U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

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

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

97–636PDF 2016

THE GOLDMAN ACT TO RETURN ABDUCTED

AMERICAN CHILDREN: ENSURING

ADMINISTRATION ACTION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

NOVEMBER 19, 2015

Serial No. 114–187

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/ or

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Michele Thoren Bond, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State ............................................................. 4

Mr. David Goldman, co-founder and director, Bring Sean Home Foundation 

(father of child abducted to Brazil) ..................................................................... 33

Captain Paul Toland, USN, co-Founder and national director, Bring Abducted 

Children Home (father of child abducted to Japan) .......................................... 43

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Michele Thoren Bond: Prepared statement ................................. 7

Mr. David Goldman: Prepared statement ............................................................. 39

Captain Paul Toland, USN: Prepared statement .................................................. 47

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 54

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 55

The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress from 

the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global 

Health, Global Human Rights, and International Organizations: 

Question submitted for the record to the Honorable Michele Thoren Bond ... 56

Prepared statement of the Honorable Steny H. Hoyer, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Maryland ........................................................ 57

Prepared statement of the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Texas ............................................................... 58

Prepared statement of the U.S. Department of Justice .................................... 61

Washington Post article entitled, ‘‘The State Department should do more 

to address international abductions,’’ August 12, 2015 ................................. 67

(1)

THE GOLDMAN ACT TO RETURN ABDUCTED 

AMERICAN CHILDREN: ENSURING 

ADMINISTRATION ACTION 

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 19, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 11 o’clock, in room 

2172 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order, and let me express my apologies for the lateness in starting. We did have a series of votes. Who could ever anticipate or predict? 

So, again, I want to say how unfortunate it is for that almost 

hour-long delay. But thank you for your patience. 

I would like to welcome all of you to our fourth oversight hearing 

this year on implementation of the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction and Prevention and Return Act. 

The Goldman Act empowers the executive branch with powerful 

new tools and a myriad of ways to successfully resolve parental 

child abduction cases. 

Like any law, however, it is only good as its implementation. Historically, some 750 to 1,000 American children are unlawfully removed from their homes each year by one of their parents and 

taken across international borders. 

International parental child abduction rips children from their 

homes and takes them away to a foreign land, alienating them 

from the love and care of the parent and family left behind. 

Child abduction is child abuse. Its negative impact on the child 

and left-behind families can last for years, even a lifetime. 

Two of our witnesses today, like many in this hearing room and 

around the country know first hand the trauma, the tears, the excruciating pain and the longing and heartbreak of a parental child 

abduction. 

David Goldman’s son, Sean, was abducted to Brazil and unlawfully retained for approximately 51⁄2 years. Mr. Goldman tenaciously pursued every legal means of return including expert legal 

counsel in his quest to bring Sean home. Today, father and son are 

thriving and we will hear from them in Panel Two. 

2

Captain Paul Toland continues his heroic 12-year quest to bring 

his 13-year-old daughter, Erika, home from Japan. Captain Toland 

refuses to quit or to be deterred, despite years of frustration and 

setbacks. Such is this father’s incredible love for his precious 

daughter. 

Our first hope, of course, is to prevent or at least mitigate the 

number of child abductions and the State Department is to be commended for implementing a provision of the Goldman Act and for 

taking other efforts as well including the one that adds children 

that a judge has determined to be at risk of abduction to a no-fly 

list. 

In 2014, we saw a decrease in the number of new abductions—

150, as a matter of fact, fewer cases than the previous year—and 

I want to do a shout out to Rush Marburg on the prevention side 

who has done a magnificent job in this endeavor. 

But I am, frankly, concerned that the State Department has chosen not to impose any sanctions on any of those nations found to 

have engaged in a ‘‘pattern of noncompliance.’’

The Goldman Act, however, requires the State Department action under individual cases that have been pending for more than 

a year if the foreign government has not been taking adequate 

steps to resolve the case. 

The Goldman Act also requires action when collectively a country 

has a high number of cases—30 percent or more—that have been 

unresolved for over a year or if the government is failing in their 

duties under the Hague Convention or other bilateral agreements 

or if their law enforcement fails to enforce, return or access orders. 

The Goldman Act not only shines a light on a country’s record 

through annual designation of countries showing a pattern of noncompliance, it holds countries accountable and hopefully 

incentivizes systemic reform. 

Actions, as we know, from the law escalate in severity and range 

from official protests through diplomatic channels to public condemnation to extradition to suspension of development, security or 

other foreign assistance. 

The Goldman Act was designed to raise the stakes on the foreign 

countries in action or obstruction and move that country to end the 

nightmare of child abduction. 

In July, we received the State Department’s first annual report 

on abduction and access resolution rates around the world. The annual report had some major gaps and misleading information, some 

of which were corrected by the supplemental data posted by the 

State Department in August. 

Tragically, in contravention of both the spirit and letter of the 

Goldman Act, the State Department failed to list Japan with more 

than 50 abduction cases among the 22 countries showing a pattern 

of noncompliance and therefore eligible for Goldman Act sanctions. 

This glaring omission, which can still be corrected today, sent the 

unfortunate signal that pre-Hague Japan cases were not a top priority. 

