms of the Hague Convention, an order was entered that the

earlier return order would not be enforced and Carina would not be returned to the

U.S. This order was based on the best interest of the child standard, stating that

the child’s best interests superseded the policies of the Hague Convention. That decision was affirmed by the Austrian Supreme Court stating that ‘‘the concrete welfare of the child precedes over the aspired goal of the Hague Convention treaty.’’ The

Austrian trial court shortly thereafter awarded custody of Carina to the abductor

and entered a child support order payable by Thomas Sylvester back to the date

of the abduction. The Austrian courts insist that visitation with Carina be in AusVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:03 Dec 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 90622.TXT SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
35

tria only and supervised by the child’s mother for fear that Thomas Sylvester will

abduct Carina to the U.S.

The European Court of Human Rights released its decision in the case of Sylvester

v. Republic of Austria on April 24, 2003. The European Court determined that the

Republic of Austria violated the human rights of both the father and daughter when

it failed to enforce an order entered by the Austrian courts that Carina be returned

to the United States under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction in December 1995. The European Court of Human Rights,

the enforcement arm for the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and

Fundamental Freedoms in Europe, held that Austria had violated Mr. Sylvester’s

and Carina’s fundamental right to a private family life by its failure to enforce the

final Hague Convention return order. The decision of the seven-judge panel was

unanimous.

Carina is now eight years old. She has lived in the home of her maternal grandparents in Graz, Austria for four of those five years, despite orders from both the

U.S. and Austria that she be returned here. Monika Sylvester has been completely

successful in derailing the workings of the Hague Convention in Austria. She wields

absolute power over the Austrian and American courts, and Carina’s life. Thomas

Sylvester has seen Carina only occasionally under strict supervision since 1995.

APPENDIX 4

BIOGRAPHY

Thomas R. Sylvester was born in Covington, Kentucky on September 14, 1953 and

is currently 49 years of age. He was raised in Cincinnati, Ohio and graduated from

Ohio State University with a BSBA in 1975. He earned his MBA from the University of Cincinnati in 1976.

Mr. Sylvester is a business executive with extensive domestic and international

experience in the automotive industry. He has achieved successful results in startup activities in Asia, South America and Europe. He lived and worked in four countries over a 10-year period while an executive with Chrysler Corporation. He currently resides in Cincinnati, Ohio.

Mr. Sylvester married the former Monika Rossmann in Cincinnati, Ohio on April

4, 1994. His only child Carina Sylvester was born in Royal Oak, Michigan on September 11, 1994. Mr. Sylvester divorced Ms. Sylvester April 16, 1996.

Mr. Sylvester has testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

and the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on International Relations regarding international parental child abduction. He addressed the White House Conference on Missing Children on the topic of international parental child abduction.

His case has appeared in Reader’s Digest, on the front page of local newspapers and

has been covered in other publications throughout the country. He has been on ABC

Nightline and CNN.

Carina M. Sylvester was born in Royal Oak, Michigan on September 11, 1994. She

is now eight years old. Carina had not yet begun to speak at the time of her abduction to Austria by her mother on October 30, 1995. She now speaks only German

and has lived in Austria with her mother and maternal grandparents since the abduction. From 1995 through 2002, she has been permitted to visit with her father

on only 27 days in a supervised setting. She has only come to know her father as

an infrequent visitor and cannot effectively communicate with her father whose spoken German has declined since his last assignment to a German-speaking country

in the early 90s.

Monika M. Sylvester was born in Graz, Austria, as Monika Rossmann on April

29, 1962 and is currently 41 years old. Ms. Sylvester met her husband in 1990 when

she was employed as his secretary in Graz, Austria. She married Mr. Sylvester on

April 4, 1994 in Ohio. Her only child, Carina, was born in Royal Oak, Michigan on

September 11, 1994. On October 30, 1995, Ms. Sylvester abducted Carina from her

home in Michigan, taking her to Austria without Mr. Sylvester’s knowledge and consent.

Since the abduction, Ms. Sylvester has lived with Carina in her parents’ home in

Austria. She has been completely successful in derailing the workings of the Hague

Convention in Austria. She wields absolute power over the Austrian and American

courts, and Carina’s life.

36

RESPONSES TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

RESPONSES OF HON. MAURA HARTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF

CONSULAR AFFAIRS, TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR RICHARD G. LUGAR

Question 1. If an American child is determined to be at risk of being abducted

to Saudi Arabia, a country that refuses to return abducted American children, what

safeguards would you recommend that a U.S. Family Law Court implement to protect this American child?

Answer. State Department personnel are prohibited from discussing cases with

judges or other court officials. Any conversations we have about a child custody case

would be with the parents and/or their attorneys. In any custody case where a parent was concerned about an abduction, we would likely recommend that the parent

seek appropriate custody and other orders to restrain the travel of the child. If the

case involved a dual national child, we would likely recommend that a copy of the

subsequent court order be sent to the appropriate foreign embassy, though we would

caution that passport issuances by that embassy are governed by the laws of its own

government. We would also recommend that a copy of the court order be sent to

airline companies, which service the possible destination country. Finally, and irrespective of any court activity, we would strongly recommend to any parents fearing

abduction of their U.S. citizen children that they enter their children’s names in the

Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program (CPIAP).

Question 2. If an American child is determined to be at risk of being abducted

to Syria, another country that refuses to return abducted American children and a

State Department-designated ‘‘state sponsor of international terrorism’’, what safeguards would you recommend that a U.S. Family Law Court implement to protect

this American child?

Answer. State Department personnel are prohibited from discussing cases with

judges or other court officials. Any conversations we have about a child custody case

would be with the parents and/or their attorneys. In any custody case where a parent was concerned about an abduction, we would likely recommend that the parent

seek appropriate custody and, other orders to restrain the travel of the child. If the

case involved a dual national child, we would likely recommend that a copy of the

subsequent court order be sent to the appropriate foreign embassy, though we would

caution that passport issuances by that embassy are governed by the laws of its own

government. We would also recommend that a copy of the court order be sent to

airline companies, which service the possible destination country.

Finally, and irrespective of any court activity, we would strongly recommend to

any parents fearing abduction of their U.S. citizen children that they enter their

children’s names in the Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program (CPIAP).

Question 3. Do you think it is reasonable to advise an American parent concerned

about the abduction of his/her children to an Islamic Law country to go through the

time, energy and money to try to obtain a Mirror Order in that country?

Answer. Our advice in this regard would depend on the particular case. There are

circumstances in which such an order could help provide legal grounds for the return of a child.

Question 4. What can the Department of State do to assist parents in giving official notice to foreign embassies in a case where a U.S. court has prohibited issuance

of a passport to a child the court believes is at risk of abduction? Is it standard procedure for the Department of State to submit a Diplomatic Note serving as official

notice? If it is not standard procedure, why not?

Answer. When requested, the Department assists parents in contacting foreign

embassies about these matters. We typically recommend that parents contact the

appropriate foreign embassy directly to convey information and documentation

about such a case and, when necessary, we have contacted the foreign embassy to

facilitate parental contact. Passport issuances by a foreign embassy are guided by

the laws of that embassy’s government, so a U.S. court order cannot be enforced on

a foreign embassy. That said, the Department believes foreign embassies should be

aware of U.S. court orders concerning passport issuances to minor children and consider such orders in deciding whether a passport should be issued.

Question 5. What can the U.S. Government do about a foreign embassy or diplomat that issues a passport for a dual-national American child, who is later abducted; if evidence is presented that a parent, attorney, or U.S. court provided that

embassy with court orders prohibiting issuance of a passport for that child?

37

Answer. Issuance of passports by a foreign embassy is guided by the laws of that

embassy’s government. The issuance of foreign passports is not governed by U.S.

law. While the United States Government can help parents and local authorities inform foreign embassies of court orders related to a passport application, the U.S.

Government has no authority to prevent a foreign government from issuing a passport to one of its citizens, even a dual national.

Question 6. Please provide a list of cases where a parent has submitted court orders to the Department of State because they fear that their child may be internationally abducted. Include case number, parties’ names; court, county and state;

foreign country involved and indicate whether supervised visitation was ordered or

whether the child was abduction (if abducted, date of abduction and age of child).

Answer. The Department of State does not have that kind of information readily

available for the more than 26,000 entries in the Children’s Passport Alert Program

(CPIAP) and active parental child abduction case files. Court orders are not required

and, in fact, rarely submitted for a CPIAP entry to be made, but become relevant

at such time as a passport application is submitted on behalf of the child. Court

orders are also not required for an active abduction case to be established with the

Abduction Unit.

Question 7. Is CA willing to strengthen the language on their Web site regarding

the need for U.S. courts to order supervised visitation (by an independent visitation

center) and sole custody when children are at risk of being abducted to Islamic Law

countries?

Answer. The Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) reviews on an ongoing basis the information provided on our Web site to ensure that we best inform members of the

public about the potential for international parental child abduction and various

prevention measures available to protect children at risk of abduction. CA gathers

and posts information about foreign country laws and practices that might either

increase the risk of international parental abduction or lead to the unlawful retention of a child. For example, we have flyers on both Sharia Law and Marriage to

Saudis that provide information relevant to custody issues and parental rights. We

encourage parents and their attorneys to bring potential risk factors to the attention

of relevant U.S. courts. We strongly advise parents to share with courts hearing custody or access cases the information the Department posts regarding foreign country

laws and practices, particularly for those countries with laws that could hinder recognition or enforcement of a U.S. court order; pose barriers to a U.S. parent’s ability

to maintain access to his/her child; prevent the return of a child to a parent; or otherwise hinder the operation of a U.S. court custody decision. We will continue to review and update the information provided on our Web site to assist parents, attorneys, judges and others to understand obstacles posed in certain countries to enforcement of U.S. orders.

Question 8. Both California and Texas have now enacted laws enabling courts—

where there is substantial, credible risk of international parental abduction—to

order that only supervised visitation may take place between the child(ren) and the

non-custodial parent either in the presence of a third party or in a designated ‘‘safe

house.’’ Could the Department list both laws under the ‘‘Legislation’’ section on its

otherwise thorough Web page?

Answer. We appreciate this useful suggestion and have added the links to our

Web page.

Question 9. I commend the Department of State for reinstating information on

‘‘Marriage to Saudis’’ on its Web site. What other ways do you believe the Department of State can help advise American women prior to marrying a national of an

Islamic Law country about the impact on their and their children’s lives, e.g. that

their children would be considered nationals of that country subject to their laws,

and that American women and children can be restricted from exiting. (For example, ‘‘provide them a fact sheet when they apply for a Fiance ́ Visa?)

Answer. The Bureau of Consular Affairs, through our Consular Information and

Outreach Programs, attempts to provide all interested Americans with factual information that will enable them to make informed decisions about potential risks in

traveling or living overseas. The interpretation and application of Islamic law varies

widely from country to country. The Marriage to Saudis leaflet states that ‘‘The information in this circular relating to the legal requirements of specific foreign countries is obtained from past experience and is not necessarily authoritative. Questions involving interpretation of specific foreign laws should be addressed to foreign

counsel.’’

38

We have posted general information on marrying abroad on the State Department

Web site, with links to specific information on many countries. We also have a flyer

entitled ‘‘Islamic Family Law’’ that is a basic primer on marrying into a Muslim

family. Again, since practices vary so much from country to country, and within a

country, we can only provide a general guide. We encourage Americans to consult

a lawyer on specific laws and regulations in different countries.

The Department of State is always looking for new ways to provide information

to Americans traveling and living abroad. We will soon include a flyer with contact

information for the State Department and our Web site with all new passports. The

passports, themselves, will soon have the Department of State’s Web site address— www.travel.state.gov printed on the inside cover. We would welcome suggestions on

this subject from any interested member of the ommittee.

Question 10. Has Department of State staff or contractor provided expert testimony in court cases regarding international parental child abduction? If so, please

provide a list of all cases, with cause number, parties’ names; court, county and

state; foreign country involved; Department employee or contractor who testified;

and dates of testimony.

Answer. Department staff and contractors have not provided such testimony.

Question 11. Has Department of State staff or contractors made public presentations regarding international parental child abduction? If so, please provide a list

including name of presentation, contact information for sponsoring organization,

date, and name(s) of Department employee/contractor(s) who presented.

Answer. Department of State representatives, including employees in the Office

of Children’s Issues, often speak publicly as part of our outreach efforts. This includes presentations at meetings and conferences held by bar associations; judicial

training programs; and Town Hall meetings for left-behind parents. We believe such

outreach to be an important function in our efforts to increase awareness of the

issue of international parental child abduction, and inform the public of the resources available in combating the problem.

