GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Testimony

Before the Committee on International Relations,

House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

10:00 a.m., EDT

Thursday,

October 14, 1999

FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Federal Response to 

International Parental 

Child Abductions 

Statement of Jess T. Ford, Associate Director, International 

Relations and Trade Issues, National Security and 

International Affairs Division

GAO/T-NSIAD-00-44

Page 1 GAO/T-NSIAD-00-44

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our preliminary observations on 

the federal government’s response to international parental child 

abduction.1

 The State Department estimates that about 1,000 children 

annually are abducted from the United States by one of their parents.2

When these cases are reported to authorities, the State and Justice 

Departments assume roles in locating the abducted children, reporting on 

their welfare, intervening diplomatically to secure their return, and 

bringing abductors to justice. However, left-behind parents and others have 

raised a number of concerns about the federal response to these child 

abductions.

Because of these concerns, you asked us to (1) examine problems with the 

federal government’s response to parental child abduction and (2) examine 

how the federal government is attempting to improve its response. Today, I 

will discuss several of the problem areas that have been identified and what 

actions federal agencies plan to take to address them. We plan to complete 

our work and provide a report to this Committee later this year.

Summary There are a number of problems and issues related to the federal response 

to international parental child abduction. These problems have been 

identified by the key agencies involved—the State and Justice Departments 

and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children—as well as 

left-behind parents and others. Together, they present obstacles to 

left-behind parents in their attempts to locate, gain access to, and return 

their children. Four problems and issues have received substantial 

attention. These are

• gaps in federal services to left-behind parents, which make it difficult for 

parents to recover their abducted children;

• weaknesses within the existing State Department case-tracking process, 

which impair case and program coordination;

1

International parental child abduction is defined as the removal of a child from the United 

States or retention of a child outside the United States with intent to obstruct the lawful 

exercise of parental rights (18 U.S.C. 1204).

2 The actual number of cases may be greater because some parents never report the 

abductions to the State Department but instead pursue a remedy directly with foreign 

authorities.
Page 2 GAO/T-NSIAD-00-44

• lack of systematic and aggressive diplomatic efforts to improve 

international responses to parental child abductions; and

• limited use of the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 19933

to pursue abducting parents and bring them to justice.

The State and Justice Departments have developed recommendations, 

which they believe will address most of the problems if implemented. 

While we found that action has been taken to implement a number of the 

recommendations, many await further action and most require resource 

commitments. In addition, some of the recommended actions are not 

expected to be implemented for several years. These shortcomings raise 

questions about the likelihood the recommendations will be put in place.

Background International parental child abduction is a U.S. federal and state criminal 

offense. The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 and 

similar state laws seek to prosecute abductors and bring them to justice. 

All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and territories have such laws. The 

Justice Department, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, is the 

lead federal agency for pursuing criminal charges against abducting 

parents. The State Department assumes the U.S. lead role in civil cases.

The State and Justice Departments seek to coordinate their efforts with 

their state and local counterparts. Other organizations, such as the National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children, play instrumental roles in 

seeking the return of wrongfully abducted or retained children.

The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child 

Abduction4

 is an international agreement among 54 nations, including the 

United States, that established civil procedures to follow when locating, 

accessing, or returning abducted children to resolve custody issues.5

 About 

half of all abductions from the United States are to other Hague Convention 

countries. The balance of abductions is to countries that are not parties to 

the Hague Convention. For abductions to non-Hague countries, locating, 

3

Public Law 103-173 codified at 18 U.S.C. 1204.

4

29 ILM 1501 (1980).

5

The Hague Convention seeks to ensure that child custody disputes will be resolved in the 

country of the child’s habitual residence.
Page 3 GAO/T-NSIAD-00-44

accessing, or returning abducted children is a case- and country-specific 

matter. Under the Hague Convention, each country identifies a lead 

government agency (called a “central authority”) to serve as a central point 

of contact. The State Department is the central authority for the United 

States.

Over the past several years, left-behind parents and others have criticized 

the federal government’s performance in responding to parental child 

abductions. In 1994, the Justice Department established a Missing and 

Exploited Children’s Task Force to assist state and local authorities with 

difficult missing and exploited children cases. 

In December 1997, this task force established the Subcommittee on 

International Child Abduction and in November 1998, the Attorney General 

created the Policy Group on International Parental Kidnapping6

 which 

produced the April 1999 publication entitled A Report to the Attorney 

General on International Parental Kidnapping.