Cases like that of Sgt. Michael Elias, who has testified here—he 

is a New Jerseyan who has been denied any contact with his two 

children, Jade and Michael, after they were abducted to Japan in 

2008. 

3

In September, the State Department sent to Congress its first 

90-day report on actions it took to bring the 22 countries most—

to the resolution table. 

Those actions including the marches, judicial rulings—meetings, 

I should say—and education efforts and meetings, all of which are 

necessary and of real value. Noticeably absent was the imposition 

of any number of meaningful sanctions, again, prescribed by the 

Goldman Act. 

I respectfully submit that this was a missed opportunity to convey to a pattern of noncompliant nations that the United States is 

absolutely serious about resolving parental abduction. 

The imposition of sanctions says we mean business and I would 

note parenthetically that sanctions, and I have done this in other 

laws that I have written including the Trafficking Victims Protection Act but also our Civil Rights Act, Title 9, which has made all 

the difference in the world in women’s sports, always carried a penalty phase and that certainly got the attention of universities and 

colleges throughout the country that the Federal Government was 

not kidding and wanted changes in how these universities did business. 

Notwithstanding Section 103 of the Goldman Act, the report 

makes no mention of MOUs or bilateral agreements to resolve 

cases including and especially cases that existed prior to Japan’s 

ratification of the Hague. 

I and many others have raised this concern for several years. I 

actually did a trip to Japan with Michael Elias’ mother, the children’s grandmother, and said if we don’t get that right they will 

be twice left behind because they were less likely to find themselves a resolution to their cases because, of course, the Hague 

Convention is from the date of ratification onward. It does not have 

a look back provision. 

The report details the State Department’s effort to persuade 

India to ratify the Hague Convention, a step that if not combined 

with an MOU to resolve current abduction cases which number 

about 75 today risks duplicating the extraordinary misery endured 

by left-behind parents after Japan ratified the Hague. 

If India ratified the Hague it will, like Japan, grandfather preexisting cases out of the convention resolution process. 

I would note the Bindu Phillips, who has been here, and she too 

has testified—mother of Albert and Alfred—has struggled with her 

ex-husband in Indian courts for the return of her sons for nearly 

9 years—9 years—and every time she thinks she may be on the 

verge of a win in court, obviously, there is always, like in David 

Goldman’s case another appeal to bleed her dry financially and to 

make it difficult to ever get her sons back. Ravi Parmar has been 

fighting for his son’s return for 3 years. 

Section 201 of the Goldman Act also requires the State Department to conduct a review of individual cases pending 12 months or 

more to discern whether the foreign government has taken adequate steps to resolve the case or whether actions are warranted. 

This individual case trigger for actions, as opposed to the pattern 

of noncompliance country trigger, despite a half dozen congressional letters from various Members of Congress asking for Section 

201 reviews of egregious cases the State, to my knowledge, has not 

4

done a single review and perhaps, Ambassador Bond, you can enlighten us on that. 

I am encouraged by a press statement issued today by Secretary 

of State John Kerry in which he says clearly that he is looking to 

use all of the tools that have been prescribed by the Goldman Act 

as the beginnings of the next report take place and he said, you 

know, in his press release—and I do have it—he says in his press 

release, and I think it is a very important point that there can be 

no safe haven for abductors. 

The State Department, Secretary Kerry says, will continue to use 

all the tools available to us to help those involved in international 

parental child abduction cases to resolve their disputes and move 

forward with their lives. So that is a very encouraging note. 

Now I would like to introduce Secretary Bond, first, with a very 

brief introduction and without objection your full resume will be 

made a part of the record. 

Ambassador Michele Bond serves as Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs at the State Department. As Assistant Secretary, Ambassador Bond leads a team of 13,000 consular professionals in almost 300 locations across the U.S. and around the world who protect the lives and interests of U.S. citizens abroad, facilitate legitimate international travel and helps protect our nation’s borders. 

A career member of the senior Foreign Service, Ambassador 

Bond has more than 38 years of diplomatic experience in Europe, 

Africa and Latin America including having served as U.S. Ambassador to Lesotho. 

Ambassador Bond, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MICHELE THOREN BOND, 

ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador BOND. Thank you. 

Chairman Smith, thank you for this opportunity to discuss international parental child abduction. This is one of the highest priorities to the Bureau of Consular Affairs and the Department of 

State. 

As Secretary Kerry noted in his statement on child abduction 

yesterday and as you have pointed out, the department will continue to use all the tools available to us to help those involved and 

to resolve their disputes and move forward with their lives. 

Mr. Chairman, thank you for your leadership on this issue. You 

have heard the testimony of my colleagues, Ambassador Jacobs, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary Christensen and Director Hand in previous hearings. 

You know that I lead a talented team of experienced professionals who work tirelessly to prevent abductions and bring children back home. 

My testimony today will summarize my written statement which 

I request be entered into the congressional record. 

The Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction 

Prevention and Return Act of 2014 has given us additional leverage 

to resolve these cases. We have already put these additional tools 

to good use. 