Question 12. What more can the State Department do with regard to improving

the dissemination of information and training programs for U.S. Family Law courts

and individual State Bar Associations on this issue (e.g., through the National

Council for Juvenile and Family Law Judges, American Bar Association, etc.?).

Answer. We agree that additional outreach and training for U.S. judges is important to U.S. Government efforts to address the problem of international parental

child abduction. Working with other U.S. Government agencies as well as judicial

and legal associations, we participate in training programs on a regular basis, and

will continue to do so. We also provide informational materials to judges and attorneys through our Web site, and will be exploring ways to make these materials

more useful.

Question 13. How many abducted American children remain in:

Saudi Arabia?

Syria?

all other Islamic Law countries?

Answer. Although your question refers specifically to abducted children, in order

to be most responsive, we are providing information on abduction and access cases

in which Department assistance has been requested. Current active abduction and

access case records maintained by the Office of Children’s Issues as of mid-September 2003 identify 35 U.S. citizen children under 18 years of age who remain in

Saudi Arabia and 30 who remain in Syria. Most, but not all, of these children were

abducted from the United States or are retained abroad against a U.S. parent’s

wishes. Active cases involving another 137 U.S. citizen children remaining in other

non-Hague Convention countries in the rest of the Middle East. The Office of Children’s Issues has reports of 24 abducted or wrongfully retained children in the

South and Southeast Asian countries of Bangladesh, Indonesia, Malaysia and Pakistan, where custody decisions are often based on Islamic legal principles.

Question 14. Have any children been returned from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and

other Islamic Law countries through legal means (not those arranged privately by

the parents)? Please provide specifics on those cases.

Answer. During the past twelve months, approximately thirty-five children have

been returned from countries in which Islamic Law predominates, including Saudi

Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Indonesia. The circumstances

leading to the return of these children included law enforcement efforts (arrest in

the U.S. of the abducting parent), U.S. Embassy intercession to facilitate the return

39

of the children, action by the left-behind parent to bring the children back without

the abducting parent’s consent and, in one case involving two children, direct assistance from the host government when there was credible evidence of neglect by the

abducting parent. Most of the cases involved some form of Department assistance

in facilitating the return, including one or more of the following: temporary Embassy refuge, escort, travel documentation, and access to USC crime victim assistance.

Question 15. What is the Department of State doing about the case of Amjad

Radwan (b. 1983), a U.S. citizen (daughter of U.S. Citizen Monica Stowers) who

would like to have the ability to leave Saudi Arabia but is being denied that right?

Answer. We are holding the Government of Saudi Arabia to a commitment made

in September 2002 that adult American women would be free to travel out of Saudi

Arabia to the U.S. We have raised several such cases with the Foreign Minister.

To date, five American women have received exit visas, several more have been

promised permission to leave should they request it, and one woman has departed

Saudi Arabia against the wishes of her male guardian, after receiving exit permission from the Government of Saudi Arabia.

The Government of Saudi Arabia issued Ms. Radwan an exit visa to travel to the

U.S. in September 2002, but she chose not to travel at that time. Ms. Radwan attempted to travel with her uncle to Bahrain recently, but Saudi border guards prevented her departure. The Embassy has repeatedly tried to contact Ms. Radwan and

her mother by telephone and in writing to see if she needs further assistance. Ms.

Radwan has not returned our messages. We stand ready to offer any and all consular services to her, including assistance in departing Saudi Arabia if she wishes

to do so.

Question 16. In response to Question for the Record number 2 for House hearings

on October 2, 2002, the Department of State reported that only one visa request has

been denied in Saudi Arabia to an abductor since 8 U.S.C. S1182(a)(10)(C)(ii) was

added to the U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Act in October 1998. What are

the latest figures and why haven’t more visas been denied?

Answer. A check, of our look-out system shows that there are nine entries of various nationalities indicating potential inadmissibility under 212(a)(10)(C)(ii).

In order to deny someone a visa under section 212(a)(10)(C)(ii), they must first

make an application. We believe that many of those who have abducted American

citizen children abroad, or family members who have aided or abetted an abduction,

are reluctant to apply for U.S. visas. Others may not require visas for travel to the

U.S., either because they are legal permanent residents or already possess U.S. citizenship. This may account for the relatively low number of denials under this provision.

In addition, however, our ability to use this provision is often dependent upon:

(a) the left-behind parent or other person choosing to make the Department of State

aware of the abduction; or (b) the left-behind parent or other person choosing to provide us with information sufficient to identify persons potentially inadmissible

under the INA.

The relatively few visa denials under Section 212(a)(10)(C)(ii) should therefore not

be seen as an indicator of our determination to use this provision of the law against

child abductors. On the contrary, we have made it clear that we will use every legal

tool at our disposal to resolve cases of international parental child abduction, including denial of visas to abductors and those who aid and abet them.

Question 17. The Department of State Web site states that ‘‘one important factor

in obtaining custody in Syria is whether the Syrian parent has registered either the

marriage or the child’s birth with Syrian authorities.’’ What can the Department of

State do to assist parents in obtaining this information? Is CA willing to add to this

Web page the fact that even if the child has not been registered at the time of inquire, the Syrian parent can register the child at any time thereafter, and obtain

a Syrian passport for the child, without notice to the other parent?

Answer. The Department of State can attempt to verify whether a marriage or

a child’s birth has been registered with Syrian authorities. The parent would need

to provide us with specific information, such as the child’s full name, including the

father’s complete family name and a date of marriage and where the marriage ceremony was performed. Syrian authorities may decline to provide us with this

verification, but we are willing to try on behalf of an American citizen.

We welcome your suggestion that we update the country flyer on Syria concerning

child registration and passport issuance to reflect the fact that a Syrian parent can

register the child at any time to obtain a Syrian passport for the child, without noVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:03 Dec 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 90622.TXT SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
40

tice to the other parent. We will confirm that this is the case in Syria, and if so,

will add that information to the flyer.

Question 18. There is concern about the fact that an individual associated with,

or recommended by, the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs works to

undermine efforts to prevent abduction. According to an e-mail from the Office of

Children’s Issues dated 8/15/02, staff recommend Kristine Uhlman as ‘‘an excellent

resource and can help you with things like changing your name and preventing an

abduction.’’ It is unclear what criteria the Department of State uses to make these

types of recommendations. Kristine Uhlman herself in court testimony represents

herself as a consultant to the Department of State. However, in the case of Lauderdale v. Kabbani in Houston, TX in 2002, she represented a dual national Syrian who

had threatened to abduct their two young daughters, against an American mother

who was concerned for the girls’ safety and was requesting protection from the

court. Please clarify what Ms. Kristine Uhlman’s affiliation is with the Department

of State, past and present.

Answer. We are not aware of the referenced email, or the context in which it was

sent. Along with several other left-behind parents, on two occasions Ms. Uhlman

has spoken about her experience with international parental child abduction to consular officers enrolled in the State Department’s advanced Consular training course.

She has not had and does not have any other affiliation with the Department of

State.

Question 19. Can you describe for us how the abduction process works in reverse,

in other words, when parents abduct their children from their home of residence

overseas and bring them here to the United States? What is the Department’s role

in these cases and how many are there? How many children have been returned

from the U.S. to their country of habitual residence?

Answer. In cases where the country of the child’s habitual residence does not have

a treaty relationship with the United States under the 1980 Hague Convention on

the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘‘the Convention’’), the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues generally is not directly involved in the

case. Instead, the parent may seek the assistance of an attorney in pursuing U.S.

court enforcement of a foreign custody order or a U.S. custody ruling. The parent

may seek his or her own government’s assistance in chedking on the child’s welfare

or in working through local law enforcement to initiate appropriate INTERPOL

alerts regarding the child and or the taking parent. The parent may also seek the

assistance of the Natignal Center for Missing and Exploited Children to locate the

child or file a request with the Office of Children’s Issues that he or she be notified

if a U.S. Passport application is filed for a U.S. citizen child.

In cases involving a child whose habitual residence is in a country that does have

a Hague Convention treaty relationship with the United States, federal regulations

specify that the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children Act will act

under the direction of the Department’s Office of Children’s Issues (the U.S. Central

Authority under the Convention) to receive and process Hague return and access applications. However, not all such Hague applications for access or return are processed through the National Center. Under the Convention, the requestor may either

file the Hague application with the Central Authority of the country where the child

is believed to be located or directly with a competent court. In the U.S., applications

may be submitted to either the federal or state court in the area where the child

is located. The National Center is not always aware of cases not submitted through

their office for processing.

The National Center’s International Division vets Hague applications submitted

to them, helps locate a child whose U.S. whereabouts are unknown, and provides

the foreign parent with information about obtaining legal representation to file a return or access request with an appropriate U.S. court. The National Center also provides the foreign Central Authority in the country of habitual residence with status

reports on the progress of the return application through the U.S. courts.

Statistics on total returns of children from the United States to their countries

of habitual residence are not available. However, National Center case records for

recent years indicate that the following numbers of children were returned to fellow

Hague Convention countries after a Hague application was received by the National

Center:

Year

Court Ordered

Return

Voluntary or

Negotiated Return Total

2000 80 99 179

41

Year

Court Ordered

Return

Voluntary or

Negotiated Return Total

2001 109 67 176

2002 85 84 169

Question 20. Has the regulation requiring both parents’ consent for a child to obtain a U.S. passport, or for a single parent to prove that they have sole custody

helped prevent abductions, or are there easy way around this provision?

Answer. We believe that the regulation, which has been in place since July 2,

2001, has helped to prevent international child abductions. However, the new requirement is not fool proof and we are aware of a number of cases where the provision’s existence has not prevented a determined parent from obtaining passports

without the required consent. Moreover, the requirement does not prevent parents

of dual-national children from applying for and receiving passports of their other nationality, if they are entitled to do so.

The Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program (CPIAP) is a valuable additional

tool that assists parents to prevent passport issuance to U.S. citizen children at risk

of international abduction. Once a child is enrolled in the program, a requesting

parent will receive notification if a U.S. Passport Agency or a U.S. embassy or consulate abroad receives a passport application for that child. Information about the

program is posted on the CA Web site and discussed with parents who contact the

Office of Children’s Issues or U.S. consular sections abroad to express concern about

possible international abduction. The Office of Children’s Issues, which processes requests for enrollment in the program, receives hundreds of new enrollment requests

each year. Parents are encouraged to enroll their children to prevent U.S. passport

issuance to a minor child without their knowledge.

Question 21. How much training do junior Consular Officers receive prior to their

assignments overseas? What about more senior Consular Officers and Deputy Chiefs

of Mission?

Answer. Officers going to consular assignments for the first time are trained for

International Parental Child Abduction (IPCA) work as part of the ‘‘American Citizens Services’’ component of the Basic Consular Course. Our Consular Training Division is presently working on a separate module, to be included in the Basic

Course, focused entirely on international parental child abduction. Mid-level officers

going to assignments as consular managers take a three-week consular management

course that includes a session on international parental child abduction. Finally, either the Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs or a Deputy Assistant Secretary

addresses the subject in both the Ambassadorial and Deputy Chief of Mission Seminars.

Question 22. How are U.S. customs and immigration officials alerted to parental

child abductors, or their agents, at points of entry?

Answer. U.S. border inspectors currently have access to namecheck data bases

that can alert them to foreign citizens applying for U.S. entry who are ineligible for

visas as child abductors. In addition, passports of all travelers arriving at U.S. ports

of entry can be namechecked against data that includes fugitives and individuals

with outstanding federal warrants against them. While it is important to be able

to identify abductors when they attempt re-entry to the United States, it is even

more important to prevent international abductions in the first place.

The Department of Homeland Security is developing U.S. entry/exit controls and

we have highlighted to them areas in which new controls could assist law enforcement agencies to prevent the departure of an abducted child (or runaway) child. We

remain engaged with the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies

tasked with creating an effective entry/exit control system to ensure that it includes

the ability to intercept children and their abductors before they depart the U.S.

Question 23. Israel is the only country in the Middle East that has ratified the

Hague Convention. In the five years, how many involving U.S. children abducted

to Israel have been resolved with the return of the child(ren) to the U.S. parent?

What is the status of the children of Jonah Gelernter, who were abducted to Israel

by his wife even though he was awarded custody by a U.S. judge? What has been

the level of Israeli cooperation in this and other cases?

