GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Report to the Chairman, Committee on 

International Relations, House of 

Representatives

March 2000 FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Specific Action Plan 

Needed to Improve 

Response to Parental 

Child Abductions

GAO/NSIAD-00-10

Page 1 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

Contents

Letter 3

Appendixes Appendix I: Party Countries With the United States to the Hague 

Convention 24

Appendix II: Comments From the Department of State 26

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Justice 32

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 36

Tables Table 1: Cases of Parents’ Abduction or Retention of Children From

the United States (May 1997 through Dec. 1999) 7

Table 2: Justice Department Actions Under the 1993 International 

Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (Fiscal years 1994-99) 8

Table 3: Proposed Actions to Improve the Federal Response to 

International Parental Child Abduction 17
Page 2 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction
Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

National Security and

International Affairs Division

B-284189 Letr

March 29, 2000

The Honorable Benjamin A. Gilman

Chairman, Committee on International Relations

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The State Department estimates that about 1,000 children are abducted 

from the United States annually.1

 International parental child abduction 

occurs when a parent removes a child from the United States or retains a 

child outside the United States violating the parental rights, including 

visitation, of the left-behind parent. The United States, along with 53 other 

countries, is a party to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of 

International Child Abduction,2 which establishes civil procedures that the 

State Department may use to locate, access, or return abducted children to 

resolve custody issues.3

 It is in force between the United States and 

48 other countries. In addition, the Congress passed the International 

Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993,4

 which allows the Justice 

Department to criminally prosecute abducting parents. The National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children, a private nonprofit organization 

that receives federal government funding, works with the State and Justice 

Departments when seeking the return of children abducted from the United 

States.

1

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.

2

29 ILM 1501 (1980).

3

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

country of the child’s habitual residence. 

4

18 U.S.C. 1204.
B-284189

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

Left-behind parents and others have raised a number of concerns about the 

adequacy of the federal government’s response to international parental 

child abduction. Because of these concerns, you asked us to report on

(1) problems identified with the federal government’s response to 

international parental child abductions, (2) the Justice Department’s use of 

the 1993 International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act to prosecute 

abducting parents, and (3) the actions federal agencies plan to take to 

address the problems. 5

Scope and 

Methodology

Our review focused on problems with the federal government’s response to 

international parental child abduction that were widely recognized and 

reported by the federal government and left-behind parents. To gather 

information for our analysis, we interviewed over 30 key officials and 

representatives from the State and Justice Departments, the National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and the California State 

Attorney General’s office.6

 We also discussed individual cases with five U.S. 

left-behind parents. 

To report on problems with the federal response, we reviewed the State 

and Justice Departments’ April 1999 Report to the Attorney General on 

International Parental Kidnapping and the State Department’s 1999 Report 

on Compliance with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of 

International Child Abduction. These reports documented substantial 

problems with the federal response and identified key issues related to 

Hague Convention noncompliance, respectively. To confirm and expand 

our understanding of the information in these reports, we interviewed the 

officials responsible for preparing them. We also interviewed 

representatives from the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children, who commented on the State and Justice Departments’ April 

1999 report. In addition, we reviewed a draft American Bar Association’s 

study, prepared in 1998, which outlined problems affecting left-behind 

parents’ efforts to resolve their abduction cases. We also met with an 

5

In October 1999, the House International Relations Committee held hearings on parental 

kidnapping at which GAO, the State and Justice Departments, and left-behind parents 

testified. See our testimony Foreign Affairs: Federal Response to International Parental 

Child Abductions (GAO/T-NSIAD-00-44, Oct. 14, 1999) for more details.

6

The State of California Supervising Deputy Attorney General and officials from three 

district attorneys’ offices provided information on the California model for managing child 

abduction cases under both federal and state law. 
B-284189

Page 5 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

author of the study, who discussed the contents of the report and attested 

to its findings. 

To determine the extent to which the Justice Department has used the 

International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 to pursue abducting 

parents, we reviewed data and information from the Justice Department’s 

Office of International Affairs, the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, and 

the Federal Bureau of Investigation. To further understand how decisions 

to pursue criminal charges are made, we interviewed three assistant U.S. 

attorneys (in California, Maryland, and Virginia) who were identified by 

their executive office as representative sources of information about 

departmental prosecutions under the act. 

To assess the actions federal agencies plan to take to address their 

problems, we reviewed the recommendations State and Justice proposed 

in the April 1999 Report to the Attorney General on International Parental 

Kidnapping. We also reviewed a list of actions State and Justice plan to take 

over the next 3 years to improve the federal response. To confirm our 

understanding of these actions, we interviewed the senior-level officials 

from State and Justice responsible for developing the list and setting 

implementation priorities. 

We conducted our work from May 1999 through March 2000 in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief The State and Justice Departments, the National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children, and left-behind parents have identified problems and 

issues with the federal government’s response to international parental 

child abduction. These problems include the need for more systematic 

diplomatic efforts to work with foreign governments to resolve problems of 

noncompliance with the Hague Convention and the lack of services such as 

financial assistance and counseling to left-behind parents. They also cited 

weaknesses in State’s system for tracking and managing child abduction 

cases. Together, these problems create obstacles to left-behind parents in 

their attempts to locate, gain access to, and secure the return of their 

children. 