5

We are proud of our contribution to the 247 returns in 2015 and 

about 140 prevented abductions in 2015, and we recognize and accept the challenge of the 1,100 cases that remain open, some for 

many years. 

Mr. Chairman, many actions take place every day to prevent or 

resolve these heart-wrenching cases. Since implementation of the 

law, more than 140 children have been protected from removal 

from the United States. 

The law also provides the mechanism to streamline interagency 

efforts and we are fortunate to receive crucial assistance from our 

interagency partners. 

We share your goals of preventing abduction, ensuring the expeditious return of children to their homes and strengthening and expanding the Hague Abduction Convention. 

Let me briefly explain the role of the Office of Children’s Issues 

within the greater context of how the Bureau of Consular Affairs 

advances U.S. foreign policy. 

The Office of Children’s Issues provides policy guidance and coordination within the Department of State and the Washington 

interagency community to prevent child abduction. It safeguards 

the welfare of abducted children, returns abducted children to their 

places of habitual residence and helps parents resolve these complex cases. 

The Office of Children’s Issues executes U.S. obligations under 

the convention as the U.S. central authority. 

It leads U.S. Government efforts both within the department and 

with other U.S. Government agencies to assist children and families involved in abduction cases in all countries and reviews applications to partner with countries that have acceded to the Hague 

abduction convention. 

My bureau leads the effort to engage governments on convention 

implementation, acceding to the convention and providing assistance to families involved in cases in nonconvention countries. 

Our number-one priority is the safety and protection of U.S. citizens overseas. This provides a little solace to those parents who are 

still waiting to see their children returned home. Only the safe return of their children matters. 

As a parent and as an assistant secretary of state for consular 

affairs, I pledge that my team and I will continue to work to resolve all abduction cases. 

That includes working with convention countries such as Japan 

to resolve abductions that occurred before our partnership under 

the convention took effect. 

We are actively engaged with Japan in these cases. Disappointingly few have been resolved with the return of an abducted child 

to the United States or through meaningful parental access. 

My colleagues in the bureau, throughout the department and at 

our Embassies and consulates abroad, press our foreign government counterparts on the issue of abduction and raise your constituents’ cases at every opportunity. 

For example, we have requested the Government of India’s assistance in resolving reported abduction cases. Special advisor for 

children’s issues, Ambassador Susan Jacobs, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for South and Central Asian Affairs Ambassador 

6

William Todd and I all personally urged India to resolve reported 

cases in recent meetings in New Delhi and Washington. 

Additionally, officials at the U.S. Embassy in New Delhi are in 

regular contact with Indian foreign ministry officials on these 

issues. 

Mr. Chairman, let me again emphasize my personal commitment 

and my bureau’s dedication to prevent parental abductions. 

The department at State and our Interagency partners are committed to the implementation of the law and to safeguarding and 

returning abducted children to their places of habitual residence. 

We are committed to ensuring parents have effective tools to resolve these cases in both convention and nonconvention countries. 

As always, I appreciate your interest, your feedback and your 

suggestions. I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Bond follows:]

7


97636a-1.eps
8


97636a-2.eps
9


97636a-3.eps
10


97636a-4.eps
11


97636a-5.eps
12


97636a-6.eps
13


97636a-7.eps
14


97636a-8.eps
15

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Madame Ambassador. 

We’re joined by Mark Meadows? Any comments? 

[No response.] 

Thank you. 

Let me just begin with some questions. First, in 2014 18 percent 

of the left-behind parents had to overcome, when litigating for the 

return of their child in a foreign country what sorts of obstacles, 

I should say, have they had to overcome? 

Eighteen percent of the 1,467 cases this year were resolved with 

the child coming home and this includes resolved and unresolved 

cases—18 percent. 

Of the 1,781 cases that were resolved, only 34 percent were resolved with children returning to the United States. In my opinion, 

these are staggeringly low numbers. Are you, Madam Ambassador, 

satisfied with this return rate—actual return rate, not resolution 

where, you know, as you know there are criteria for closing a case 

when obviously a return is something we are looking to break out 

and hopefully effectuate? 

And what are you doing to change that rate in 2015? Again, the 

return rate I am talking about. 

Ambassador BOND. Mr. Chairman, I am not satisfied with that 

return rate and we are working with each of the countries where 

there is a single case in order to address and identify what more 

could be done to actually bring each individual child home. 

As you know, these cases are not identical in any way and so we 

are focused on the—on working with countries on the pattern of 

how they deal with these cases, how expeditiously and to what degree of well informed approach they have among their law enforcement. 

In their central authority, in their judiciary we are working to 

make sure that people understand the point of the convention, the 

goals of the convention, how it is supposed to work and we are investing a great deal of resources in the training and the exchanges 

that do, as we have seen through the years, that do lead to results 

in terms of better performance. 

Mr. SMITH. Can I ask you, obviously, the report will come out 

late April—it will be the second report—and, frankly, when we saw 

the first trafficking in persons report, you know, there was some 

threadbareness to that one, which was greatly improved when the 

report—second year, third year, fourth year came forward. 

And my question is when it comes to the sanctions part, you 

know, a lot of notice has been given to countries that are noncompliant. The conversations, the training, I think are extremely 

important and can change hearts and minds and that is important. 