42

Answer. In the last five years, the Office of Children’s Issues is aware of thirtyseven children who have been returned to the United States from Israel. There may

be other returns of which we are not aware because the parent filed directly,

through an attorney, with an Israeli civil court. Concerning the status of the children of Jonah Gelernter, the Israeli court issued an order of return on November

24, 1998. On January 13, 1999, after attempts to locate the children and their mother had failed, the Court issued another order instructing the police to locate the children. To date, all efforts undertaken by Israeli police have failed to locate the children. The level of Israeli cooperation in this and other cases is good.

RESPONSES OF HON. MAURA HARTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF

CONSULAR AFFAIRS, TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR SAM BROWNBACK

Question 1. Please submit the agreement(s) we have with Saudi Arabia regarding

child abductions?

Answer. Saudi Arabia is not a party to the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects

of International Child Abduction, nor are there international or bilateral treaties in

force between Saudi Arabia and the United States dealing with international parental child abduction.

We are working with the Saudi Government on a bilateral proposal for consular

cooperation to improve access by parents to their children in our respective countries. A final text has not yet been agreed.

Question 2. Who, specifically, was involved in the decision to remove Sweden from

the three lists of countries about which the U.S. has ‘‘concern’’ regarding Hague

compliance in the report submitted to Congress this year, even though at least 14

U.S. citizen children are still held in Sweden? And, what role did foreign policy considerations play with regard to the listing of particular countries in various categories as Hague ‘‘violators’’ or ‘‘partially compliant’’ or ‘‘of concern’’?

Answer. The decision to remove Sweden from the list of countries considered noncompliant, not fully compliant or of concern was not a decision made by any one

person. The evaluation of each country’s performance was made in consultation with

appropriate offices in the Department and the relevant posts abroad. Assistant Secretary Harty cleared the final report.

Sweden was listed in our first compliance report in 1999 as noncompliant. At the

time of the first compliance report, Sweden had recently demonstrated a pattern of

delay in locating abducted children and had denied the return of a child notwithstanding a pre-existing U. S. court order that included a consensual agreement that

the U.S. would remain the child’s state of habitual residence and the U.S. state

court would maintain exclusive jurisdiction to resolve future custody issues. In 2000,

Sweden was listed as not fully compliant, reflecting ongoing difficulty with certain

cases, but also progress made in resolving some cases and returning children. In the

2001 report, Sweden was listed as a country of concern. Although more children previously abducted to Sweden were returned to the U.S., concerns remained regarding

Sweden’s commitment to locate abducted children expeditiously and to enforce return and access orders issued under the Convention.

The 2001 compliance report was the last report to provide specific discussion of

problems related to individual return cases. The removal of Sweden from the categories of noncompliant and not fully compliant in 2001 reflected the extent to

which Sweden had been responsive to the concerns raised in earlier reports when

processing new Hague applications during the reporting period. A review of Sweden’s performance in 2001 and 2002 in response to new return requests forwarded

by the U.S. Central Authority indicated no issues of concern related to recent action

taken on those cases and led to Sweden’s removal from the list of countries of concern. As noted in the 2003 report, the Office of Children’s Issues continues to monitor closely Sweden’s actions in each new case.

As the compliance report is now issued on a yearly basis, successive reports have

become a means to evaluate actions taken during the reporting period on cases of

which the Department is aware and to reflect sustained, improved or deteriorating

performance according to cases processed during the reporting period compared with

a country’s earlier actions.

Several parents of children who are currently the subject of non-Hague custody

and access proceedings in Sweden have voiced concerns that more U.S. citizen children in Sweden require Department action on their cases. We stand ready to work

with parents and encourage left-behind parents to contact the Office of Children’s

43

Issues to request appropriate assistance. Future Compliance Reports will also include discussion of how countries enforce access orders.

Question 3. Why was the description of Amanda Johnson’s case, which appeared

in the three previous reports, deleted altogether from the 2003 Hague compliance

report? And who, specifically, was involved in that decision, and who made the final

decision?

Answer. In deciding what case discussions to include in the main body of the 2003

compliance report, an evaluation was made based on a country’s recent performance

and whether discussion of a specific case would illustrate a particular problem that

currently exists. It was not a decision made by any one person, but in consultation

with appropriate offices in the Department and the relevant posts abroad. Assistant

Secretary Harty cleared the final report.

In the Amanda Johnson case, Mr. Johnson’s Hague return application was considered by the Swedish courts in 1995 and 1996. The Department protested the Supreme Administrative Court’s May 1996 decision to deny Amanda’s return. Since

then, Mr. Johnson has pursued non-Hague custody and visitation proceedings in the

Swedish courts. Embassy and Department officials have discussed Mr. Johnson’s

case with him. We stand ready to work with Mr. Johnson in support of his efforts

to have improved access and contact with Amanda.

Question 4. Exactly how many children have been abducted, year-by-year, since

1980? How many children have been returned, year-by-year, since 1980? How many

cases are considered active?

Answer. The Department of State began collecting statistics on international parental child abductions in 1996, but these statistics reflect only those cases reported

to us. Parents are not obliged to inform the Department of State or any other government agency when they initiate inquiries and actions to seek the return of a

child taken abroad. In countries that are not party to the 1980 Convention on the

Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (the ‘‘Hague Abduction Convention’’),

legal remedies involve filings in foreign courts for which no Department of State or

U.S. embassy intervention is required. Some parents attempt to settle disputes involving children through private civil extra-judicial methods like mediation and reconciliation without requesting assistance or informing the Department.

When the Office of Children’s Issues was created in 1994, it created a database

primarily geared toward tracking action taken in a particular case rather than collection of statistics for reporting purposes. Beginning in 1996 the Office restructured

the database to count the number of cases opened and closed, but did not reflect

why a case was closed. Cases were closed when a child was returned to the United

States but they were also closed for a variety of other reasons, such as the U. S.-

resident parent withdrawing the request for return or the parent’s decision not to

pursue a case after a foreign court denied return. During this period, each case

opened or closed represented one child. A case opened in one year may have been

closed that same year or in a subsequent year. Thus, it is possible for the number

of closed cases to exceed the number of open cases, as occurred in 1999. As already

stated, the number of ‘‘closed’’ cases does not necessarily mean the children were

returned.

The pre-2000 database provides the following information about known abduction/

retention cases:

Year Cases Created

Cases Closed

(for any reason)

1996 67 10

1997 338 280

1998 401 398

1999 410 441

In 2000, the Office of Children’s Issues began using a new case management

tracking system to monitor international parental child abductions known to the Department. The chart below summarizes the data from this tracking system.

Year

Children Abducted

Unlawfully Retained Children Returned

2000 510 146

2001 557 280

44

Year

Children Abducted

Unlawfully Retained Children Returned

2002 455 190

2003 1 169 102

1 January-early August 2003

Again, these figures only reflect cases and events that have been reported to the

Department’s Office of Children’s Issues. The totals may not reflect instances where

the child has been returned but the return was not reported to the Department.

The Department continues to work on enhancing its statistics gathering capability.

Question 5. How does the State Department make the determination that a case

is still active? Can a U.S. citizen child abducted to a foreign country be considered

no longer active even if the child has not been returned to the U.S.?

Answer. An abduction or access case remains active as long as the child remains

abroad, and the left-behind parent, working with the Office of Children’s Issues,

continues to pursue the child’s return or access to the child through various possible

remedies. There are also instances where the Office of Children’s Issues, working

with the parent, will open an active prevention case even after a child’s return to

the U.S.

Circumstances under which the Office of Children’s Issues closes cases include:

(1) the child returns to the U.S.; (2) the left-behind parent requests that the case

be closed; (3) the left-behind parent cannot be located for over two years, despite

efforts to maintain contact; or (4) the child turns age 18, at which point the Bureau

of Consular Affairs would maintain interest in the person’s welfare, but he/she

would be treated as an adult and handled by the Office of American Citizens’ Services (ACS).

Question 6. In the State Department’s annual Hague Convention compliance reports to Congress, why has Consular Affairs decided to consider cases ‘‘resolved’’—

and thus not reportable to Congress—as soon as the foreign government makes a

final decision not to return a child?

Answer. The Office of Children’s Issues reports as ‘‘resolved’’ cases that are determined by the U.S. Central Authority to be ‘‘closed’’ as Hague cases or ‘‘inactive.’’

This is a technical designation, and does not necessarily mean an end to the Department’s involvement in seeking a resolution. Like other signatory countries, the U.S.

Central Authority closes or inactivates Hague cases for a variety of reasons. These

include: return of child; parental reconciliation; withdrawal of a request for assistance; inability to contact the requesting parent after numerous attempts over a twoyear period; exhaustion of all judicial remedies pursuant to the Convention; or access rights granted and enforced. In all such cases, regardless of the outcome, no

further proceedings pursuant to the Convention are anticipated. Considering these

cases ‘‘resolved’’ and closing them as Convention cases is consistent with the practice of other Convention signatories. More specifically, we will close a Hague case

if the circumstances definitively require it, such as the return of a child or upon

the specific request of the parent. We will ‘‘inactivate’’ a case when, in the absence

of such definitive circumstances, the facts of the case do not allow, or the parent

does not permit, a further reasonable pursuit of central aspects of the case. Two

years after inactivation, and in the absence of further relevant initiatives by the

left-behind parent, the case will be closed.

The exhaustion of all judicial remedies pursuant to the Convention may result in

a case that is ‘‘closed’’ under the terms of the Convention, but that has been resolved in a way that is unsatisfactory to the U.S. and the left-behind parent. The

resolution of the case may or may not have been consistent with the Convention’s

requirements, independent of whether the left-behind parent is satisfied. Even when

the Hague return aspects of a case have been closed, however, the U.S. Central Authority stands ready to provide assistance to the left-behind parent by facilitating

access (which may be sought under or independently of the Convention), reporting

on the welfare of the child, or assisting the parent to achieve a more satisfactory

solution. When a foreign court decision on the Hague aspects of a case indicates a

disregard for or failure to properly apply the Convention’s provisions, the U.S. Department of State may register its concern and dissatisfaction with the decision

through the Foreign Central Authority or diplomatic channels. The Secretary of

45

State, other senior Department officials and U.S. Ambassadors have raised international parental child abduction issues and specific cases with foreign government

officials on numerous occasions.

We work with the left-behind parent to determine whether there are further actions, for example the pursuit of an access order or mediation between the parents,

with which the Office of Children’s Issues can assist. If the parent wishes to pursue

other avenues for access to or return of their child, we stand ready to provide appropriate assistance. There have been cases where left-behind parents have continued

to pursue custody or access in foreign courts and not kept the Office of Children’s Issues informed or requested any assistance. In such cases, and in the absence of

information from the parent on these actions, the case will be ‘‘closed’’ to enable our

officers to focus their attention on those cases in which their involvement and assistance has been requested.

Question 7. Which countries have the means in their legal systems to enforce access/visitation or actual return orders for abducted American children? Why is such

a listing not on the State Department’s Web site and why is it not included in the

Hague compliance reports despite congressional interest in this point?

Answer. The Department of State continues to gather information regarding family law procedures in Hague partner countries. For many of our 52 partners, this

information has been posted in country-specific flyers on the Department of State

Web site. We realize that a number of our Hague partners are not currently covered

by a flyer and we have requested information from our embassies and consulates

in Hague partner countries’ to enhance the information that we make available on

those partner countries. The Hague Compliance Report covers problems with Hague

partner countries enforcement or other problems in their ability to meet their Hague

treaty obligations.

Question 8. Do you agree that left-behind American parents of abducted children

have a right to know (and see in documentary form) everything their government

has done or failed to do to bring their children home? If so, how do you explain the

extreme difficulties and delays experienced in this area (including Freedom of Information Act requests) by American parents? For parents who sign a Privacy Act

waiver, will you make a commitment to make case files completely open and available to left-behind parents, and to share them with NCMEC if the parents so request?

Answer. We do agree that left-behind U.S. citizen parents have a right to know

what their government has done and is continuing to do on their behalf to secure

the return of their abducted children.

Difficulties parents may have experienced obtaining copies of records relating to

their children have been due primarily to the many requests for information that

have been submitted to the Department. The Department is actively engaged in attempting to reduce the backlog of both Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act

requests.

We can assure you that parents who sign Privacy Act waivers on behalf of their

minor children have been able and will continue to be able to access their children’s files in a manner consistent with the provisions of the Privacy Act. We would have

no objection to sharing information with the NCMEC at the behest of the left-behind

parents as we currently share such information with the Center pursuant to the Privacy Act’s ‘‘routine use’’ condition of disclosure.