The Justice Department’s use of the 1993 International Parental Kidnapping 

Crime Act has been limited. Since 1993, Justice has indicted 62 parents 

under the act and obtained 13 convictions. Left-behind parents believe 

Justice has not used this law sufficiently to prosecute parents who abduct 
B-284189

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

children from the United States. The Department believes that each 

abduction requires a review based on its merits to decide whether to 

prosecute an abducting parent, including whether such prosecution might 

compromise efforts to return a child under the Hague Convention. Both 

Justice and State note that criminal prosecution seeks to punish abducting 

parents but does not seek or ensure the return of the child. 

The State and Justice Departments have recognized that they have 

problems and have planned actions they believe will correct most of them. 

For example, they plan to close gaps in federal services to left-behind 

parents, develop an integrated case-tracking system to manage 

international child abduction cases and undertake studies to improve 

compliance with the Hague Convention. Although some progress has been 

made in these areas, their plans lack the details necessary for effective 

implementation. For example, State and Justice have not developed a clear 

strategy or plan that defines measurable goals, objectives, and resources 

required to fully implement their planned actions. 

To remedy the continuing problems we identified, we are recommending 

that the State and Justice Departments jointly develop a more detailed 

action plan for implementing their proposed actions. Such a plan would 

include measurable goals, detailed objectives, milestones for completion, 

and required resources. The plan should also include a mechanism for 

periodically assessing the effectiveness of the federal response to 

problems.

Background When international parental child abduction occurs, left-behind parents 

can seek the help of the federal government in two ways: (1) through a civil 

process as part of an international effort to gain access to or the return of 

the abducted child and (2) through a criminal process to bring the 

abducting parent to justice. The State Department’s Office of Children’s 

Issues is responsible for helping left-behind parents locate and visit their 

abducted children and for reporting on their general welfare. The 

Department is also responsible for providing left-behind parents with a 

point of contact to provide information on the status of judicial and 

administrative proceedings in other countries and to make contacts on 

behalf of left-behind parents with local officials in foreign countries. Most 

cases are handled under civil procedures established by the 1980 Hague 

Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, which 

covers 54 countries. See appendix I for a list of the participating countries.
B-284189

Page 7 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

The international environment in which the State and Justice Departments 

must operate is complex because their ability to be proactive can be at the 

discretion of the abductor’s government. Even though these governments 

may be signatories to an international convention, some countries do not 

recognize parental abduction as a crime and are therefore slow to, or do 

not pursue, an abducted child or abducting parent. For countries that are 

not signatories to the Hague Convention, obtaining their cooperation can 

be even more difficult.

Under the Hague Convention, each participating 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. For abductions to countries that do not participate in the Hague 

Convention, State and left-behind parents must tailor their approach to 

each country. Table 1 contains data on the State Department’s caseload. At 

our request, the State Department provided us caseload information for 

May 1997 through December 1999. The information reported includes cases 

opened prior to May 1997 (when State’s current data system became 

operational).

Table 1: Cases of Parents’ Abduction or Retention of Children From the United States (May 1997 through Dec. 1999) 

a

 Cases were closed for a variety of reasons, including withdrawal by left-behind parents, judicial 

refusal to hear cases, children’s age over 16 for Hague cases and 18 for non-Hague cases and the 

inability to find the child.

Source: Department of State.

As noted in table 1, about 50 percent of the cases have been closed. Less 

than half of the closed cases resulted in the children being returned or the 

left-behind parent being granted access to the child. Thus, left-behind 

parents succeeded in visiting their children or in having them returned in 

only about 24 percent of all cases opened during the period of analysis. 

Number of Cases

Cases processed under

Hague Convention

Cases where Hague Convention

does not apply Total

Opened 1,388 959 2,347

Closed 893 306 1,199

Child returned 382 121 503

Left-behind parent granted access 44 6 50

Closed for other reasons 467a 179a 646

Pending 495 653 1,148
B-284189

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

At the federal level, the Justice Department, including the Federal Bureau 

of Investigation, is the agency responsible for pursuing federal criminal 

charges against abducting parents. Likewise, all 50 states, the District of 

Columbia, and the territories recognize the abduction of a child by a parent 

as a serious crime, subject to penalties exceeding 1 year in prison.

Left-behind parents generally contact local law enforcement agencies as a 

first step when their children are abducted. They are instructed to file a 

missing person report with the local police department and to request that 

the abducted child’s name and description be entered into the “missing 

person” section of the National Crime Information Center7

 computer. State 

and local prosecutors may be involved in the investigation and prosecution 

of international parental abduction cases. Table 2 provides an historical 

summary of cases brought under the act.

Table 2: Justice Department Actions Under the 1993 International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (Fiscal years 1994-99)

a

 First two quarters of fiscal year 1999.

b

 Cases involving international parental child abductions brought under the 1993 act (18 U.S.C. 1204) 

exclusively. Data on the number of state cases is not available and not included in table 2.

c

 Cases opened following preliminary investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Sources: Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys, U.S. Department 

of Justice, July 1999.