But at the end of the day, if they persist in these patterns of noncompliance and are obtuse to the heart cry coming from abducted 

children and their left-behind parents, are you planning on hopefully applying sanctions in this next round? You know, they 

begin—like I said, a lot of ample notice that it is in the law. 

I am sure you and others have conveyed that in your conversations that this is a sword of Damocles that hangs over them. We 

don’t want to do it. We don’t want sanctions. 

16

But if the record requires it they need to be imposed. Are you 

looking for that kind of evolution in terms of the imposition of 

sanctions in round two? 

Ambassador BOND. The actions that are described in the law are, 

as you—you have described them as a range that starts with a demarche and builds. 

I would argue that the fact is that there is a lot of strength in 

reiteration. There is a lot of strength in continuing, A, to raise an 

issue in order to emphasize how important it is to us and to raise 

it broadly so that individuals—it’s not just, say, the minister of justice or the minister of one or two foreign affairs that are hearing 

about it but that a broad range of business people and others are 

getting the message that this problem exists because many people 

don’t know about it and also the nature of the resolution that we 

are proposing that the different countries follow so that people understand what it is that we are talking about, what it is that we 

are asking for and what it is, in the case of convention countries, 

they have agreed to do. 

There is a period of time and it happened in the United States 

too during which you are trying to make sure that people understand exactly what this treaty requires. 

And as you may know, in the United States every time there is 

a child abducted here a packet of information is sent to the judge 

who is going to hear that case because most of the time, here and 

in other countries, a typical family court judge may never hear a 

Hague Convention case and if he or she does hear one it may be 

the only one they ever hear. 

And therefore it is important to make sure that they understand 

that this is different from what they are used to doing, which is 

handling custody decisions. 

So the engagement that we have and, you have said and, of 

course, I agree, that the education efforts are important, they are 

really fundamental. 

If you take, as an example, the countries where our principal 

problem is with the judiciary, those, in many cases, may be countries where we used to have problems with the central authority 

and now have developed strong, excellent even, communication and 

coordination and understanding with the central authority. 

But we are not seeing the results that we need in terms of a 

prompt focused understanding of what a Hague Convention court 

case is. 

And so in that case the focus has to be on the judiciary and on 

making sure that the judges understand what the law is and understand how to apply it, understand that this is not a custody decision that we are talking about. It is a jurisdictional one and so 

forth. 

So that is where the attention is focused if the issue has to do 

with a judicial understanding and compliance with the law. 

If the problem in a particular country has to do with enforcement, and we have countries like that where the judges are making 

what we consider to be very good decisions, and then we don’t see 

the enforcement of the return, there then you are focusing your attention on the people who are responsible for that. 

17

In almost every case, it is important to be doing a lot of public 

outreach and a lot of looking for ways to highlight this issue and 

the importance of it in the press, again, in order to get understanding and acceptance among the public of what is going on so 

it doesn’t look like their children are being taken to another country. 

So all of the actions that are suggested in the law are absolutely 

on the table and the countries that we are talking to know that. 

The fact is, though, that the focus is on who is it that is creating 

the problem here. Is it judges not knowing what to do? Is it law 

enforcement not being directed to pick the kids up and arrange for 

them to get on a plane and come home? And you focus on that, on 

the people who aren’t getting it and finding ways to get them to 

do their jobs better. 

So I can tell you absolutely honestly and clearly that there are 

no actions that are not on the table but the focus is on the actions 

that are directed at the problem that we see in a particular case 

or broadly in a particular country in order to turn that around and, 

again, I would say that there are a number of countries where we 

used to have real problems with the central authorities and now 

we have very, very good understanding with the central authorities. 

So it is a fact that the efforts that have been made over the years 

do have an effect. 

Mr. SMITH. Can I just ask you again, you know, we had the same 

issue dealing with the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and when 

we said prescribe minimum standards we often found that law enforcement was the weakest link because they were often complicit 

at the local level with the traffickers in the abuse. 

But we held the entire government, because they are part of the 

government, even though they are independent and judges even 

more so, to task. And Tier 3 would be netted out if there’s a country that—where there is all kinds of collaboration with the traffickers, and I would argue that we are dealing with very smart people. 

Our interlocutors in Brazil, in Japan, in India, these are some of 

the most educated people that you—you know, you are on the other 

side of the table that you speak with. They will understand to a 

great extent if sanctions are forthcoming. 

One of the biggest lessons I learned on trafficking was when 

Israel and South Korea were designated Tier 3. We don’t have any 

better allies. 

We have similar and as good but no better allies in the world 

than Israel and South Korea. George Bush put them on Tier 3. 

They could have lost security aid, economic support but especially 

security aid and there was a very serious contemplation. 

I have never seen two governments alter their Behavior, crack 

down on the brothels where trafficked women were. In the case of 

South Korea they passed some remarkably effective laws to end 

human trafficking there, and the trigger was the placement followed by the very credible threat that those sanctions would be 

used. 