Question 9. How do you explain the disparity in Hague Convention return rates

between the U.S. (90 percent) and civil law countries (i.e. countries other than the

UK, Canada and Australia), where it is probably less than 20 percent? What pressure does the State Department bring to bear on such governments and how is this

decision affected by foreign policy considerations?

Answer. Each return application case involves unique circumstances and a decision to return or deny return must be based on the issues raised in each individual

case. For that reason, we believe it is misleadihg to look only at the statistic of how

many times a court denied return versus how many returns were granted. Under

the Hague Convention there are legitimate reasons for a court to deny a child’s re- turn. Over time, some Hague Convention partner countries and their courts have

taken positive steps to educate local government and judicial officials, with the result that there has been a decrease in the number of returns that are denied for

reasons that are inconsistent with the aims of the Convention.

When a foreign court denies the return of a child under the Hague Convention,

the Department reviews the text of the court’s decision to determine if the reason(s)

given for denial are permitted under the Convention. In cases where the Department determines that a court decision conflicts with the principles and objectives

46

of the Convention, the Department voices its concerns to the foreign Central Authority that coordinates implementation of the Convention and requests foreign Central

Authority assistance in pursuing available remedies, such as appeals.

In some instances, courts hearing Hague return applications inappropriately consider custody issues that should be reserved for consideration in the courts in the

child’s habitual residence. Compliance can be improved by educating judges about

the Hague Convention. The Department has been working with The Hague Permanent Bureau and countries such as the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia and

Mexico to provide judicial training workshops that improve judicial understanding

of the Convention. This fall we hope to expand this effort to include judges from

several other European countries.

Question 10. Why did the State Department exclude American left-behind parents

from the U.S. Delegation to the 2001 Hague Convention Review Conference?

Answer. The considerations that go into putting together a delegation vary, but

generally include considerations of size and the most effective way to represent the

interests of the United States, In the case of the 2001 Hague Special Commission

Meeting, when several left-behind parents expressed an interest in participating on

the U.S. delegation, we did not have a mechanism to select just one or two parents

in a way that was equitable and that would be accepted by those parents not selected to participate.

We do recognize, however, that there may be Special Commission Meetings at

which parents’ views and participation would be valuable to the U.S. delegation.

Parents are also able to attend such meetings, regardless of the topic to be discussed, as part of non-governmental organizations’ delegations.

RESPONSES OF HON. MAURA HARTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF

CONSULAR AFFAIRS, TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR GEORGE V. VOINOVICH

Question 1. As Austria has been adjudicated as having violated the human rights

of Thomas and Carina Sylvester, what specific actions will the Office of Children’s Issue take to persuade the Austrian Government to assist in the return of Carina

Sylvester to the United States—even if for just a visit to her father? How quickly

will your plans be implemented?

Answer. We are extremely frustrated by the Austrian Government’s non-responsiveness on the Sylvester case. Secretary Powell, Ambassador Brown, and many others have emphasized to all levels of the Austrian Government the importance of restoring meaningful contact between Tom and Carina Sylvester. Vienna has responded by offering up arguments that have been refuted or conditions that Mr. Sylvester has already met or agreed to meet in return for reasonable access to his

daughter.

One of my first meetings as Assistant Secretary was with the Austrian Ambassador. I pressed him to look at ways to bring Tom and Carina Sylvester together.

The Ambassador indicated he would raise the issue with his government in Vienna.

That meeting was in January 2003.

I have received no response. Austria has also not responded formally to our request for information about how the Austrian Government intends to respond to the

April decision by the European Court of Human Rights, to which your question refers.

On July 14, 2003, I met with the Austrian Central Authority and the Ministry

of Justice with mixed results. The meeting with the Austrian Central Authority regarding this case was disappointing. The Central Authority expressed the belief that

Mr. Sylvester was receiving adequate access to his daughter, which was certainly

not the case, and maintained that he was not receptive to suggestions to try to improve the situation. On the other hand, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and her staff

appeared to recognize that the Sylvester case needed attention and have begun to

explore how they might seek progress. We expect to consult with them in September, and will press them to do whatever is necessary to bring Tom and Carina

closer together.

Question 2. What specific actions will be taken to improve the situation for abducted/retained American children and their left-behind parents, and to ensure that

the subject of international child abduction of American children is given greater attention on the Department of State list of priorities.

Answer. Thanks in no small part to the interest of Congress, the public and, of

course, the left-behind parents themselves, international parental child abduction is

47

already an important issue for the foreign policy of the United States. The need for

high-level concern and involvement in recovering these children has been made

clear to our Chiefs of Mission and senior Department leaders. Instruction in the

handling of parental child abduction cases is increasingly a part of the Department’s training and pre-departure consultations for officers headed overseas. Parental child

abduction cases increasingly rise above the level of the desk officer and consul and

now involve more senior foreign policy managers, both in the Department and at

our missions overseas.

Difficult cases are now more likely to be raised with host governments as a significant element of our bilateral relationship.

Question 3. In problematic abduction cases, would the State Department agree to

inform left-behind parents of all contacts State Department makes of plans with

representatives of the country into which the child was abducted?

Answer. Department officers make every effort to keep the left-behind parents in

all our cases informed of what actions are being undertaken to recover their children. This should certainly be the case regardless of whether a case is problematic

or not. I believe it is largely being done, but we will most certainly ensure that it

is happening as part of our standard procedures.

Question 4. Will the Department of State publish a complete, accurate and renewed report on foreign government compliance with the Hague Convention of the

Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and disseminate such a report to the

American public?

Answer. The Department’s annual Hague compliance report to Congress is provided to the public on the Bureau of Consular Affairs Web site, www.travel.state.gov.

This report is now an annual requirement.

Question 5. What efforts will be taken to include information on each country’s

child custody and visitation system, including enforcement measures, if any, and the

human rights aspect of international child abduction/retention cases and related access/visitation matters in the Children’s Rights sections of the Department of State’s

annual country human rights reports?

Answer. We are examining this issue in conjunction with the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor, which is responsible for monitoring human rights

issues and preparing the Department’s annual Human Rights Report, as well as

with other interested bureaus in the Department.

RESPONSES OF HON. MAURA HARTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE, BUREAU OF

CONSULAR AFFAIRS, TO ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD SUBMITTED BY

SENATOR BLANCHE L. LINCOLN

Question 1. As you understand it, what is the current position of the government

of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia regarding the request made by Secretary of State

Colin Powell in October, 2002 that Heidi Al-Omary be allowed to return to her

rightful home in the United States? Please articulate any response or responses received from the Saudi government regarding the request.

Answer. The Saudis have created an interministerial commission to work with us

towards solutions to the problem of abducted and illegally retained children, including Heidi Al-Omary, and we continue to push at every level for action. The Office

of Children’s Issues and our Embassy in Riyadh worked closely with the interministerial commission to establish parameters that enabled Heidi’s mother, Margaret

McClain, and her two adult children to obtain a family visit visa to Saudi Arabia

to see Heidi. In May, Ms. McClain spent five days with Heidi in Saudi Arabia.

While we welcome the Saudi government’s cooperative efforts in facilitating Ms.

McClain’s access to Heidi, we nonetheless continue to remind the Saudi government

that our ultimate goal is Heidi’s return to the United States.

Question 2. Has the State Department received any communications from the government of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that would indicate authorities in Saudi

Arabia intend to comply with the request from the U.S. government that Heidi be

returned to the United States?

Answer. We have yet to receive an official response to our requests that the government of Saudi Arabia assist in returning Heidi to the U.S. However, Foreign

Minister Saud al-Faisal has assured the Department of his personal commitment to

resolving these cases. We will continue to seek a favorable response to individual

cases, such as Heidi’s.

48

Question. 3. Please articulate in English the message that was transmitted to the

government of Saudi Arabia regarding the formal request that Saudi Arabia surrender custody or Heidi Al-Omary. In what manner and from whom has this message been communicated? Please attach a copy of any written communications regarding this matter.

Answer. Each time a Department principal has traveled to Saudi Arabia to press

for the return of all abducted or illegally retained American citizen children in the

Kingdom, we have provided the Saudis a Diplomatic Note which includes summaries of each case, including that of Heidi Al-Omary. In addition, Department of

State principals, including Secretary Powell, Assistant Secretary Maura Harty, and

Ambassador Robert Jordan, have verbally sought Heidi’s return in their meetings

with Saudi officials.

Question 4. What steps has the State Department taken since Secretary Harty

took office to ensure that Heidi Al-Omary is returned to her rightful home in the

immediate future? Please list any follow-up communications relating to efforts by

the State Department to return Heidi to the United States.

Answer. In January and again in April, Assistant Secretary Harty traveled to

Saudi Arabia to raise the issue of international parental child abduction, including

the case of Heidi Al-Omary, with Saudi government officials. Since those trips, and

the establishment of the Saudi interministerial commission in January, we have

seen ten Americans returned to the United States from Saudi Arabia.

Department officials have been speaking with and meeting regularly with Saudi

Embassy officials to press for the return to the U.S. of the abducted children, including Heidi. Since the beginning of the year, Saudi Embassy officials have met with

Department representatives frequently about these cases, and we intend to meet

with these officials on a regular basis until all the cases are resolved.

Question 5. Please list the names and titles of Saudi government officials with

whom Secretary Harty has met in Saudi Arabia in an effort to recover Heidi AlOmary and other abducted American children from Saudi Arabia.

Please articulate the results, if any, of those communications regarding the case

of Heidi Al-Omary?

Answer. During her visit to Saudi Arabia in January 2003, A/S Harty raised the

issue of international parental child abduction and wrongful retention with officials

from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Interior. On her trip to Saudi Arabia in

April 2003, A/S Harty raised the cases of abducted American citizen children, including Heidi Al-Omary, with high Saudi government officials including Foreign

Minister Saud Al-Faisal; Deputy Foreign Minister and Chairman of the Interministerial Commission Ibrahim Al-Khurashi; Assistant Minister of Interior Mohammed

bin Naif; Governor of the Eastern Province Mohammad bin Fahd; and Director General of Makkah Region Dr. Abdulaziz H. Al-Sowayegh.

A/S Harty highlighted the U.S. and Saudi Arabia’s shared commitment to addressing the problem of international parental child abduction in her meeting with

Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal. She also requested his assistance in resolving

cases of American women who wish to depart Saudi Arabia.

In her meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Al-Khurashi, A/S Harty expressed

the USG’s thanks for the efforts put forth by the Interministerial Commission in

conjunction with the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh on cases, including Heidi Al-Omary,

who have been abducted to, or wrongfully retained in, Saudi Arabia, as well as on

behalf of American women who wish to depart Saudi Arabia despite the objection

of their male guardian. She emphasized, however, that greater cooperation is required and that access in any given case is no substitute for the return of a child—

our ultimate goal.

A/S Harty requested Governor Mohammad bin Fahd’s assistance in ensuring the

success of the visit by Margaret McClain to Heidi.

Question 6. Does the Executive Branch have the authority, without additional

Congressional authorization, to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia for failing to comply with official requests to return abducted children like Heidi Al-Omary? If not,

are there other reasons upon which sanctions against Saudi Arabia can be imposed

under current law?

Answer. The Department of State never stops pressing for return to the United

States of American children abducted or wrongfully retained abroad, in whatever

country the abduction or retention occurs. These cases are not limited to Saudi Arabia.

In furthering our foreign policy goals, economic sanctions are just one of many foreign policy tools that might be available to the Administration, depending on the

49

circumstances. For example, under the International Emergency Economic Powers

Act (IEEPA), the President may impose various economic sanctions against foreign

entities or individuals. The authorities provided to the President by the IEEPA,

however, may be exercised only if the President declares a national emergency with

respect to an unusual and extraordinary threat, which has its source in whole or

substantial part outside the United States, to the national security, foreign policy

or economy of the United States.

Question 7. What punitive actions do you think are appropriate against Saudi

Arabia when it refuses to comply with U.S. requests to return abducted children?

At what point after a request has been made and not responded to do you believe

punitive measures should be pursued or at least actively considered?

Answer. The Department of State will never stop pressing, within the parameters

of current law and practice, for our goals in resolving cases of international parental

child abduction and wrongful retention. Our goals are and will continue to be nothing less than the return of children abducted abroad or access for left behind parents to their children in foreign countries. Our preference is to achieve these goals

through progressive negotiation and diplomatic mediation rather than through punitive measures.