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

federal government’s performance in responding to international parental 

child abductions. They maintain that the federal government’s response has 

been uncoordinated, insensitive, and ineffective. To address parents’ 

7

The National Crime Information Center is a U.S. nationwide police information system 

managed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Data on missing children is located in the 

Missing Persons Field. 

Fiscal year

Action 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999a Total

Federal Bureau of Investigation 

cases openedb 20 42 68 65 98 38 331

U.S. Attorney cases opened against 

abducting parentsc 15 27 50 49 57 31 229

Abducting parents indicted 5 7 11 12 16 11 62

Abducting parents convicted 0 1 5 2 4 1 13
B-284189

Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

concerns and the difficulties of operating in a complex international 

environment, the Attorney General and the Secretary of State created the 

Policy Group on International Parental Kidnapping8

 in November 1998 to 

identify ways to improve the federal response to international parental 

child abduction. 

Problems and Issues 

Related to the Federal 

Response to 

International Parental 

Child Abduction

During our review of information provided by the State and Justice 

Departments, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and 

left-behind parents, we identified many problems and issues regarding the 

federal government’s response to international parental child abduction. 

These problems and issues include 

• the need for more systematic and aggressive diplomatic efforts to 

improve international responses to parental child abductions, 

particularly in countries that do not comply with their Hague 

Convention obligations; 

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

parents to recover their abducted children;

• limited experience of and training for judges and other court officials in 

child custody matters involving parents of different national citizenship; 

• limited experience, of and training for, U.S. local and federal law 

enforcement personnel about when and how to use the Justice 

Department’s National Crime Information Center (a database with 

information on crimes and individuals related to the crimes) to interrupt 

abductions in progress; and 

• weaknesses in the State Department’s case-tracking process, which 

impair case and program coordination.

In addition, left-behind parents have raised an issue about the limited use 

of the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993 to pursue 

abducting parents and bring them to justice. Collectively, these problems 

and issues related to the federal response to international parental child 

8

The Policy Group on International Parental Kidnapping comprises high-level 

representatives of the State and Justice Departments and seeks to expedite reforms in the 

federal response. The interagency working group, formed by the policy group and chaired 

by the State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues carries out the tasks identified by the 

policy group. The Subcommittee on International Child Abduction is part of the Federal 

Agency Task Force on Missing and Exploited Children formed by the Attorney General in 

1995 and is chaired by the Office of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
B-284189

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

abduction create obstacles to locating, accessing, and returning abducted 

children. They also affect the ability to prevent and interrupt abductions.

Need to Systematically 

Pursue Diplomatic Efforts 

to Improve International 

Responses to Parental Child 

Abductions

The State Department has recognized that more systematic and aggressive 

action is needed to press countries to adhere to the Hague Convention. The 

April 1999 report by State and Justice recognized the importance of using 

diplomatic efforts to effect the return of abducted children and noted that 

more initiatives are needed to be implemented in this area. Others have 

recognized the need for diplomatic efforts to address the unresponsiveness 

of signatories to the Hague Convention. For example, the American Bar 

Association concluded in a draft 1998 report that the lack of uniformity in 

the application of the Hague Convention across countries raises serious 

questions about the Convention’s efficacy as a multilateral treaty. The State 

Department’s May 1999 report to the Congress9

 on the issue of compliance 

with Hague Convention identified Austria, Honduras, Mauritius, Mexico, 

and Sweden as the most serious violators. According to that report, in some 

cases, these countries have disregarded their obligations to take 

appropriate measures to discover the whereabouts of abducted children.10

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. For example, article 13b allows a signatory to refuse to return a 

child if “his or her return would expose the child to physical or 

psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable position.” 

Some foreign courts have asserted that taking a child from an abducting 

parent implicates this provision. Especially if the trend of foreign countries 

not adhering to their Hague Convention commitments continues, expanded 

diplomatic efforts to resolve international parental abduction are 

necessary.

9

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

Child Abduction (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, May 1999).

10The Hague Convention requires signatories to establish a “central authority” to (1) take 

appropriate measures to discover the abducted child’s whereabouts; (2) prevent further 

harm to the child or prejudice to interested parties; (3) secure the voluntary return of the 

child or to bring about an amicable resolution of the issues, and if necessary, (4) initiate or 

facilitate the institution of judicial or administrative proceedings with a view toward 

obtaining the return of the child.
B-284189

Page 11 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

Left-behind parents have criticized State for not pursuing diplomatic 

initiatives more vigorously with these and other countries to improve their 

response to international parental abductions. The State Department’s 

position is that the return of these children is a high priority but that the 

Department has to deal with foreign governments and judicial systems that 

make it difficult if not at times impossible to acquire the abducted children. 

Also, the draft American Bar Association report recommended that State 

be more willing to use diplomatic pressure to resolve abduction cases in 

non-Hague cases and in Hague cases in countries from which few children 

are returned. The State Department acknowledges that it needs to take a 

more proactive role in promoting greater compliance with the Hague 

Convention.