I would ask you, plead with you, use the sanctions. Pick out some 

countries—Japan, certainly, and I know there is a reluctance to 

18

single out Japan. First and foremost, put them on the pattern of 

noncompliance and maybe you can do that today. 

But, certainly, if things don’t change and maybe if you could answer this question, if you made the designation today based on the 

50-plus cases, would you make that designation a pattern of noncompliance for Japan? 

Ambassador BOND. So I want to be sure I understand the question. Japan is absolutely a country that is—they have made a good 

start at—after becoming, after joining the convention we think that 

they have made a good start. 

We are watching very closely to see what they are doing this 

year with cases under the—under the Hague, the convention cases, 

and they will certainly be cited if they are not performing. 

The—we are also very focused on the cases that were pre-Hague 

but under the description—the requirements for their report those 

didn’t get reported in April. So that doesn’t mean they are not important and it doesn’t mean we are not focused on them. 

The—as for the question, you know, we have seen examples of 

countries who are responding exactly as you are describing Israel 

and South Korea having done in terms of writing new legislation 

and looking at new ways to address problems that we were pointing out to them and pressing them to resolve. 

And so Slovakia is an example where they are—they have just 

passed a new law. It limits the number of appeals, requires courts 

to speed up their cases. 

Slovakia has said that they will join us in efforts to persuade 

other countries, particularly Middle Eastern ones, to join the convention. Slovakia—they are going to be the president of the EU 

starting in July. 

Mr. SMITH. They also had the Court of Human Rights—European 

Court of Human Rights come down very hard on them in two of 

those cases. 

So there was, thankfully, additional pressure on Slovakia. Let 

me just ask you, because I know your time and we do have two 

members that I would like to get to, if Captain Paul Toland’s case 

is unresolved by next year and there are 50 other cases, his is 

among the most egregious I have ever seen. 

Got very bad advice from the JAG as to how he should handle 

his case. He was, obviously, there deployed to Yokohama as part 

of the defense of Japan—the joint defense that we are so happily 

engaged in and I certainly support that. 

If his is unresolved, won’t that trigger in and of itself, and then 

you add the other 49 cases—plus cases—for putting Japan on the 

noncompliant list, regardless of any progress they make postHague ratification? I mean, these—I mean, that is why when I 

went to Japan years ago I said if you don’t have an MOU, if we 

are not working those cases aggressively they will fall by the wayside and the agony will be on words for those who feel left behind 

a second time. 

So if his case is not resolved, does that trigger it, your opinion? 

Ambassador BOND. We are, as I——

Mr. SMITH. We will then be in the 13th year. 

Ambassador BOND. We are considering all options available to 

assist the parents and we discuss within the department and with 

19

other parts of the U.S. Government actions that might make a difference in a particular case or the behavior of a country toward the 

general group of cases. 

So there are no options that are off the table and the report—

the next second annual report under the new law will reflect the 

conduct of all of these countries, Hague and non-Hague countries, 

in terms just as is required. 

Mr. SMITH. But again, I would hope if you could broadcast that 

signal to Japan—you could do it here today, hopefully you will—

that Captain Toland and others like him, that this is a red line 

that ought to be laid down before Japan. 

You know, Japan will be hosting the G–7 in the spring. Hopefully, these could be resolved by then. Otherwise, it ought to be a 

major issue discussed. I’m not sure if that is being contemplated 

or not. But maybe you could shed some light on that. Then I will 

go to Mark Meadows. 

Ambassador BOND. I don’t know about the agenda for the G–7. 

But it is an issue that we raise consistently with Japan. They know 

this is one of the major bilateral issues that we want to see resolved, all of the cases, whether they began after Japan joined the 

convention or are among the dozens that were already underway 

before Japan joined the convention. 

The fact that Japan is a member of the Hague Convention reflects the power of persistent diplomacy by the United States and 

by other countries for the children that had been abducted to 

Japan and that does change the playing field for all of us because——

Mr. SMITH. And cases are being resolved under the Hague visa-vis Japan? 

Ambassador BOND. We are pushing for that. There are—there 

are two cases where judges have ordered the return of children to 

the United States. 

Mr. SMITH. Out of how many? Two cases out of——

Ambassador BOND. Of cases that—since they joined the Hague 

where judges have ordered the return. That has not yet been enforced, however. So we are working to get those kids home. 

Mr. SMITH. Now, is that a law enforcement problem or——

Ambassador BOND. It is—well——

Mr. SMITH. Or is it under appeal? 

Ambassador BOND. It is a complex—in both of the cases there 

they are both a little bit different but the issue is making it clear 

to all of the authorities in Japan and as you rightly point out, you 

know, the police or the judges or whoever they are part of the government and our engagement is with the government as well as 

with the particular part of that government that we think needs 

to special attention. 

So I am hopeful that we are going to see returns to the United 

States under the Hague from Japan. We are pushing for that in 

those two specific cases. 

Mr. SMITH. Mark Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador Bond, thank you for being here. Obviously, we—this 

is not the first hearing that we have had on this matter. Your colleague there behind you, she has been here before, and I believe 

20

that you have a real commitment to return these children to their 

parents. 