This report highlighted the problems with the current federal response and 

made recommendations to correct those problems. In this regard, the 

report underscored weaknesses with the current case-tracking process and 

coordination problems between the State and Justice Departments as well 

as the need to improve services to left-behind parents and aggressively 

pursue diplomatic efforts to resolve Hague Convention implementation 

problems. The report suggested ways in which the State and Justice 

Departments should address these problems. It also offered additional 

recommendations to develop an enhanced role for the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children to work more closely with U.S. left-behind 

parents, increase education and training resources for federal and local law 

enforcement, and tighten mechanisms, such as passport revocation 

practices, to prevent departure. The report also distinguished between the 

civil remedies to recover children and the criminal mechanisms to bring 

abductors to justice.

6

The subcommittee includes representatives of the State and Justice Departments as well as 

representatives from the Treasury Department (U.S. Customs Service), the National Center 

for Missing and Exploited Children, the Kern County, California, District Attorney’s Office 

and the American Prosecutors Research Institute. The policy group is comprised of highlevel representatives of the Justice and State Departments and seeks to expedite reforms in 

the federal response.
Page 4 GAO/T-NSIAD-00-44

Problems With the 

Federal Response

Key problems cited by the State and Justice Departments, left-behind 

parents, and others that create obstacles to locating and returning 

internationally abducted children include gaps in federal services to

left-behind parents and weaknesses within the existing case-tracking 

process. In addition, State Department officials and left-behind parents 

have cited certain countries that are signatories to the Hague Convention 

but that are not complying with its provisions. Left-behind parents have 

also cited the Justice Department’s limited use of the 1993 International 

Parental Kidnapping Crime Act as a problem.

Gaps in Services to 

Left-Behind Parents

Certain gaps exist in federal services to left-behind parents that make it 

difficult for these parents to recover their abducted children. Left-behind 

parents and others have criticized the U.S. central authority—the State 

Department—for not providing a central point of contact for information 

and guidance on how to address abduction cases. They also cited as 

problems limited U.S. government-provided financial assistance and 

counseling services, and infrequent and inconsistent communication with 

officials managing their cases.

One problem is that there is no central point of contact within the federal 

government that can provide complete information on international 

parental child abduction cases, making it difficult for left-behind parents to 

monitor the status of their cases. For example, the State Department’s 

Office of Children’s Issues can apprise left-behind parents on the status of 

their civil cases, but the office usually does not have information on the 

status of the criminal aspects of these cases. Parents would have to obtain 

this information from the Justice Department.

Inadequate financial and other assistance to parents has been identified as 

a problem. Currently, neither the State nor the Justice Departments provide 

financial assistance to left-behind parents that would be sufficient to offset 

their costs, unlike some other Hague countries. Securing the return of 

abducted children can entail significant cost. For example, left-behind 

parents usually will have to travel abroad, retain a lawyer, and pay other 

fees. One U.S. left-behind parent told us he spent over $200,000 pursuing 

his abducted child, while the abducting parent’s costs were paid-in-full by 

her government. Some countries—Germany and Austria, for example—

require that Hague applications and supporting documents be filed in their 

native language. In these cases, left-behind parents may be required to pay 

for translation services. Often these costs are beyond parents’ means. 
Page 5 GAO/T-NSIAD-00-44

Moreover, left-behind parents and siblings may need counseling services, 

but the federal government has not traditionally provided financial 

assistance for counseling. Using Justice Department funds, a program 

managed by the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has 

provided limited financial assistance to some left-behind parents so they 

can travel overseas to pick up children returned to their custody.

Another gap in services involves the lack of staff at State’s Office of 

Children’s Issues to keep parents informed about the status of their case. 

For most of fiscal year 1999, the average caseload was about 150 cases per 

caseworker. An ideal caseload, according to social work experts, is 

35 cases per caseworker. Office of Children’s Issues staff told us that 

contact with left-behind parents has suffered as a result of the heavy 

caseload. Although the Office of Children’s Issues does not have a specific 

requirement regarding the frequency of contact with left-behind parents, 

the general guidance has been that parents should be contacted once a 

month on Hague Convention cases and every 4 to 6 months on non-Hague 

cases.

Coordination Problems in 

Managing Cases

As I mentioned earlier, although several agencies may be involved in 

international kidnapping cases, the federal government does not have a 

comprehensive system to track agency activities or assure that all 

appropriate measures are being taken by all appropriate agencies. The 

State Department and the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children have separate databases that track international parental 

kidnapping cases. A Justice Department database tracks criminal cases 

brought against child abducting parents. These databases are not 

integrated and may use different criteria to categorize cases, actions, and 

results. This situation has led to coordination problems and duplication of 

effort. For example, a caseworker in the State Department Office of 

Children’s Issues made inquiries on an open Hague case only to find that 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation had located the child and closed its 

case a month earlier. This caseworker also told us that his office and the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation often make duplicate inquiries on the same 

case.