Federal Support to

Left-Behind Parents Has 

Gaps

Left-behind parents have criticized the State Department for not providing 

a single, central point of contact for information and guidance on how to 

respond to abductions of their children. They also cited as problems 

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

services and infrequent and inconsistent communication with State 

Department officials managing their cases. The State Department has 

recognized gaps in services to left-behind parents as a problem that needs 

to be addressed.

The lack of a single, central point of contact within the federal government 

makes it difficult for left-behind parents to obtain complete information on 

and to monitor the status of their cases. For example, although the State 

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

the status of their civil cases, the office usually does not have information 

on the status of the criminal aspects of these cases where the Justice 

Department or state prosecutor is pursuing criminal penalties. Parents 

have to obtain this information from the Justice Department.

Currently, neither the State nor Justice Departments provide sufficient 

financial assistance to offset left-behind parents’ costs, unlike some other 

Hague countries. Securing the return of abducted children can entail 

significant expenses. For example, left-behind parents usually need to 

travel abroad, retain a lawyer, and pay other fees. According to a draft 1998 

American Bar Association study, left-behind parents spent, on average, 

$33,500 in the search and recovery of their children. 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.
B-284189

Page 12 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

Some countries—Germany and Austria, for example—require that Hague 

applications for accessing or returning abducted children be filed in their 

native language along with supporting documentation. In these cases,

left-behind parents may be required to pay for translation services. These 

costs are beyond parents’ means. Moreover, left-behind parents and 

siblings may need psychological counseling services, but the federal 

government has not traditionally provided financial assistance for 

counseling. Without financial and other assistance, U.S. left-behind parents 

often find themselves pursuing their children at a financial disadvantage, 

which can make a substantial difference in their success.

Limited staffing at State’s Office of Children’s Issues has adversely affected 

the staff’s ability to keep parents informed about the status of their cases, 

according to office staff. During most of fiscal year 1999, each caseworker 

handled an average caseload of about 150 cases. Ideally, according to social 

work experts, a caseworker handles 35 cases. Although the Office of 

Children’s Issues does not have a specific written requirement regarding 

the frequency of contact with left-behind parents, parents should be 

contacted once a month on Hague Convention cases and every

4 to 6 months on non-Hague cases, according to the Office’s Deputy 

Director. Office staff said they were generally unable to make such frequent 

contacts, resulting in frustration among left-behind parents. The State 

Department has not maintained records of how often parents have been 

contacted.

Training of U.S. Judicial and 

Law Enforcement Officials

State and Justice identified some problems that affect the ability of U.S. 

courts and law enforcement officials to prevent and interrupt abductions. 

According to the State and Justice Departments’ April 1999 report, 

attorneys, judges, and officials at all levels of government who deal with 

family law and custody matters have little or no experience or training 

regarding international custody issues. Consequently, according to a 

Justice Department official, they may not be aware of the potential flight 

risk and the means for preventing the abduction. For example, when a 

judge suspects that one parent may abduct the child, reference to the 1993 

International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act can be included in the 

custody order to deter the abduction.

The April 1999 report also stated that both federal and local law 

enforcement officials lack training to know when and how to use the 

National Crime Information Center’s computerized police information 

system to stop abductions in progress. The report indicated that 
B-284189

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

information about the abducted child might not be entered into the system 

to alert law enforcement in time to stop an abduction. It also indicated that 

information on the abducted child might be removed prematurely before 

the child is returned.11

The Case-tracking Process 

Has Weaknesses

Although several agencies may be involved in international parental child 

abduction cases, the federal government does not have a comprehensive 

information system to track agency activities or ensure that these agencies 

are taking all appropriate measures. The State Department and the 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children have separate 

databases that track international parental abduction cases. A Justice 

Department database tracks criminal cases brought against child-abducting 

parents. These databases are not integrated and use different criteria to 

categorize cases, actions, and results. As a consequence, the incidence of 

abduction cases, agency actions on those cases, and their results cannot be 

quickly or easily determined across agencies.

The lack of an integrated, comprehensive database has also led to program 

management problems such as duplication of effort between agencies. For 

example, a caseworker in the State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues 

made inquiries to a foreign central authority on one 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 

Bureau often make duplicate inquiries to foreign central authorities on the 

same case. In addition, State’s case-tracking process cannot provide 

information on all reasons why cases are closed, nor does a closed case 

mean that an abducted child was visited by the left-behind parent or 

returned. Consequently, the effectiveness of federal efforts is difficult to 

evaluate. According to the Policy Group on International Parental 

Kidnapping, the Office of Children’s Issues lacks data to determine where 

best to allocate resources or identify the elements of successfully resolved 

cases.