The frustration becomes is—and the reason for the Goldman Act 

originally was the type of soft diplomacy that you have described 

over the—really, in much of your testimony most of it has been soft 

diplomacy. 

And what you are referring to was really the whole reason why 

the Goldman Act was passed by Congress was to give you additional tools beyond that soft diplomacy and the frustration that has 

been evident in this hearing as well as other hearings is the fact 

that some of the tools that have been afforded the State Department are not being used. And so there is a law that has been 

passed. 

Now, I want to make sure I am clear with you and with some 

of your other colleagues. I know your commitment is, as you put 

it, a number-one priority. 

The frustration on parents is each day, each birthday, each time 

that goes by they don’t see that commitment and it is—where it is 

a priority for you it is the life for many of these parents and there 

is the disconnect. 

So I guess my question, and I am going to be very direct, has 

the State Department delayed or cancelled one or more bilateral 

working relationships or official or State visits with any country 

based on a lack of cooperation? 

Have you done that? Can you point to any specific example 

where that has been done based on their inability to help us out? 

Has that ever been done? 

Ambassador BOND. Mr. Meadows, I have to admit that after 38 

years at the State Department I don’t share your sense that soft 

diplomacy doesn’t—just doesn’t get the job done. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I didn’t say that. You misquoted me. 

What I am saying is you describe soft diplomacy as what you are 

engaging in. I said the Goldman Act gives you additional tools and 

I am asking one of those tools did—have you—have you done that? 

Is there a case that you can point to? 

Listen, there is no one—I made a living in soft diplomacy so I 

understand the benefits of soft diplomacy but I also understand 

when it doesn’t work. 

Ambassador BOND. Diplomacy is—I wouldn’t even call it soft—

it is a powerful tool and I am sure we agree on that. 

Your question about whether we have cancelled any bilateral——

Mr. MEADOWS. Delayed or cancelled, yes. I am giving you the 

benefit of the doubt. Have you said that we are not going to have 

this bilateral working or official or State visit because you haven’t 

complied? Have you done that? 

Ambassador BOND. As an example, I am not aware that we have 

done that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I am not aware of any either. So let me go on to 

the next one because I have got a limited time here. 

Have you withdrawn or limited or suspended any U.S. development aid because of noncompliance? I am not aware of any but we 

are having a hearing. So are you aware of any? 

Ambassador BOND. I am not. 

21

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Have we withdrawn, limited or suspended 

any U.S. security assistance for any of these countries that are 

noncompliant? 

Ambassador BOND. Not to my knowledge. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes. Have we withdrawn, limited or suspended 

any foreign assistance to a central government of a country relating to other economic support? 

Ambassador BOND. I am not aware of any. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I am not. All of those are tools that are available 

to you should quiet or soft diplomacy not work. And yet the parents 

are not seeing any of these being deployed. 

So let me, in light of your answers and knowing that you have 

a limited time let me give you an analogy. I assume that you occasionally exceeded the speed limit in your vehicle. 

Ambassador BOND. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Well, you are on the record. Okay. All 

right. We won’t say where. 

There is a place next to where I live where there is a city policeman that is there, that literally will give you a ticket the minute 

you exceed the speed limit. And you know what happens? I don’t 

speed through that town. 

And yet there is another place where we don’t employ any of the 

tools that are available to our law enforcement officers, and I am 

not quite as conscious about my speed. 

And so I offer that analogy to you because here is what many of 

these foreign governments are seeing is that we passed a law, that 

you bring it up when you talk to their Ambassador, and I believe 

that you do because honestly I have checked with some of them 

and you do bring it up. 

But they see no consequences to their action or noncompliance, 

and that is the frustration you are hearing from this committee. 

That is the frustration you are hearing from parents and, hopefully, that is the frustration that will be eliminated with the new 

report, and as you employ some of the tools that have been granted 

to you by this Congress to make sure that we are effective. Does 

that make sense? 

Ambassador BOND. Yes. 

And Mr. Meadows, I think it is important to note that we are 

seeing action in—even in some of the countries that are the most 

difficult to work with at this time. The—for example——

Mr. MEADOWS. We are seeing——

Ambassador BOND [continuing]. When I most recently met with 

the Brazilians for an annual bilateral discussion, and I was in Brasilia for that, and they talked about legislation that they are working on. 

So they are looking at ways to try to address the great wall——

Mr. MEADOWS. But do you see the disconnect there? What you 

are seeing is maybe progress and action in terms of the potential 

for returning these kids. All the parents see is the kids don’t come 

back. And so on your matrix of success you are seeing progress. 

On theirs, they are seeing none. And I think that that is the difficulty here and that is what we have to address and hopefully this 

law will give you the tools to start to use short of sanctions—you 

know, I am not one—I don’t like to employ sanctions. 

22

But there is a number of other tools that the Goldman Act allows 

the State Department to employ that they haven’t done, and with 

that I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Ambassador BOND. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Clawson. 

Mr. CLAWSON. Thank you for coming, Ambassador, and I think 

your job is a wonderful way to spend a life helping people and families like this. So congratulations and thank you for that. 