The State Department’s case-tracking system also does not generate 

meaningful statistics that can be used for program management. For 

example, the system cannot accurately describe the incidence of reported 

abduction cases because it does not include information on all 

international parental abductions and because double counting occurs in 
Page 6 GAO/T-NSIAD-00-44

some cases. Also, although the system can provide data on the number of 

closed cases, it cannot report on all the reasons why cases are closed and 

whether the child was returned. Because of these shortcomings, the Office 

of Children’s Issues lacks data to determine where best to allocate 

resources or identify the elements of successfully resolved cases.

Noncompliance With the 

Hague Convention

The State Department’s 1998 report7 to Congress on the issue of 

compliance with Hague rules identified Austria, Honduras, Mauritius, 

Mexico, and Sweden as the most serious violators of the convention. In 

some cases, these countries have disregarded their obligations to take 

appropriate measures to discover the whereabouts of abducted children. In 

others, their judicial systems have interpreted the convention in a manner 

that the State Department believes undermines the Convention’s basic goal 

of ensuring the prompt return of children to their habitual residence. 

Left-behind parents have criticized State for not pursuing diplomatic 

initiatives more vigorously with these and other countries to enforce 

implementation of the Hague rules and to resolve other problems. The 

State Department acknowledges that more systematic and aggressive 

diplomatic efforts are needed to address problems with the Hague 

Convention.

Limited Prosecutions Under 

the International Parental 

Kidnapping Crime Act

You asked us to comment on the Justice Department’s implementation of 

the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act, which makes parental 

abduction a federal felony. Since 1993, the Justice Department has indicted 

62 parents under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act. As a 

result of these indictments, 13 parents have been convicted of felony 

parental kidnapping.

Decisions to bring cases under the act rest with each of the independent 

Offices of the U. S. Attorneys. We spoke with some Assistant U.S. Attorneys 

who have prosecuted abducting parents and they cited a number of reasons 

to explain their limited use of the act. For example, some prosecutors 

indicated that as a general policy they will not indict abducting parents 

until civil remedies are exhausted under the Hague Convention. They cited 

congressional intent that the procedures under the Hague 

7

Report on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International 

Child Abduction (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, 1999).
Page 7 GAO/T-NSIAD-00-44

Convention should be the option of first choice for a parent who seeks the 

return of a child.8

 Other prosecutors noted that prosecuting abducting 

parents can compromise efforts under the Hague civil process to return a 

child since some Hague countries have asserted their unwillingness to 

continue pursuing civil remedies if criminal charges are pending against its 

citizens.9

In addition, the Assistant U.S. Attorneys believe they can provide 

significant federal assistance to left-behind parents by supporting 

state-level prosecutors in their pursuit of international parental abductors 

rather than by bringing cases under the act. State-level prosecutors, who 

have already investigated and indicted a parental abductor, can request 

from an Assistant U.S. Attorney a federal arrest warrant when the abductor 

unlawfully crosses state or international borders to avoid prosecution 

under state law.10 By doing so, state-level prosecutors can bring a battery of 

federal resources to bear against the abducting parent. For example, the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation can assist state-level law enforcement 

officers with locating the abductor, and federal law enforcement officials 

can request the State Department to deny or revoke an abductor’s passport 

to prevent departure. Also, federal warrants can be used to invoke 

international police (INTERPOL) notices to seek abductors wanted for 

extradition.11

Even with these mechanisms, however, Justice Department officials noted 

that many countries, including several Hague signatories, do not consider a 

parental abduction to be a criminal offense as the United States does, and 

thus do not consider international parental abduction to be an extraditable 

offense. Moreover, even if a foreign country deems parental abduction a 

criminal offense, it often will not be willing to extradite its own nationals. 

This is particularly true with respect to the civil law nations of Latin 

America and Europe.

8

Public Law 103-173, §2(b).

9

According to the American Bar Association in its 1998 report Issues in Resolving Cases of 

International Child Abduction, four central government authorities reported that some 

judges in their country will not order a child’s return if criminal charges are outstanding.

10The 1980 Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act, Public Law 96-611, expressly declares that 

the Fugitive Felon Act, 18 U.S.C. 1073, applies to state felony cases involving parental 

kidnapping.

11State arrest warrants can also invoke INTERPOL notices.
Page 8 GAO/T-NSIAD-00-44

Lastly, Justice Department officials noted that the act seeks to prosecute 

abducting parents, an action that does not guarantee the return of the 

child.12 In this regard, however, they were unable to provide us with 

information on how many abducted children have been returned because 

the Justice Department does not maintain such statistics.