11The Federal Bureau of Investigation is addressing the issue of retaining a child’s name in 

the National Crime Information Center database when the child has been located but not yet 

returned. The Advisory Policy Board of the National Crime Information Center is 

considering the issue and is expected to make a final decision by the summer 2000.
B-284189

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

Use of the 

International Parental 

Kidnapping Crime Act 

Has Been Limited

The International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act makes parental 

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

62 parents under the act.12 As a result of these indictments, 13 parents have 

been convicted. Decisions to bring cases under the act rest with each of the 

93 independent U.S. attorney’s offices. The assistant U.S. attorneys with 

whom we spoke (in Maryland, Virginia, and California) cited a number of 

reasons to explain their limited use of the act. We also interviewed a 

California Supervising Deputy Attorney General and officials from three 

district attorney’s offices. California has one of the highest international 

parental abduction rates in the country, and many have felt the state has a 

model program. 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 Convention should be the option of first choice for a 

parent who seeks the return of a child.13 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.14

12As of April 30, 1999.

13Public Law 103-173.

14According to a draft American Bar Association 1998 report, four central government 

authorities reported that some judges in their country will not order a child’s return if 

criminal charges are outstanding against its citizen parent.
B-284189

Page 15 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

Assistant U.S. attorneys believe they can also provide significant federal 

assistance to left-behind parents by supporting state-level prosecutors in 

their pursuit of international parental abductors rather than by supporting 

cases under the act. State-level prosecutors who have already investigated 

and indicted a parental abductor under state law 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.15 By obtaining a federal warrant, state-level prosecutors 

can bring federal resources to bear against the abducting parent. For 

example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation can help state-level law 

enforcement officers locate abductors, and federal prosecutors can request 

that the State Department 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.16

Even with these mechanisms, however, Justice Department officials told us 

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

parental child 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.

According to Justice Department officials, one purpose of the act is to seek 

to prosecute abducting parents, an action that does not guarantee the 

return of the child.17 They argue that even if the abductor is extradited to 

the United States, the child might remain in the abductor’s home country 

with the abductor’s family or friends. The law does not require the return of 

the child. Consequently, they take a case-by-case approach to deciding 

whether to prosecute. 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.

15The 1980 Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (P.L. 96-611) expressly declares that the 

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

kidnapping.

16State arrest warrants can also invoke INTERPOL notices.

17In 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).
B-284189

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

Left-behind parents believe Justice has not made sufficient use of the 

federal criminal law to prosecute parents who abduct children from the 

United States. They believe that wider application of the act would serve as 

an effective mechanism for deterring international parental child 

abductions.

Proposed 

Improvements to 

Federal Response Lack 

Measurable Goals, 

Objectives, and 

Resource 

Commitments

Based upon the April 1999 report to the Attorney General, State and Justice 

have identified several actions that they believe will improve the federal 

response to international parental child abduction. Our analysis shows that 

some of these actions have already been taken. However, most of the 

actions have not been implemented, and many are not clearly defined. In 

addition, State and Justice have no clear commitment to taking action as 

would be evidenced by an implementation strategy that outlines 

measurable goals, objectives, time frames, and the level of resources 

required to achieve the goals. 

Proposed Actions to 

Address Identified Problems

To correct problems identified in the April 1999 report to the Attorney 

General, table 3 provides a summary of proposed actions State and Justice 

plan to take to improve the federal response to international parental child 

abduction over the next 3 years.
B-284189

Page 17 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

Table 3: Proposed Actions to Improve the Federal Response to International Parental Child Abduction

Problem Proposed State and Justice Department actions

Noncompliance with Hague Convention, 

including

• lack of systematic and aggressive 

diplomatic efforts to improve 

international access and

• limited parental access to children 

abducted to other countries.

State is reviewing systemic Hague implementation problems and is encouraging appropriate 

countries to join the Convention. 

For fiscal years 2000-2003, State plans to: 

• develop policies and protocols to standardize diplomatic approaches by State’s overseas 

consular officers who handle parental abduction cases;

• consult with Canada, a country that shares concerns of the United States, on developing 

ways to improve Hague implementation in other countries;

• undertake a legal study to identify ways to enforce civil court orders among Convention 

participants;

• organize an international conference to improve implementation of the Convention;

• seek mechanisms to provide greater parental access to abducted children at the next 

Convention implementation review conference;

• share information with other countries to foster return of children; and

• explore other initiatives to improve parental access.

Gaps in services to left-behind parents, 

including

• limited financial assistance to help them 

locate, gain access to, and secure the 

return of their children and

• infrequent contact with Office of 

Children’s Issues caseworkers.

State, Justice, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children have updated their 

agreement to expand the Center’s role. State is also increasing staff in the Office of Children’s 

Issues to reduce caseload.

Other ongoing State efforts include encouraging, promoting, or supporting

• increased state-level victim assistance in abduction cases,

• development of support services for parents,

• expanded access to legal services for all left-behind parents, and

• development of a mediation program to foster voluntary return of child.

Gaps in education and prevention 

initiatives, including

• limited education, training, and other 

assistance for U.S. judicial officials;

• weaknesses in passport issuance and 

revocation practices; and

• limited use of the National Crime 

Information Center and International 

Police (INTERPOL) for prevention of 

abductions.