Since I have been here in Washington, DC, we have talked about 

trade a lot. We just did the TPA agreement. We are now on the 

verge of the TPP agreement and so let me give you just a little bit 

of context, Ambassador, why I bring that up. 

The U.S. is, roughly, a third of the GDP in the world, a little less 

than that. We are everyone’s engine for economic growth and prosperity. No one does anything to lift up the poor in their country 

without trading with us, basically, for all intents and purposes. 

Our trade deficit every month is $40 billion. That is the deficit 

every month—$40 billion, roughly. If the price of oil goes up, that 

goes up a little bit. 

And so we are the economic engine for everyone, which creates 

leverage like I don’t know—you know, every negotiated relationship in the world is based on leverage, as far as I can tell, and if 

that $40 billion a month doesn’t create leverage with people I don’t 

know what does. 

We see Japanese-made cars. We see Korean-made cars. We all go 

to Wal-Mart. That’s 90 percent Chinese-made goods, roughly. 

We know what the Indians sell here, the Brazilians. I mean, I 

go down—when I went down the list today as I was reviewing the 

data for this committee, I looked at all these people that we have 

enormous economic leverage. They cannot live without us. 

Now, if the administration is not serious enough to take their 

bacon away then what are we all sitting around here talking 

about? 

We could solve corporate espionage tomorrow. We could solve 

kidnapped children tomorrow, in a month—one Executive order. 

Give our kids back or you don’t get to sell your cars over here. Give 

our kids back or you don’t get to sell your software over here. And 

if we don’t do that how can we say we are serious? Because then 

we just send the money—and by the way, it costs—all those imported vehicles just cost good-paying jobs for hard-working Americans. 

They just go away anyway. So we let our jobs go away at $40 

billion a month and to add insult to injury they don’t have to bring 

our kids back. 

Now, I am not getting this. I am new to it. I hear what you all 

are saying about, you know, cancelled trips and cancelled that. 

But as long as they are sending billions of dollars in here, making a living on our economy, and we are never doing—we are never 

using that leverage I don’t see this changing. I really don’t. 

And so, you know, anything I can do to help but as a former 

business executive, you know, we had plants all over the world. 

These are nice people in these countries. 

23

But until we hit them in the pocketbook nothing is going to happen, in my view. And so if you will take that back. Now, if my 

world is too simplistic and you are seeing something different than 

I am seeing, let me know. 

But the only thing I think these folks will understand is if we 

take a shot at where it hurts and that is in the trade agreements 

and it can’t go forever. 

I mean, we could do it tomorrow, in my view. This is all very, 

very solvable as soon as we take a shot at their imports that come 

into our country. 

Am I—you know, sorry for the passion here but am I—am I too 

simplistic in my—in my view here, Ambassador? 

Ambassador BOND. Mr. Clawson, when I was working on the 

same issue 10 years ago, the countries that I was most focused on 

were Switzerland and Germany and Japan—been out there. Switzerland and Germany aren’t on the list anymore because we have 

a very good working relationship. 

We are good Hague partners. If children are taken, they come 

home. Very often children don’t get taken because the advice that 

the parent gets who is kind of looking into—maybe checking with 

a lawyer, here’s what I am thinking of doing—they are told don’t 

even bother, your children will be brought right back. 

Now, when we were originally talking with Switzerland and Germany 10 years ago there were judges in those countries that were 

saying why would I return a kid to the United States—it is better 

to grow up here in Germany and this child has a German passport 

and a German mother. 

So I am not interested in the Hague Conventions. 

That isn’t true anymore. So I can’t agree with the idea that the 

only thing that anybody listens to is a threat of financial harm. 

I completely agree that the tools that are written into the new 

law are valuable ones and that they are ones that have to be under 

consideration for use, and they are. 

But I do not agree that the best way to approach an issue is to 

say well, all right, you know, you have had 6 months and we told 

you these sanctions were out there so now we are going to come 

out with guns blazing. 

Mr. CLAWSON. Remember—remember, Ambassador, most of 

these countries don’t allow our products into their countries. So you 

have people with enormous import tariffs. 

We don’t have any import tariffs on what they ship in here. We 

can’t ship product into their country that would help the American 

worker and yet, you know, billions of American dollars go to their 

country every months and we are going to talk for years about 

bringing back the kids? 

You know, that may be success in your all’s view but that is too 

slow in my view, particularly when I got all the leverage. I got all 

the leverage because they are selling to me. 

We got this big trade deficit which creates the leverage, and 

thank you for your hard work and I yield back. 

Ambassador BOND. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. I want to thank Mr. Clawson, who is a very accomplished CEO, for that breath of fresh air. They do listen and stand 

up and take notice and, I believe, are moved. 

24

You mentioned, Madam Ambassador, the—Germany. Germany, 

according to the figures put out by you guys, has a abduction case 

resolution rate of 27 percent—4 percent better than India, which 

is on the noncompliant list. 

Twenty-seven percent doesn’t sound all that good to me. So I 

wouldn’t lift up Germany, with all due respect, when they have 

such a poor resolution rate. 

Let me also—in Switzerland, you know, we didn’t have any 

cases. The department didn’t cover abductions to Switzerland because we didn’t have any last year. But Switzerland is known 

internationally for not complying with the text of the Hague Convention and relitigating best interest determinations. 