Question 8. Under the current policy in Saudi Arabia (as you understand it), are

you confident that adult female U.S. citizens who were abducted in violation of a

custody order issued by a court in the United States will have a meaningful opportunity to leave the Kingdom upon reaching the age of majority (age 18 or older)

without the permission of a male relative?

Answer. The Government of Saudi Arabia made a commitment in September 2002

that all adult American women would be free to travel out of Saudi Arabia. We understand this commitment to apply to all adult American women, including adult

U.S. citizens abducted as children in violation of a custody order. In every case we

have raised with the Foreign Minister since his government made this commitment,

Saudi authorities have granted permission for the American citizen woman to depart. Until Sarah Saga departed Saudi Arabia, none of the women who have been

granted such permission had chosen to leave.

Question 9. Under the current policy in Saudi Arabia (as you understand it), do

you believe that the children of female U.S. citizens who were abducted in violation

of a custody order issued by a court in the United States would be provided an opportunity to leave the Kingdom with their U.S. citizen mother (without the permission of a male relative) when said mother attains the age of majority (age 18 or

older) and expresses a desire to leave?

Answer. The commitment of the Saudi Government to permit U.S. citizen women

to leave the Kingdom has not extended to the children of these women. In Saudi

Arabia, any child who is residing with his or her Saudi-citizen father requires that

father’s permission in order to obtain an exit visa to leave the country. This often

puts women who wish to leave Saudi Arabia in the difficult position of deciding

whether to leave alone, to remain in Saudi Arabia with their children, or to negotiate the father’s agreement to permit the children to travel to the United States

either permanently or for periodic visits.

Question 10. Under current law, what legal status would a minor child who was

born in Saudi Arabia to a U.S. citizen have under U.S. law?

Answer. We assume that this question relates primarily to the citizenship status

at birth of a child in the circumstances given. Under U.S. law, children born in

Saudi Arabia are treated for citizenship purposes as children born in any other foreign country. If one of the child’s U.S. citizen parents has fulfilled the appropriate

physical presence requirement to transmit U.S. citizenship, then that child is an

American citizen at birth. This means that for children born abroad after November

14, 1986, at least one U.S. citizen parent must generally have resided in the United

States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods totaling not less than five

years prior to the child’s birth, at least two of which were after the age of fourteen.

Since the passage of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, which the Department

supported, a child who does not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth is generally eligible

to obtain U.S. citizenship while under age 18 by either:

(1) residing in the U.S. in the legal and physical custody of a U.S. citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence, or

(2) for children residing outside of the U.S. in the physical and legal custody

of a U.S. citizen parent, by coming to the United States temporarily, for the specific purpose of being naturalized as a U.S. citizen, provided the U.S. citizen

parent has filed an application with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration

50

Services of the Department of Homeland Security and that application has been

approved. To qualify under this provision, either the U.S. citizen parent or his/

her U.S. citizen parent (i.e., the child’s grandparent) must have been physically

present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods

totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after the age of

fourteen, and the child must be admitted lawfully and be maintaining such lawful status.

Certain cases may present added complexity. We will be glad to review individual

cases to determine if and how a child born abroad to an American parent who does

not obtain U.S. citizenship at birth might do so at a later time.

And, of course, regardless of the nationality of the child of an American citizen,

we will, always work assiduously to get that child back to the United States.

Question 11. What legal status would a minor child who was born in Saudi Arabia

to a female U.S. citizen (who was abducted in violation of a custody order issued

by a court in the United States prior to age 14) have under U.S. law? If the mother

does not automatically transfer citizenship to her child in this instance, how, under

current law, can a child in this circumstance obtain U.S. citizenship if the mother

wished to return to her home in the U.S. with her child?

Answer. Under current U.S. law, a U.S. citizen parent whose spouse is not a U.S.

citizen must generally have spent a total of 5 years in the United States, 2 of which

were after the age of 14, prior to the birth of his/her child in order to transmit U.S.

citizenship to a foreign-born child at the child’s birth. Since the passage of the Child

Citizenship Act of 2000, which the Department supported, a child who does not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth is generally eligible to obtain U.S. citizenship while

under age 18 by either:

(1) residing in the U.S. in the legal and physical custody of a U.S. citizen parent pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence, or

(2) for children residing outside of the U.S. in the physical and legal custody

of a U.S. citizen parent, by coming to the United States temporarily, for the specific purpose of being naturalized as a U.S. citizen, provided the U.S. citizen

parent has filed an application with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration

Services of the Department of Homeland Security and that application has been

approved. To qualify under this provision, either the U.S. citizen parent or his/

her U.S. citizen parent (i.e., the child’s grandparent) must have been physically

present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods

totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after the age of

fourteen, and the child must be admitted lawfully and be maintaining such lawful status.

Certain cases may present added complexity. We will be glad to review individual

cases to determine if and how a child born abroad to an American parent who does

not obtain U.S. citizenship at birth might do so at a later time.

Question 12. Under current U.S. policy, would a minor child who was born in

Saudi Arabia to a female U.S. citizen (who was abducted in violation of a custody

order issued by a court in the United States) be given help and assistance by U.S.

diplomatic personnel to leave the Kingdom if the mother requested assistance? Is

this true if the mother was not able to transfer U.S. citizenship to her children

under U.S. law?

Answer. Embassy and consulate staff lend all support possible to get a child of

a U.S. citizen back to the U.S., regardless of that child’s citizenship status. The commitment of the Saudi Government to permit U.S. citizen women to leave the Kingdom has not extended to the children of those women. According to our understanding of Saudi law, any child who is residing in Saudi Arabia with his or her

Saudi-citizen father requires that father’s permission in order to leave the country.

This often puts women who wish to leave Saudi Arabia in the difficult position of

deciding whether to leave alone, to remain in Saudi Arabia with their children, or

to negotiate for the father’s consent to the children’s travel outside the country.

Finally, children in this situation, who are not American citizens can become U.S.

citizens through the following process, and we would make a point to help move that

process along should the mother be allowed to leave Saudi Arabia.

Since the passage of the Child Citizenship Act of 2000, which the Department

supported, a child who does not acquire U.S. citizenship at birth is generally eligible

to obtain U.S. citizenship while under age 18 by either:

(1) residing the U.S. in the legal and physical custody of a U.S. citizen parent

pursuant to a lawful admission for permanent residence, or

(2) for children residing outside of the U.S. in the physical and legal custody

of a U.S. citizen parent, by coming to the United States temporarily, for the speVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:03 Dec 04, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 90622.TXT SFORELA1 PsN: SFORELA1
51

cific purpose of being naturalized as a U.S. citizen provided the U.S. citizen parent has filed an application with the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration

Services of the Department of Homeland Security and that application has been

approved. To qualify under this provision, either the U.S. citizen parent or his/

her U.S. citizen parent (i.e., the child’s grandparent) must have been physically

present in the United States or its outlying possessions for a period or periods

totaling not less than five years, at least two of which were after the age of

fourteen, and the child must be admitted lawfully and be maintaining such lawful status.

Certain cases may present added complexity. We will be glad to review individual

cases to determine if and how a child born abroad to an American parent who does

not obtain U.S. citizenship at birth might do so at a later time.

Question 13. As you understand it, what is the position of the government of the

Kingdom of Saudi Arabia regarding the ability of adult female U.S. citizens who

wish to leave Saudi Arabia if they initially traveled to Saudi Arabia voluntarily?

Answer. The Government of Saudi Arabia made a commitment in September 2002

that all adult American women would be free to travel out of Saudi Arabia. We understand this commitment to apply to all adult American women, including those

who initially traveled to Saudi Arabia voluntarily. See question 8.

Question 14. What is the U.S. policy regarding adult U.S. citizens who wish to

leave Saudi Arabia if they initially traveled to Saudi Arabia voluntarily? In this circumstance, would a U.S. citizen receive assistance from U.S. diplomatic personnel

to exit the Kingdom if they requested it? What kind of assistance would a U.S. citizen in this situation typically receive? Would assistance be limited to cases where

the U.S. citizen was in potential danger?

Answer. U.S. diplomatic personnel will assist all adult U.S. citizens who wish to

depart Saudi Arabia in every way necessary to facilitate their departure. This includes interceding on their behalf with the Saudi government for issuance of exit

permission, where required under Saudi law, contacting family in the U.S., granting

of repatriation loans when needed, alerting social services in the U.S. to assist in

their resettlement here, and necessary protection for U.S. citizens in danger.

Question 15. Since June 2002 has any U.S. official demanded that any U.S. citizen

being held in Saudi Arabia be allowed to return to the U.S.? If so, please specify

all such demands, including to whom they were made, who they related to, by whom

they were made, and when they were made.

Answer. Privacy Act concerns limit our ability to describe in detail the subjects

of all demands for return. However, in October 2002, Assistant Secretary Burns

raised the importance of cooperating to resolve abduction and wrongful retention

cases with Saudi Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal. Also in October, the U.S. Consul

General in Riyadh met with the Consular Affairs Section Chief at the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs to urge that two American Citizen children being wrongfully

retained in Riyadh be promptly returned to the U.S. The Embassy submitted a diplomatic note to the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs requesting the Saudi government repatriate all American citizen children abducted to or wrongfully retained in

Saudi Arabia in violation of a U.S. court order. Secretary Powell wrote to Foreign

Minister Saud Al-Faisal in November 2002 to express his wish to see the resolution

of abduction cases in Saudi Arabia. In January and in April 2003, A/S Harty traveled to Saudi Arabia and raised the issue of international child abduction with Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal and with high-level officials from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Interior. Secretary Powell raised the issue of American children abducted to Saudi Arabia when he met with Foreign Minister Saud Al-Faisal on May

12, 2003.

Question 16. Since countries like Saudi Arabia consider girls adults for purposes

of marriage at age twelve, has the State Department asked the Saudi government

to consider girls as adults at age twelve for purposes of receiving exit visas without

the permission of a husband or a father?

Answer. The Department of State has not asked the government of Saudi Arabia

to consider girls as adults at age twelve for the purpose of receiving exit visas. We

are not aware of any cases where U.S. citizens or children of U.S. citizens in Saudi

Arabia have married at age twelve.

Question 17. Would additional resources from Congress enhance the ability of the

State Department to successfully recover abducted U.S. citizens from other countries? If so, please specify what resources or authority would be helpful.

52

Answer. We would never tell Congress that we don’t need more resources. Additional staffing would allow us to be more proactive and responsive in handling individual cases, as case officers could dedicate more time to each parent. It would also

allow us greater ability to accommodate in-service training and staff development

without creating staffing gaps.

Continued Congressional support and interest on specific abduction cases as well

as the general issue of international parental child abduction is also extremely helpful. Members of Congress have personally raised cases with foreign leaders, and emphasized the significance that Congress and the American public place on the issue.

Fifteen years after enactment of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act,

we, along with other USG agencies, are interested in reviewing that legislation to

identify ways it can be made even more effective. We will certainly share our

thoughts and ideas on this matter with interested Members of Congress.

Question 18. Based on my observations, personnel changes in the Office of Children’s Issues are stressful and disruptive for left-behind parents. Do you have any

suggestions on how to minimize this problem?

Answer. The Office of Children’s Issues has grown fairly rapidly during the last

five years, largely in response to a growing caseload and the increasing importance

of international parental child abduction in U.S foreign policy. We have often had

to move fast to meet the workload and drawn from a limited pool of personnel and

temporary staff resources. We have also lost staff unexpectedly, when individual officers had to leave for reasons beyond their control.

We very much regret the problems these unavoidable transitions have caused for

left-behind parents and, we are happy to report, that we have been able to stabilize

our personnel picture. We have recently brought on board several new long-term

employees. While there will of course be personnel changes in the future, we are

now better able to manage those more smoothly, with much less disruption for leftbehind parents.

Question 19. How many active cases involving parental child abduction and/or

wrongful retention is the Office of Children’s Issues currently handling?

Answer. As of early August, the Office of Children’s Issues was handling approximately 900 cases involving children who were abducted or wrongfully retained. In

addition, the Office was handling approximately 150 access cases, some of which involve children abducted or wrongfully retained but whose left-behind parent is seeking access, rather than return. Statistics on the number of children abducted or

wrongfully retained abroad, as well as those returned, based on records maintained

by the Office of Children’s Issues, are provided below.