To increase domestic education and training efforts, State and Justice are cataloging 

information about custody disputes and Justice is coordinating the development and drafting 

training materials. The Justice Department’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies, and the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children plan to complete developing guides for law enforcement 

officials and left-behind parents by spring and summer 2000, respectively.

To strengthen mechanisms to prevent departure, State is considering targeted education 

efforts and an expansion of passport-related measures. During fiscal year 2000 and 2001, it 

plans to create procedures to notify foreign embassies of passport lookouts, pursue passport 

revocation for minors, and develop a media campaign to raise awareness about international 

parental child abduction.

Justice is providing training to local law enforcement agencies to use the National Crime 

Information Center and INTERPOL.

Continued
B-284189

Page 18 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

Source: GAO summary based on data provided by State and Justice Departments. 

State and Justice Have Made 

Progress in Some Areas

The State and Justice Departments have made some progress in 

implementing diplomatic initiatives, improving services to left-behind 

parents, and designing an integrated case-tracking system. For example, 

the State Department has pursued some diplomatic initiatives with a few 

countries that have not fully complied with the Hague Convention. In this 

regard, the U.S. ambassadors have met with officials from Sweden and 

Austria to promote greater compliance with the Convention. In addition, 

the State Department prepared diplomatic protocols for consular officers 

to use in promoting a more systematic approach to resolving compliance 

problems.

State is improving caseworker services to left-behind parents through staff 

increases. The Office of Children’s Issues staff has increased from 11 to 23 

in the past 16 months to reduce the caseload burden from 150 cases per 

officer to about 80 per officer and increase caseworker contact with 

left-behind parents. In addition, State hired a case coordinator to improve 

the Office’s coordination with the National Center for Missing and 

Exploited. State and Justice have signed a cooperative agreement with the 

National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, although the center’s 

role has yet to be completely determined. This cooperative agreement 

seeks to enhance the center’s role in assisting U.S. left-behind parents, 

including the center serving as a central point of contact and identifying 

Lack of an integrated database and lack 

of coordinated federal response, 

including

• weaknesses within the existing State 

Department case-tracking process;

• lack of comprehensive, integrated 

process for gathering and analyzing 

data on individual cases; 

• lack of a central point of contact to 

inform left-behind parents of all aspects 

of their cases; and

• no framework for ensuring that all 

appropriate measures are taken by all 

appropriate agencies in any given case.

State has compiled requirements from Justice, the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children and other agencies to be compiled in a database system. State plans to test a pilot 

version of the system in May-June 2000 and implement the final system by July-August 2000. 

Fiscal year 2001 initiatives of other agencies include:

• A Federal Bureau of Investigation proposal to retain information on abducted children in the 

National Crime Information Center database to facilitate foreign apprehension of the 

abductor and return of the child and 

• Justice encouragement of state and local clearinghouses for information on missing children 

located throughout the country to disseminate abduction information and use new casetracking system.

To strengthen coordination, State and Justice have established an interagency working group 

and a Policy Group on International Parental Kidnapping. The group will use information from 

the case-tracking system, once implemented, to decide how to allocate resources among 

competing program activities.

Use of federal criminal prosecutions 

under the 1993 International Parental 

Kidnapping Crime Act

No action planned because the Justice Department believes that current use of the act is 

appropriate.

Continued from Previous Page
B-284189

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

foreign-based attorneys who can assist the parents. The National Center is 

working on the issue of identifying services for left-behind parents, 

including counseling services. 

The Justice Department, through its Office of Victims of Crime in 

conjunction with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention, has established a program to make funds available to parents 

who qualify in covering the costs of transporting children home once 

located. In addition, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency 

Prevention funds “TEAM HOPE,” which is a support and mentoring 

program for parents who are the victims of child abduction. Through this 

initiative, trained parent volunteers are teamed with newly victimized 

parents and families to offer support, advice, and suggestions on how to 

cope with the situation and where to turn for help. Justice has also begun 

to develop guides for law enforcement officials and parents.

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

integrated child abduction case-tracking system to improve interagency 

coordination. State’s Office of Children’s Issues has taken the lead to 

develop this system. A needs assessment and initial design have been 

completed. Testing of a pilot version of the system is planned for

July-August 2000. 

Proposed Initiatives to 

Address Problems Lack 

Clear Implementation Plan 

Although State and Justice have made some progress, most actions they 

have identified as necessary to improve the federal response have not been 

implemented, and many of these steps are not clearly defined. Moreover, 

these agencies lack a clear plan for implementing their proposed initiatives. 

According to best practices for achieving greater efficiency, effectiveness, 

and accountability in federal spending, such as those mandated for federal 

agencies by the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993,18 plans 

should be developed that describe how goals and objectives are to be 

achieved. They should also identify key external factors beyond the 

agency’s control that could affect achievement of the goals and objectives, 

describe how the program will be evaluated, and establish a schedule for 

future program evaluations. State and Justice have identified a number of 

initiatives to address problems, but they have not developed a plan for their 

implementation.