State and Justice 

Departments Plan to 

Improve Federal 

Response

The State and Justice Departments have developed several 

recommendations they believe will correct the problems we have 

discussed. Their April 199913 report about deficiencies in the federal 

response to parental child abductions contains recommendations that seek 

to expand services and resources to left-behind parents, establish a 

comprehensive case-tracking system, and implement diplomatic initiatives 

to address Hague implementation issues. Also, both departments have 

taken an additional step and developed an implementation plan in August, 

which, according to the Justice Department, serves as a guide to identify 

the resources needed to implement proposed changes. We reviewed both 

the recommendations and the implementation plan and found that State 

and Justice have made some progress toward implementing their 

recommendations. However, many of the recommendations are not clearly 

defined and lack specific resource requirements.

Some Progress Made in 

Specific Areas

The State and Justice Departments have made some progress toward 

improving services to left-behind parents, designing an integrated 

case-tracking system and pursuing diplomatic initiatives. Specifically, the 

State Department has made progress toward improving caseworker 

services to left-behind parents. In this regard, since October 1998, the 

Office of Children’s Issue has hired 10 additional staff to reduce caseload. 

In addition, State has recently hired a coordinator who will work out of the 

offices of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, which 

State expects will facilitate an enhanced relationship between the State 

12In at least one case, a federal judge conditioned an abductor’s sentence on the return of the 

child. The judge’s sentence was upheld on appeal. See U.S. v. Amer, 110 F.3d 873 (2d Cir. 

1997).

13A Report to the Attorney General on International Parental Kidnapping prepared by the 

Subcommittee on International Child Abduction of the Federal Agency Task Force on 

Missing and Exploited Children and the Policy Group on International Parental Kidnapping 

(April 1999).
Page 9 GAO/T-NSIAD-00-44

Department and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children.14

Also, the Justice Department has made limited funding available to 

nonprofit organizations to provide mentoring services to left-behind 

parents.

Both the State and Justice Departments have acknowledged the need for a 

comprehensive, integrated case-tracking system, which they are attempting 

to develop. The Office of Children’s Issues is taking the lead to develop this 

system, and a preliminary needs assessment is underway. The actual 

system design should begin early next calendar year.

Finally, State has pursued some diplomatic initiatives with a few countries 

that have had Hague implementation problems. However, most planned 

diplomatic initiatives have not yet begun.

Implementation of 

Recommendations Will Be 

Difficult Without Clear 

Resource Commitments

Although State and Justice have made some progress, without clear 

resource commitments it will be difficult to implement the remaining 

recommendations in a timely manner. As we mentioned earlier, according 

to State and Justice, they use their implementation plan to identify the 

resources needed to carry out proposed changes. However, neither 

department has been able to provide us with information about such 

resources. For example, according to State Department officials, all of its 

planned diplomatic initiatives are contingent on additional funding, but 

they have not provided us with information about the source and level of 

funding necessary for these activities. Moreover, State and Justice have not 

provided us funding information for nearly all the remaining planned 

changes in the federal response, including the resources needed to fully 

implement the case-tracking system.

In addition to lacking resource commitments, many of the remaining 

recommendations we reviewed fail to identify the specific actions the State 

and Justice Departments will take to achieve their objectives. As we 

mentioned earlier, the State Department acknowledges that more 

systematic and aggressive diplomatic efforts are needed to address Hague 

Convention noncompliance. Most of the recommendations in this regard 

seek to review, study, and explore Hague implementation issues but fail to 

14State and Justice have signed a cooperative agreement with the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children that is designed to enhance the center’s role in abduction 

cases.
Page 10 GAO/T-NSIAD-00-44

identify how these activities will actually help solve Hague implementation 

problems.

In summary, both the State and Justice Departments have taken positive 

steps to clarify and describe how they will respond to identified 

international parental abduction problems. However, without resource 

commitments, it is uncertain whether they will be able to take additional 

steps to correct most problems. Both State and Justice Departments agree 

that they need to establish resource commitments. We expect that as 

recommendations are implemented and accomplished, a clearer 

perspective on their efficacy will emerge.

Mr. Chairman, while we have not yet completed our work our preliminary 

observations are that the State and Justice Departments should continue to 

define the specific actions and resources necessary to implement their 

recommendations. Doing so will enable both departments to more 

effectively manage their corrective actions.

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, that concludes my prepared 

statement. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Contact and Acknowledgments

For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact Jess T. Ford at 

(202) 512-4268. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony 

included Boris L. Kachura, Michael C. Zola, La Verne Tharpes, and Mark 

Dowling.

(711455) Letr
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the 

following address, accompanied by a check or money order made 

out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary, VISA and 

MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are 

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and 

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list 

from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone 

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain 

these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET, 

send an e-mail message with “info” in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at: 

http://www.gao.gov

United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Mail

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00