Year

Children Abducted/

Unlawfully Retained Children Returned

2000 510 146

2001 557 280

2002 455 190

2003 1 169 102

1 January-early August 2003.

Question 20. How many active cases involving U.S. citizen children who have been

abducted to Saudi Arabia are being handled by the Office of Children’s Issues? For

these cases, how many involve, abducted female U.S. citizens?

Answer. As of August, 13, 2003, the Office Of Children’s Issues is handling 10

cases of abduction to and wrongful retention of children in Saudi Arabia, of which

7 involve female children.

Question 21. How many active cases involving adult U.S. citizens who were abducted to Saudi Arabia as children are currently being actively handled by the Office of Children’s issues or other office in the State Department?

Answer. We are, as of August 13, 2003, monitoring two cases, involving three

women, of now-adult U.S. citizens who were abducted to Saudi Arabia as children.

These citizens have been advised of their claims to U.S. citizenship and of their

right to seek exit permission from the Saudi Government. One of these individuals

was granted an exit visa by the Saudi government and the Department issued her

a U.S. passport. She has decided not to depart Saudi Arabia at this time.

53

Question 22. Approximately how many active child abduction and wrongful retention cases does each caseworker handle in the Office of Children’s Issues?

Answer. Each caseworker presently handles an average of sixty active abduction

and wrongful retention cases.

Question 23. Secretary Harty, do you support adding additional staff to the Office

of Children’s Issues?

Answer.There is no doubt that increased staffing in the Office of Children’s Issues

would allow us to be more proactive and responsive to parents, since officers would

have more time to dedicate to each case. It would also allow us to provide more opportunities for in-service training and professional development that would, ultimately, make officers more effective in their jobs.

It is important to note that the Office of Children’s Issues has grown significantly

since it was established in 1994. From a small staff of four employees, it now has

a staff of 28, including twelve abduction case officers who dedicate their time and

energy to assisting left-behind parents. In addition, we are working to establish a

prevention unit that will allow us to focus resources on this important function,

which is now handled by abduction case officers.

Having added new staff, our focus is now on staff development and training, as

well as on establishing Standard Operating Procedures that will enhance each officer’s ability to serve parents and children.

Question 24. When and under what circumstances does the State Department consider a case involving an abducted U.S. citizen closed or inactive? Does the status

of a case change when the abductee attains the age of majority or a custody order

expires? If cases are generally considered closed or inactive after an abducted child

attains the age of, 18 or 21, does the same rule apply to female abductees in Saudi

Arabia?

Answer. Child Abduction cases are closed in the Office of Children’s Issues when

the child turns 18 or when the Left Behind Parent requests the office to close the

case. Cases are also closed if a child is returned to the United States, though in

cases where the parent believes there is potential for re-abduction, the case is kept

as an active prevention case. The State Department’s interest in active cases does

not end on a child’s 18th birthday. Necessary efforts to ensure the well being of a

now-adult American citizen are undertaken by the Office of American Citizen Services in the Bureau of Consular Affairs until that adult informs us that he or she

does not require assistance.

Question 25. Secretary Harty, you have stated that U.S. citizens have been recovered from Saudi Arabia since you took office. Please describe each case. Also, can

you please describe what actions the State Department undertook to facilitate the

release of these U.S. citizens including any negotiations with foreign governments,

actions such as issuing passports, or threatening action against a foreign government that is not acting in accordance with appropriate laws?

Answer. Since the beginning of the year and as of July 7, 2003, ten children have

been returned from Saudi Arabia, closing two abduction and two access cases in the

Office of Children’s Issues. Due to Privacy Act considerations, we are unable to provide names or other specific information about these cases.

In March 2003, a six year old child who had been abducted to Saudi Arabia in

February 2002, was returned to the U.S. The Left Behind Parent had no contact

with the child since her abduction. Embassy Riyadh located the child in February

2003 when the Taking Parent appeared at the embassy requesting a routine notarial service. The embassy took physical possession of the Taking Parent’s U.S. passport and informed her that a federal warrant had been issued for her arrest. The

Taking Parent arranged with the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s offices to return the child

voluntarily.

Two teenage American citizens departed Saudi Arabia for their home in Phoenix,

Arizona on Saturday, April 5, 2003, accompanied by a consular officer from Embassy

Riyidh. The boys were abducted to Saudi Arabia by their non-custodial Saudi father

on July 26, 2002. After learning that the boys were being neglected and that they

risked being abused by their father, Saudi government officials issued exit visas for

the boys without consulting the father. USG officials worked closely with the Saudi

Ministry of Interior to resolve this case. The Saudi government’s cooperation with

the USG in this case provided useful precedent to help resolve remaining active abduction cases.

In June 2003, an AmCit mother returned with her two teenage children who had

been held by their father in Jeddah since the mother left the Kingdom in 1998. The

children were put into boarding school in Durban, South Africa in 2001. In May,

54

the American Consulate General in Durban substantiated physical abuse of one of

the children by the father. The Consulate in Durban provided a letter for South African immigration to assist the children to depart on their American passports since

they had entered the country on their Saudi passports.

A Left Behind Parent notified the Office of Children’s Issues on July 7, 2003 that

her American citizen teenage sons had arrived in the U.S. on July 6, 2003. Until

2002, the mother had not seen either one of her sons since 1994 when their father

refused to allow them to leave Saudi after a two-week vacation. The older boy was

allowed to spend last summer with his mother, but she had not seen her younger

son until now. The father had refused all Embassy requests for consular access to

the boys, and the Saudi government repeatedly refused the mother’s requests for a

family visit visa. She was finally granted a visa late last month, after repeated requests to the Saudi government by the Office of Children’s Issues and U.S. Embassy

Riyadh. She was in the process of making travel plans when she learned that the

boys had used money she sent to them to buy plane tickets to the U.S. Over the

past year, the mother had kept in surreptitious contact with her older son, and the

boys had renewed their U.S. passports with the assistance of Embassy Riyadh. The

Left Behind Parent reported to the Office of Children’s Issues that she believes the

USG’s constant demands for access led her husband to allow the boys to leave the

Kingdom.

A Taking Parent and his three children, all dual-national U.S.-Saudi citizens,

sought protection and assistance in returning to the United States from Embassy

Riyadh. The embassy worked with Saudi authorities to have exit visas placed in the

children’s and the father’s U.S. passports. The children were reunited with the Left

Behind Parent in the U.S. on July 18, 2003. The Left Behind Parent lived in Saudi

until 1998 when the Taking Parent’s brother forced her to leave and the Taking

Parent divorced her. The Taking Parent’s brother confiscated all travel documents

for the Taking Parent and the children. Consular access to the children had been

denied since 1999.

Question 26. In September 2002, Prince Saud al-Faisal, the Saudi Foreign Minister, wrote to Secretary Powell and suggested that in four cases, U.S. citizens had

abducted children out of Saudi Arabia in violation of Saudi law. It is now clear that

in at least two of the referenced cases, the referenced children live in Saudi Arabia,

and are not able to leave to the United States. Prince Saud also falsely accused the

U.S. military of assisting Miriam Hernandez Davis in ‘‘abducting’’ her daughter

Dria from Saudi Arabia. Has Prince Saud or any other Saudi official provided any

correction or clarification to the September 17, 2002 letter? Has the State Department requested any clarification on this letter?

Answer. We have not received a clarification or correction of the September 17,

2002 letter from Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal, nor have we requested such clarification.

Question 27. Has the Saudi government demanded that any of its citizens who

have kidnapped Americans return the kidnapping victims to the U.S.?

Answer. To the best of our knowledge, the government of Saudi Arabia has never

ordered a parent to return American citizen children abducted to or wrongfully retained in the Kingdom, except in the case of clear neglect or abuse. The government

has, however, pressured Saudi families to find a way to resolve cases of wrongful

retention or abuse. In cases involving sexual or physical child abuse, the Saudi government has pressured Saudi fathers to allow mothers to depart the Kingdom with

their children. In April, responding to the USG’s insistent requests for intervention

in the case of two abducted American citizen children, the Saudi government granted them exit visas to return to their mother in Arizona. The boys had been victims

of abuse and neglect at the hands of their Saudi father.

Question 28. In 1990, the U.S. Embassy in Riyadh ejected Monica Stowers and

her children out of the Embassy when they came seeking refuge from her abusive

husband. Since that time Monica and her children have spent years living under

difficult conditions in Saudi Arabia.

However, last year Ambassador Jordan pledged that no American seeking refuge

in the Embassy would be ever be thrown out again.

Recently, the State Department began urging Americans in Saudi Arabia to consider leaving the country because conditions in the Kingdom are not considered safe

for Americans.

Therefore, assume hypothetically that there is an American woman who is living

in Saudi Arabia with her American children, and that she and her children are

being abused by their Saudi husband, and that the woman wishes to leave Saudi

Arabia with her children, but her Saudi husband will not give his consent to do so.

55

Could the American woman bring her children to the Embassy and receive refuge

in the Embassy until she was to leave, Saudi Arabia?

Can you guarantee that an American woman in these circumstances would not

be removed from the Embassy like Monica Stowers?

Answer. Not only can we guarantee that a woman and her children in such circumstances would receive appropriate protection, we can demonstrate that American citizens facing similar situations are now receiving needed protection in our

Embassies and Consulates. Through mid-July of 2003, 5 American women, 1 American man and 10 children, mostly fleeing abusive family situations, have sought protection at the U.S. Embassy and consulates in Saudi Arabia. Several more are in

contact with the Embassy or Consulate and know that refuge is an option, if needed.

In a separate case a man and three children have also sought protection. While at

the Embassy, the Americans are provided food at no cost to themselves, essential

items and services, such as laundry, and whatever entertainment and comforts are

available, such as DVD facilities. It is made clear that they are welcome to stay at

the Embassy or compound as long as necessary to ensure their safety or until their

repatriation to the United States.

Question 29. Secretary Harty, under what circumstances have you interacted with

parents of abducted children? Please explain.

Answer. Shortly after I became Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs,

I wrote to all of the left-behind parents in our active case files. In that letter, I confirmed the importance of resolving parental child abduction cases as a U.S. foreign

policy interest, and invited the parents to meet with me. On February 24, 2003, I

met with sixty-four left-behind parents at a Town Hall meeting in Washington, DC.

I met with left-behind parents again in Chicago on July 28, 2003. I plan a similar

meeting later this year on the west coast. In addition to those meetings, I have met

with a number of individual parents to discuss their cases. My travel to the Middle

East since becoming Assistant Secretary of State afforded me the opportunity to

meet with abducted and retained children and report back to their left-behind parents. In one case, I had the privilege of actually meeting with a left-behind mother

who had come to the Middle East to try to recover her children (she succeeded). Finally, even when events direct my attention elsewhere, the Office of Children’s

Issues keeps me fully briefed to the status of the many active cases, and gets me

involved whenever necessary.

Question 30. Please indicate the dates Sara Saga resided with her children at the

U.S. consulate in Jeddah. During her stay did the State Department provide Ms.

Saga and her two children with food, liquids and other essential items? Did the

State Department request payment for items provided to Ms. Saga and her children

from Ms. Saga or anyone else? If so please explain. Also, please attach any documents or communications (including emails) from the State Department requesting

payment.

Answer. Sara Saga and her two children occupied the modest quarters of the Consulate’s staff apartment from June 16 to 23, 2003. Ms. Saga and her children were

provided with all essential items, including laundry service as well as nonessential

items that were available to make her stay more comfortable, e.g. DVD player and

DVDs, books, access to internet, and some children’s toys. At the time of Ms. Saga’s

arrival, a funding mechanism was not in place to provide essentials to Americans

without financial means who seek refuge on the Consulate compound. Others who

have sought refuge on the Consulate compound prior to Ms. Saga arrived with either sufficient funds to cover any essential items or family members in the U.S.

opened an Overseas Citizens Services (OCS) Trust with the State Department. This,

is standard procedure when an American is in need of financial assistance and family members are able and willing to help. In the case of Ms. Saga, the consulate

requested that her mother open an OCS Trust, and she agreed. Ms. Saga used OCS

Trust funds for the first three days of her stay. Within days, a funding mechanism

was provided by the Department, Sara was reimbursed for her expenses, and subsequent expenses were paid by the Department. Documents regarding payment requests are enclosed.

Question 31. After Sara Saga requested assistance from U.S. officials at the consulate in Jeddah, please list the highest ranking State Department official who communicated the U.S. government’s position to Saudi officials regarding Ms. Saga’s request for assistance in leaving the Kingdom with her children. Please articulate the

message the U.S. government delivered and to whom in the Saudi government it

was delivered?