18Public Law 103-62 (1993).
B-284189

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

Many initiatives proposed by State and Justice involve further study of 

issues, with no specific actions identified to correct recognized problems. 

For example, as part of State’s diplomatic initiatives, State proposes to 

study the enforcement of civil orders and explore initiatives to provide

left-behind parents with greater access to abducted children while civil or 

legal actions are being pursued. However, the Department has not made a 

commitment to address the problem. In addition, State has not indicated 

what specific actions it plans to take with countries that do not comply 

with the Hague Convention. The lack of specificity in this area will make it 

difficult to judge any real progress in improving implementation of Hague 

agreements. 

State and Justice indicated that most proposed actions to improve 

interagency coordination, diplomatic efforts, and mechanisms to prevent 

abductions will not be completed until the end of fiscal year 2000. However, 

some steps, such as systematically sharing information with other Hague 

Convention countries to foster the return of abducted children, will not be 

completed until the end of fiscal year 2001 or 2002.

Finally, State and Justice officials have indicated that several of the 

proposed actions are subject to the availability of resources. State and 

Justice officials stated that they have assessed the resources needed to 

carry out proposed changes and that funding these initiatives is a high 

priority. However, State and Justice do not indicate how much the 

initiatives will cost and whether funds have been budgeted.

Conclusions According to the State Department, they have successfully secured the 

return of or parents’ access to about 24 percent of the children abducted 

and wrongfully detained from the United States since May 1997. Many 

children remain abroad, and their left-behind parents seek the assistance of 

the State and Justice Departments to locate, gain access to, and return 

these children. Without a more aggressive and systematic diplomatic 

approach to countries where Hague Convention implementation regarding 

U.S. children is a problem, the return of these children may not be realized. 

Both Departments acknowledge that weaknesses in the federal response 

create obstacles for U.S. left-behind parents seeking to have their children 

returned. Even though these problems are long-standing, the State and 

Justice Departments have only recently taken steps to correct them and 

identified additional actions that need to be taken. However, we question 

whether these actions will be implemented because the State and Justice 

Departments have no comprehensive plan for moving forward on their 
B-284189

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

actions. The development of such a plan would help ensure effective 

implementation of their proposed actions.

Recommendation We recommend that the Secretary of State and the Attorney General 

develop an implementation plan, with measurable goals, objectives, time 

frames, and resources, needed to address problems with the federal 

response to international parental child abduction. In developing this plan, 

the State and Justice Departments should include provisions for 

monitoring the effectiveness of the initiatives as they are implemented.

Agency Comments and 

Our Evaluation

The Departments of State and Justice provided written comments on a 

draft of this report. These are reprinted in appendixes II and III. State and 

Justice also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as 

appropriate.

State commented that it is committed to making improvements in its 

response to international parental child abduction and that this issue would 

be a top priority in allocating Department resources. Justice stated that the 

draft report should more fully address the actions that have been taken by 

the State and Justice Departments to improve responses for left-behind 

parents. Both State and Justice provided several examples of 

improvements that are underway or planned such as increasing staffing, 

developing a case-tracking system, improving counseling services and 

other assistance to left-behind parents, and working more closely with 

state governments. State disagreed with our conclusion that State and 

Justice lack a sufficient plan with measurable goals, objectives, and time 

frames to improve the federal response to international child abduction. 

They believe that they have such a plan. 

We revised our report to include additional information on State and 

Justice actions to improve federal responsiveness. However, we disagree 

that State and Justice have a sufficient plan to improve the federal response 

to international parental child abduction. The plan referred to by State 

consists primarily of a four-page table listing a brief set of tasks to be 

performed and a projected deadline for completing each task. While the 

document identifies tasks related to the recommendations in State and 

Justice’s April 1999 report, it does not contain measurable goals and 

objectives, and many of the projected deadlines depend on resource 

commitments that are not discussed in the plan. In addition, as our report 
B-284189

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

notes, many of the tasks, such as diplomatic initiatives that require further 

study, are general in nature and lack details on how they will be 

implemented. The plan does not identify key external factors that could 

affect the achievement of objectives. It also does not describe how or when 

progress will be evaluated. Therefore, we continue to believe that State and 

Justice should develop a more detailed plan.

Justice also noted that the draft report did not provide sufficient discussion 

of the complexities of securing the return of abducted children. Moreover, 

State noted that gaps in federal government services are not the key 

obstacles in obtaining the return of such children. In response to these 

comments, we added information to our report on the international 

environment related to international parental child abduction and the 

complexities of federal efforts to secure children’s return.

We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional 

committees. We are also sending copies to the Honorable Madeleine 

Albright, Secretary of State and the Honorable Janet Reno, Attorney 

General. We will also make copies available to others upon request.