56

Answer. Margaret Scobey, Charge d’Affaires, a.i., met with His Royal Highness,

Prince Saud Al Faisal, Minister of Foreign Affairs, on June 18, 2003. Ms. Scobey

urged that the government of Saudi Arabia approve the departure of Ms. Saga and

her two children, pointing out that Ms. Saga had been abducted to Saudi Arabia

as a small child and that she desired to be reunited, with her children, with her

own mother. The Foreign Minister approved Ms. Saga’s departure immediately,

keeping his commitment that any adult American citizen woman may leave the

Kingdom freely. He maintained that the children (who were born and have lived

their entire lives in Saudi Arabia, and are citizens of that country) could depart if

they did so legally, which would require either a court order or the agreement of

their father. Although Ms. Saga could have departed Saudi Arabia without his permission, her husband did agree that she could enter and depart the Kingdom at her

own initiative for the five-year validity of her Saudi passport. Ms. Saga departed

Saudi Arabia on June 24, 2003.

Question 32. According to press reports, Ms. Saga, while in the U.S. consulate,

met with officials from the Saudi Foreign Ministry. What were the names of these

men and what were their official positions within the Saudi government? What were

the names of the officials from the U.S. consulate in Jeddah., who accompanied

these Saudi officials into Ms. Saga’s room at the consulate? Who, specifically, was

involved in the decision to allow the Saudi officials into the consulate to meet with

Ms. Saga?

Answer. On June 19 at the Consulate, Sara Saga met with Abdulaziz H. AlSowayegh, Director Genera,l of the Makkah Region, Ministry of Foreign Affairs;

Bander Jameel, Chief of Protocol of the Makkah Region, Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

and Majed M. Al-Harazy, Special Assistant to the Director General of the Makkah

Region, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. From the U.S. Consulate, in attendance were

Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley, Consul General; Laurie Darlow, Security Officer; and

Loren Mealey, Chief of American Citizen Services.

Ms. Saga, also a Saudi citizen, was requested by officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to have a brief meeting with officials prior to her departure from the

Kingdom, so that they could hear from her directly as to her wishes. Rather than

take Ms. Saga off the Consulate grounds for the meeting, the Charge in Riyadh

asked the Consul General to ask the Saudi officials to meet with Ms. Saga on Consulate grounds. They agreed, and Sara was agreeable to the meeting.

Although the meeting was arranged on short notice, Sara knew well in advance

that the visit was going to take place that day. The meeting was in her room because that was where she and the children were at the time. U.S. Consulate officials, three women, were there to ensure that she was not intimidated or coerced

and so she would not feel her children might be taken from her forcefully. Consulate

officials stressed to Sara that it was her choice whether to meet with the foreign

ministry officials at all and that she could stay on the compound.

Question 33. Did any State Department or other U.S. government employee read

or review the document that various press accounts report that Ms. Saga signed regarding her parental rights? If so, please name all such individuals. If so, did those

U.S. officials provide any advice to Ms. Saga or recommend that she seek counsel

before signing a document that could possibly be construed as a legally binding document?

Answer. At the conclusion of the meeting described above, the Director General

of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs presented Ms. Saga with a document. He asked

her to sign it so that the Ministry had a record of her understanding of the implications of her decision to depart the Kingdom. The Consul General asked to review

the document. The Consul General (‘‘CG’’) read the document to Ms. Saga slowly,

stressing that she did not have to sign it. Ms. Saga was then given the document

to read. The CG asked if she understood the document’s contents. Ms. Saga said

that she understood it, and that she was willing to sign it. The CG offered that she

could make any additions or deletions that she felt did not accurately describe the

meeting. Ms. Saga responded that she had no changes to make, and signed the document.

CG and an American Citizen’s Services (‘‘ACS’’) Officer suggested to Ms. Saga and

her family members present at the Consulate (an aunt and uncle who Ms. Saga invited to see her on the Consulate grounds and who were supportive of Ms. Saga’s

desire to travel to the U.S.) that she may wish to consult with an attorney. A list

of local attorneys was provided to Ms. Saga. Ms. Saga did not retain an attorney

or ask the Consulate staff to contact an attorney for her.

Ms. Saga later told the ACS Officer that her uncle advised her to seek a written

agreement with her husband directly. At Ms. Saga’s request, her husband wrote out

57

and signed in front of an official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs a document stating his agreement to Ms. Saga’s future access to the children whenever she is in

the Kingdom.

Question 34. According to reports, Ms. Saga signed a document that forfeited

many of her parental rights to her children. Does the State Department feel that

the agreement was valid? Also, does the State Department feel that it was proper

to allow Saudi officials to meet with her and encourage her to sign the agreement?

Answer. The Department of State does not know what legal effect, if any, the document described above may have in Saudi Arabia or anywhere else. Our Consulate

personnel, who are not lawyers, did their best to inform Ms. Saga that she did not

have to sign that document and that she could add or delete anything in it. Ms.

Saga chose to sign it. In later consultations with post, the Department drafted a

second document for Ms. Saga to sign that clarified that she had not intended to

relinquish her rights to her children. U.S. Consulate personnel delivered this document to the MFA.

We do believe that arranging a meeting between Ms. Saga and Saudi officials was

proper. Ms. Saga and her children are Saudi citizens, and we recognize that the

Saudi government believed it had an obligation to ensure that Ms. Saga was not

being coerced into leaving Saudi Arabia and to attend to the interests of her children. Our consulate personnel did not pressure or encourage Ms. Saga to sign anything that she did not wish to sign and did their best to arrange a setting for the

meeting that was comfortable and non-threatening.

Question 35. Please indicate the dates another U.S. citizen resided with her children at the U.S. consulate in Jeddah during the same time period. During her stay

at the consulate, did the State Department provide her and her children with food,

liquids, and other essential items? Did the State Department request payment for

items provided to her and her children from her or anyone else? If so, please explain. Also attach any documents (including emails) from the State Department requesting payment.

Answer. An American citizen woman and her three Saudi-American children

sought refuge at the Consulate from June 2 through June 17. As is the procedure

in cases of Americans in need of financial assistance, an OCS Trust fund with the

State Department was established by the parents of the American woman to cover

the cost of meals. Procedures are now in place so that Americans granted refuge

will normally not have to pay for basic necessities. Documents regarding payment

are enclosed.

Question 36. After this American citizen requested assistance from U.S. officials

at the consulate, who communicated the U.S. government’s position to Saudi officials regarding her request for assistance in the leaving the Kingdom with her children? Please articulate the message the U.S. government delivered and to whom in

the Saudi government it was delivered.

Answer. In Jeddah, Consul General Gina Abercrombie-Winstanley called on

Abdulaziz H. Al-Sowayegh, Director General of the Makkah Region, Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In Riyadh, Charge ́ Margaret Scobey called on the Assistant Minister

of the Interior, Muhammad bin Nayif. Also present was the Deputy Minister of the

Interior, Dr. Ahmad Al-Salim.

Question 37. Does the United States government request payment from a foreign

government or anyone else for food and other items provided to Saudi Arabian nationals being detained by the United States at Guantanamo Bay Cuba? Please explain.

Answer. No foreign governments are permitted to pay for food or other items provided to their nationals detained by the United States at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

Question 38. In late April or early May 2003, State Department personnel informed Margaret McClain that the Saudi Embassy spokesperson, Adel Al-Jubeir,

volunteered to pay for her two adult children and her to travel to Saudi Arabia to

meet with Heidi. Do you know who initiated Al-Jubeir’s offer? Did the State Department suggest that Al-Jubeir make such an offer?

Answer. At Ms. McClain’s request, the Office of Children’s Issues queried the

Saudi Embassy about the possibility of Saudi funding for Ms. McClain and her adult

children to travel to Saudi Arabia. It is our understanding from the Saudi Embassy

in Washington that no Saudi government fund exists to pay for such travel; nonetheless, the Department is aware that the Saudi Embassy will attempt to find a private sponsor or benefactor for persons who request such funding and demonstrate

financial need.

58

Question 39. Secretary Harty, please explain why you decided to meet personally

with Mr. Al-Omary prior to Ms. McClain’s recent trip to the Kingdom instead of

communicating directly with high level Saudi government officials to ensure Ms.

McClain would have access to her daughter during her most recent visit?

Answer. I feel that every chance for dialogue that might result in an abducted

child’s maintaining a relationship with a Left Behind Parent is worth pursuing. In

each meeting we have had with Mr. Al-Omary, he has gradually developed a less

adversarial role with us. It has been our feeling that if Mr. Al-Omary felt that his

side of the story was being listened to, even if disagreed with, the chances for

progress in this case would increase. I met with Mr. Al-Omary in order to attempt

to convince him that allowing Ms. McClain to have a meaningful visit with Heidi

was in the best interest of the child. The Office of Children’s Issues and our embassy in Riyadh also worked closely with the Saudi interministerial commission to

ensure Ms. McClain’s visit.

Question 40. Are you concerned that meeting personally with a child abductor you

could unnecessarily elevate his stature with Saudi government officials? If not,

please explain.

Answer. Every chance for dialogue that might result in an abducted child’s maintaining a relationship with a Left Behind Parent and which may lead to our ultimate goal, the return of that child to the United States, is worth pursuing.

Question 41. Why did Ms. McClain have to personally negotiate the terms of her

visit with Heidi upon her arrival in Saudi Arabia? In the future, will you insist that

the terms of visitation between left-behind parents and child abductors for which

arrest warrants have been issued be negotiated between government officials if the

left-behind parent makes that request?

Answer. It was the Department’s understanding prior to Mrs. McClain’s departure

for Saudi Arabia that the Saudi interministerial commission had negotiated the

visit parameters with Mr. Al-Omary, and that Mr. Al-Omary had agreed to allow

Mrs. McClain to see Heidi. However, Mr. Al-Omary apparently at the last minute

insisted on a meeting at the office of the governor of the Eastern Province on the

day of Mrs. McClain’s arrival as a condition of allowing the visits to Heidi. Present

at the meeting were Mr. Al-Omary, Mrs. McClain and her adult children, USG officials from the Embassy in Riyadh and the Consulate in Dhahran, as well as Saudi

government officials.

Question 42. Did U.S. diplomatic personnel agree to allow the meeting with Ms.

McClain, Mr. Al-Omary and Saudi officials to discuss the terms of visitation between Ms. McClain and Heidi to be videotaped? Who proposed that this meeting be

videotaped?

Answer. The Deputy Chief of Mission to Saudi Arabia, Margaret Scobey, objected

strongly when Mr. Al-Omary stated that he wished to record the meeting at the governor’s office, and the camera was removed. USG officials had no prior knowledge

of the video camera in the conference room.

Question 43. In April and June of 2003, Ms. McClain presented her case to the

United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva. When the legal Counsel for

Ms. McClain and other victims of kidnapping presented their cases before the Working Group on Contemporary Forms of Slavery between June 16-20, 2003, in Geneva,

they met privately with two Saudi delegates to Geneva. The Saudi representatives

stated that there existed a ‘‘bilateral protocol’’ between the United States and Saudi

Arabia on solving cases like Heidi Al-Omary’s. The Saudi officials claimed that they

had ratified the agreement and that it was now awaiting ratification by the United

States government. Does such a protocol or framework exist? If so, please explain

and attach a copy of the protocol and/or agreement.

Answer. We are currently working with the Saudis on a bilateral proposal on access by parents to American Citizen children in Saudi Arabia, based on common

principles and consular responsibilities. The proposal does not address resolving of

cases of abduction; instead, it provides a framework in which both governments can

operate to ensure that Left Behind Parents have meaningful access to their children. The document is currently in draft form and has not yet been finalized.

Question 44. As the State Department has discussed any agreements or other arrangements with Saudi Arabia regarding the resolution of child abduction cases,

have you consulted with left-behind parents about how the agreement or framework

should be crafted? Please explain.

Answer. Please see the answer to question 43 above, We are currently working

with the Saudis on a bilateral proposal on access by parents to American Citizen

59

children in Saudi Arabia. The proposal, which is still in draft form, does not address

resolving of cases of abduction. The Office of Children’s Issues maintains an open

dialogue with all the left-behind parent’s with whom we have active cases; however,

until agreements or other mechanisms for resolving cases are finalized, we do not

discuss them with left-behind parents.

Question 45. Are you familiar with a document referred to as ‘‘Solomon’s Protocol?’’ If so, please explain. Also, please explain if the State Department participated in drafting this document.

Answer. ‘‘Solomon’s Protocol’’ is a document written by a left-behind parent. We

are aware of the document, which we understand was prepared under a contractual

arrangement for the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. It has not

yet, to our knowledge, been published. At an early stage, we were asked to review

the document and provide comments. We do not know if those comments were incorporated, or what the current status of the document is.

Question 46. On Ms. McClain’s last day in Saudi Arabia during her visit in May,

Secretary Powell raised Heidi Al-Omary’s case with Saudi officials. To whom did

Secretary Powell speak regarding this case? Has the Saudi government provided

any response to this meeting? Please explain.

Answer. Secretary Powell met with Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal in Riyadh on

May 12, 2003, to raise the issue of child abductions to Saudi Arabia, including Heidi

Al-Omary. Unfortunately, the Secretary’s meetings with the foreign minister were

cut short by the tragic bombings that occurred in Riyadh the same day.

Question 47. What does the Department of State do to try to prevent international

parental child abductions?

Answer. Country officers in the Abduction Unit spend a significant amount of

time helping parents prevent the abduction of their children by the other parent.

In fact, the volume of requests for such assistance has increased to the point where

the Abduction Unit is forming a team focused solely on prevention. Parents who request prevention assistance are guided to a wide range of legal remedies and options, contacts with law enforcement, and other sources of information and assistance. If the case is urgent, such as an abduction-in-progress, country officers or

after-hours Department duty officers will help the parent contact local and Federal

law enforcement, as well as other authorities who may be able to help recover the

child. Regardless of whether the case is urgent or not, country officers will continue

to advise and assist the parents until abduction is no longer a threat or until the

parents no longer seek our guidance.

One of the most effective prevention measures we can recommend to parents is

the Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program (CPIAP), by which a parent can request that their U.S. citizens’ children’s name be placed in a worldwide lookout system. Over 25,000 children’s names are presently listed in the CPIAP database and

the Abduction Unit receives approximately 40-50 new requests for entries every

week. CPIAP entries have helped us identify children for whom passports were applied without the knowledge of one parent and, on occasion has actually helped us

locate and recover abducted children. CPIAP does not identify applications for foreign passports; the Abduction Unit refers parents whose children might be eligible

for foreign passports to the appropriate foreign agency.

The ‘‘Amber Alert’’ law, which includes a provision making attempted international parental child abduction a federal crime, will significantly enhance our

ability to prevent abductions, as well.

Question 48. If an American child is determined to be at risk of being abducted

to countries such as Saudi Arabia and Syria, countries that refuse to return abducted American children, what safeguards would you recommend that a U.S. Family Law Court implement to help prevent an abduction?

Answer. State Department personnel are prohibited from discussing cases with

judges or other court officials. Any conversations we have about a child custody case

would be with the parents and/or their attorneys. In any custody case where a parent was concerned about an abduction, we would likely recommend that the parent

seek appropriate custody and other orders to restrain the travel of the child. If the

case involved a dual national child, we would likely recommend that a copy of the

subsequent court order be sent to the appropriate foreign embassy, though we would

caution that passport issuances by that embassy are governed by the laws of its own

government. We would also recommend that a copy of the court order be sent to

airline companies which service the possible destination country. Finally, and irrespective of any court activity, we would strongly recommend to any parents fearing

60

abduction of their U.S. citizen children that they enter their children’s names in the

Children’s Passport Issuance Alert Program (CPIAP).

Question 49. What more can the State Department do with regard to improving

the dissemination of information and training programs for U.S. Family Law courts

and individual State Bar Associations on this issue (e.g., through the National

Council for Juvenile and Family Law Judges, American Bar Association, etc.?).

Answer. We agree that additional outreach and training for U.S. judges is important to U.S. Government efforts to address the problem of international parental

child abduction. Working with other U.S. Government agencies as well as judicial

and legal associations, we participate in training programs on a regular basis, and

will continue to do so. We also provide informational materials to judges and attorneys through our Web site, and will be exploring ways to make these materials

more useful.

Question 50. Do you think it is appropriate to advise an American parent concerned about the abduction of his/her children to an Islamic Law country to go

through the time, energy and money to try to obtain a Mirror Order in that country?

It is my understanding that is what staff members of the Office of Children’s Issues

have advised some parents.

Answer. Our advice in this regard would depend on the particular case. There are

circumstances in which such an order could help provide legal grounds for the return of a child.

Question 51. What can the Department of State do to assist parents in giving official notice to foreign embassies in a case where a U.S. court has prohibited issuance

of a passport to a child the court believes is at risk of abduction? Is the Department

of State willing to submit a Diplomatic Note in each case?

Answer. When requested, the Department assists parents in contacting foreign

embassies about these matters. We typically recommend that parents contact the

appropriate foreign embassy directly to convey information and documentation

about such a case and, when necessary, we have contacted the foreign embassy to

facilitate parental contact. Passport issuances by a foreign embassy are guided by

the laws of that embassy’s government, so a U.S. court order cannot be enforced on

a foreign embassy. That said, the Department believes foreign embassies should be

aware of U.S. court orders concerning passport issuances to minor children and consider such orders in deciding whether a passport should be issued.

Question 52. What can the U.S. Government do about a foreign embassy or diplomat that issues a passport for a dual-national American child, who is later abducted; if evidence is presented that a parent, attorney, or U.S. court provided that

embassy with court orders prohibiting issuance of a passport for that child?

Answer. Issuance of passports by a foreign embassy is guided by the laws of that

embassy’s government. The issuance of forei,gn passports is not governed by U.S.

law. While the United States Government can help parents and local authorities inform foreign embassies of court orders related to a passport application, the U.S.

Government has no authority to prevent a foreign government from issuing a passport to one of its citizens, even a dual national.

Question 53. Please provide a list of cases where a parent has submitted court

orders to the Department of State because they fear that their child may be internationally abducted. Include cause number, parties’ names; court, county and state;

foreign country involved and indicate whether supervised visitation was ordered or

whether the child was abduction (if abducted, date of abduction and age of child).

Answer. The Department of State does not have that kind of information readily

available for the more than 26,000 entries in the Children’s Passport Alert Program

(CPIAP) and active parental child abduction case files. Court orders are not required

and, in fact, rarely submitted for a CPIAP entry to be made, but become relevant

at such time as a passport application is submitted on behalf of the child. Court

orders are also not required for an active abduction case to be established with the

Abduction Unit.

Question 54. I understand the Department of State has included information on

‘‘Marriage to Saudis’’ on its Web site. What other ways do you believe the Department of State can help advise American women prior to marrying a national of an

Islamic Law country about the impact on their and their children’s lives, e.g., that

their children will be considered nationals of that country subject to their laws, and

that American women and children can be restricted from exiting. (For example,

provide them a fact sheet when they apply for a Fiancee Visa?).

61

Answer. The Department believes that this type of information is very important,

regardless of the country involved, and already provides considerable information to

American citizens about travel, citizenship, and abduction issues. In addition to the

‘‘Marriage to Saudis’’ flyer, the Department’s Consular Affairs Web site provides

specific guidance on child abduction issues for many countries, including Saudi Arabia and others where Islamic Law serves as the basis for family law. Country-specific Consular Information Sheets also provide much of this information. Information relating to dual nationality is included in all U.S. passports. Marriages of U.S.

women to Saudi nationals most often occur after the Saudi national has a valid U.S.

visa, so a fiance ́ visa is not necessary.

Question 55. Has Department of State staff or contractor provided expert testimony in court cases regarding international parental child abduction? If so, please

provide a list of all cases, with cause number, parties’ names; court, county and

state; foreign country involved; Department employee or contractor who testified;

and dates of testimony.

Answer. Department staff and contractors have not provided such testimony.

Question 56. Has Department of State staff or contractors made public presentations regarding international parental child abduction? If so, please provide a list

including name of presentation, contact information for sponsoring organization,

date, and name(s) of Department employee/contractor(s) who presented.

Answer. Department of State representatives, including employees in the Office

of Children’s Issues, often speak publicly as part of our outreach efforts. This includes presentations at meetings and conferences held by bar associations; judicial

training programs; and Town Hall meetings for left-behind parents. We believe such

outreach to be an important function in our efforts to increase awareness of the

issue of international parental child abduction, and inform the public of the resources available in combating the problem.

Question 57. Have any children been returned from Saudi Arabia, Syria, and

other Islamic Law countries through legal means (not those arranged privately by

the parents)? Please provide specifics on those cases.

Answer. During the past twelve months, approximately thirty-five children have

been returned from countries in which Islamic Law predominates, including Saudi

Arabia, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Indonesia. The circumstances

leading to the return of these children included law enforcement efforts (arrest in

the U.S. of the abducting parent), U.S. Embassy intercession to facilitate the return

of the children, action by the left-behind parent to bring the children back without

the abducting parent’s consent and, in one case involving two children, direct assistance from the host government when there was credible evidence of neglect by the

abducting parent. Most of the cases involved some form of Department assistance

in facilitating the return, including one or more of the following; temporary Embassy refuge, escort, travel documentation, and access to USG crime victim assistance.

Question 58. Is the case of Amjad Radwan (daughter of U.S. citizen Monica

Stowers) considered active or inactive by the Department of State? Please explain.

Answer. Amjad Radwan’s case is an active case handled by our Office of American

Citizens Services and Crisis Management. The government of Saudi Arabia issued

Ms. Radwan an exit visa in the summer of 2002, but she chose not to travel to the

United States. We stand ready to offer any and all consular services to her, as we

would to any other American abroad who requests them.

Question 59. Are the cases of Aisha and Alia Gheshayan (Pat Roush’s daughters)

considered active or inactive by the Department of State? Please explain.

Answer. The Department of State will continue to urge the Gheshayan women to

meet with their mother in the U.S. In a meeting with the women in August 2002,

a female consular officer noted to the sisters that the United States government considers them American citizens and therefore has an ongoing interest in their welfare

and wishes. She reiterated that as U.S. citizens, the sisters were entitled to seek

assistance and protection at any U.S. mission should they require it. Aisha and Alia

Gheshayan stated clearly to the consular officer that they are happy with their lives

in Saudi Arabia, do not wish to come to the United States at this time, and that

they do not want to meet with their mother, Pat Roush. We stand ready to offer

any and all consular services to the sisters, as we would to any other American

abroad who request them.

62

Question 60. In Calendar Year 2002 and Calendar Year 2003 (to date), how many

Saudi nationals applied for U.S. visas in Saudi Arabia? How many visas were

issued? How many were refused? Please provide a month-by-month breakdown.

Answer:

NON-IMMIGRANT VISAS ISSUED TO SAUDI NATIONALS IN SAUDI ARABIA

FY-2002

Jeddah Issued Refused Total

Refusals

Overcome

October 728 30 758 13

November 65 61 126 13

December 299 98 397 79

January 431 62 493 54

February 188 55 243 32

March 384 84 468 32

April 560 121 681 48

May 565 171 736 97

June 787 237 1,024 120

July 483 445 928 279

August 246 190 436 88

September 225 181 406 74

Grand Total 4,961 1,735 6,696 929

Riyadh Issued Refused Total

Refusals

Overcome

October 335 82 417 60

November 176 104 280 47

December 499 223 722 149

January 686 227 913 185

February 336 168 504 175

March 608 488 1,096 313

April 815 691 1,506 328

May 1,278 1,129 2,407 714

June 1,255 1,163 2,418 1,021

July 982 706 1,688 912

August 465 502 967 140

September 357 177 534 126

Grand Total 7,792 5,660 13,452 4,170

NON-IMMIGRANT VISAS ISSUED TO SAUDI NATIONALS IN SAUDI ARABIA

FY-2003 1

Jeddah Issued Refused Total

Refusals

Overcome

October 239 377 616 96

November 203 244 447 144

December 201 160 361 109

January 243 250 493 147

February 153 113 266 107

March 176 167 343 141

April 236 177 413 113

May 357 268 625 202

June 569 515 1,084 354

Grand Total 2,377 2,271 4,648 1,413

63

Riyadh Issued Refused Total

Refusals

Overcome

October 663 179 842 264

November 464 169 633 202

December 317 181 498 156

January 441 180 621 160

February 315 267 582 137

March 373 473 846 153

April 484 260 744 194

May 414 252 666 179

June 772 581 1,353 369

Grand Total 4,243 2,542 6,785 1,814

1First nine months of fiscal year.

Æ