Please contact me at (202) 512-4128 if you or your staff have any questions 

about this report. Other GAO contact and staff acknowledgments are listed 

in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Jess T. Ford

Associate Director

International Relations and Trade Issues
Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction
Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

Appendix I

Party Countries With the United States to the Apendxies

Hague Convention ApendxiI

Argentina 

Australia

Austria

Bahamas

Belgium

Belize

Bosnia-Herzegovina

Burkina Faso

Canada

Chile

China (Hong Kong)

Colombia

Croatia

Czech Republic

Cyprus

Denmark

Ecuador

Finland

France

Germany

Greece

Honduras

Hungary

Iceland

Ireland

Israel

Italy

Luxembourg

Macedonia

Mauritius

Mexico

Monaco

Netherlands

New Zealand

Norway

Panama

Poland

Portugal

 Macau

Romania

Slovenia

South Africa
Appendix I

Party Countries With the United States to the 

Hague Convention

Page 25 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

Spain

St. Kitts and Nevis

Sweden

Switzerland

United Kingdom

 Bermuda

 Cayman Islands

 Falkland Islands

 Isle of Man

 Montserrat

Venezuela

Zimbabwe
Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State ApendxiI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in the 

report text appear at the end of 

this appendix.
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

See comment 1. Also p. 20.

See comment 1. Also pp. 6, 21.

See comment 2.

See comment 1.
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State

Page 28 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

See comment 3.

See comment 3. Also p. 18.

See comment 4. 

Also see pp. 18, 19.

See comment 4.

See comment 5.

See comment 6.
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State

Page 29 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

See comment 7. 

Also pp. 4, 10, 11.
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State

Page 30 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of State’s letter 

dated February 29, 2000.

GAO Comments 1. We believe transparency and accountability should be essential 

elements of the State Department’s strategy for improving its 

responsiveness to international parental child abduction. While the 

joint plan is progress toward this end, we disagree that the plan 

provides a sufficient basis for substantial improvements. This four-page 

plan outlines general tasks State and Justice plan to complete within 

broadly projected time frames. It does not, however, include 

measurable goals, clear objectives, specific time frames, and resource 

commitments. Our report identified several other omissions, including 

the plan’s failure to identify key external factors beyond State’s control 

that could affect the achievement of its goals and objectives. It also fails 

to describe how the program will be evaluated and to establish a 

schedule for future program evaluations. Because the current plan 

lacks these elements, we recommend in our report that State and 

Justice prepare an implementation plan that includes among other 

things provisions for monitoring the effectiveness of their initiatives as 

they are implemented.

2. We have revised our report and replaced “makes(s) it difficult” with 

“creates obstacles,” which is consistent with the results of our review.

3. In several places, our report recognizes State’s efforts to improve its 

management of international parental child abduction cases. It should 

be noted, however, that the Congress directed the Office of Children’s 

Issues in the fiscal year 2000 to reduce its child abduction caseload to 

75 cases per caseworker. 

4. We recognize the impact the new computerized case management 

tracking system is expected to have on data management and 

interagency coordination. We have revised our report to include the 

May-June 2000 testing of the pilot version of the system and the 

July-August 2000 system readiness. 

5. Based on recommendations from State, Justice, and the National 

Center for Missing and Exploited Children, we met with State of 

California authorities to obtain their perspectives about improving 

governmental responsiveness to international parental child abduction. 

Because the scope of our request was confined to problems with 
Appendix II

Comments From the Department of State

Page 31 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

federal, rather than state, responsiveness, we did not review each of the 

50 states’ programs. As a result, we cannot conclude whether other 

states should adopt the California model or whether they would benefit 

from a process unique to the State of California. 

6. The example in our report was an illustration of the cost left-behind 

parents could incur. While we do not know whether all abducting 

parents obtain financial support to cover their legal and other fees, 

some evidence exists that many do. For example, the American Bar 

Association has concluded that many countries pay for the support of 

an abducting parent’s efforts to retain custody. Whether to provide 

funding to left-behind parents and under what circumstances is a policy 

decision which the State Department, not GAO, should make.

7. We acknowledge that the American Bar Association report is in draft. 

However, we discussed the content of the report with its author and a 

Justice Department official who sponsored the study. They agreed with 

how we cite information from their study in our report. 
Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

Appendix III

Comments From the Department of Justice ApendxiI

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in the 

report text appear at the end of 

this appendix.

See comment 1 and p. 9.

See comment 2.

See comment 1.
Appendix III

Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

See comment 1 and p. 16.

See comment 3.

See comment 3 and p. 19.

See comment 3.
Appendix III

Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction
Appendix III

Comments From the Department of Justice

Page 35 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

The following are GAO’s comments on the Department of Justice’s letter 

dated February 25, 2000.

GAO Comments 1. We have revised our report to reflect the complexities of responding to 

international parental child abduction cases.

2. In several places, our report recognizes Justice’s efforts to enhance its 

support to left-behind parents.

3. We have revised our report to reflect this information.
Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-00-10 Parental Child Abduction

Appendix IV

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiIV

GAO Contact Boris L. Kachura, (202) 512-3161

Acknowledgments In addition to the contact named above, Michael C. Zola, La Verne G. 

Tharpes, Mark B. Dowling, and Rona H. Mendelsohn made key 

contributions to this report.

(711423) Letr
Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of 

reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to 

the Superintendent of Documents. 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

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

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.

Orders by Internet:

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

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, or Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)


United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. GI00