So, again, I am not sure that is a stellar example to be pointing 

to either. I do have few questions and then we will move on to 

panel two. 

How does Japan’s ratification of the Hague Convention help resolve any of the 50 pre-Hague cases? Again, I do hope if you have 

an opportunity to listen or at least read his testimony Captain Paul 

Toland will be next at the panel. 

But have any of them been resolved? You mentioned two that are 

post-Hague and they are not even returned yet, which clearly begs 

the question as to delay is denial. 

But none of those—have any of them been resolved and are we 

working on a MOU or bilateral agreement with Japan now for 

those pre-Hague Convention? 

Ambassador BOND. The pre-Hague families, of course, have only 

the option of requesting access under the Hague and there a number of left-behind parents who have filed requests for access and 

that is, you know, individual cases. I actually am not in a position——

Mr. SMITH. Again, underscoring why there needs to be an MOU. 

I mean, access—while that may be nice in the context it is not 

what is being requested. 

Ambassador BOND. It’s not what they want. Right. No, we are 

talking to Japan about how can we have a framework, a structure 

agreement for addressing the cases that don’t fall under the Hague 

Convention. 

Mr. SMITH. When do you think that framework might be forthcoming? 

Ambassador BOND. I don’t know. 

Mr. SMITH. Any sense? And, again, delay is denial. Having—

through contacts and long conversations with so many left-behind 

parents, frankly, started with David Goldman, the tears are—you 

know, flow every day. Delay is denial. If you could get back to us 

with when that might occur and with whom—who are your interlocutors. 

Ambassador BOND. We are talking to the Japanese very, very 

consistently about resolution of the cases that predate the convention. So we absolutely are focused on trying to find resolution in 

every one of those cases. 

In some—in some of them it may be that access may lead to a 

resolution as the children are able to reconnect with parents that 

they have lost contact with through the years. 

25

Mr. SMITH. Let me just shift briefly to Brazil, and it was great 

to be with you at the press conference with Dr. Brann, Jared 

Genser, David Goldman and pressing for the return of Nico Brann. 

As you know, Federal Judge Arali Maciel Duarte ruled that Nico 

Brann had been in Brazil 2 months, far less than any prescribed 

by the Hague Convention and was ‘‘well settled and would not be 

returned to the U.S. despite admittedly illicit abduction that took 

place in Texas.’’

And I’ve seen the court papers. His wife, that is to say Dr. 

Brann’s wife, had agreed that this wouldn’t happen—that they 

were coming back from a so-called vacation. Dr. Brann is 2 years 

into his abduction fight. 

Devon Davenport is 6 years in his case. He has won at every 

level and yet he can’t get his daughter home. Quiet diplomacy, it 

seems to me, has not worked. 

David Goldman, you know, was well over 51⁄2 years in his quest 

and through the grace of God and a lot of effort—thank God he was 

able to get his son back. But these others have not been 6 years 

that now exceed David’s time. 

Why isn’t there a sanction—I mean a sanction—against Brazil? 

I don’t understand it. 

Ambassador BOND. Well, we are—we are working to get those 

kids home. We are working to make sure that the Brazilians understand that they have got to improve—find a way to improve 

their judicial process. It is designed to permit a lot of appeals but 

as a result they are not living up to their commitment to turn these 

cases around and get the kids home. 

And so we agree—Brazil’s attorney general, as you know, is filing 

an appeal of that judge’s decision in the Brann case because the 

Government of Brazil agrees that judge was wrong. 

Mr. SMITH. I understand you will have to leave soon. So I will 

submit a number of questions. But just a couple of final ones just 

to conclude. 

On extradition, an extradition request—tell the other country we 

are very serious about resolving abduction. This is especially helpful in non-Hague countries where abduction is not taken seriously. 

The Goldman Act lists extradition as an action the State Department should be taking in concert with the Department of Justice. 

How many extradition requests are pending on abduction cases? 

Are there any pending in India, a non-Hague country where 75 

open long-pending cases at the end of the year, about half are more 

than 5 years old—I mentioned Bindu Phillips earlier, who I have 

gotten to know very well—and her case is just filled to overflowing 

with fraud. 

The police in her township—it is not in my district—have been—

have done yeoman’s work in documenting how she was defrauded 

as well as adding additional pain to the abduction itself because 

she was also ripped off, stolen from. 

What is being done vis-a-vis extradition? 

Ambassador BOND. Mr. Chairman, the issue of extradition of 

U.S. Government requesting the extradition of someone to the 

Unites States is a decision that is made by the Department of Justice and so I really would have to refer you——

Mr. SMITH. Oh, I understand that. 

26

But is it something that your office weighs in or the Office of 

Children’s Issues? I mean, they certainly would look to you for 

guidance. I mean, on Bindu Phillips it think there ought to be an 

extradition done in that case. 

And certainly a thumbs up—an admonishment from your office 

would go a long way to sharpening their focus because obviously 

they have a lot of cases and prosecutorial discretion that they have 

to deal with in terms of what cases to take. 

Ambassador BOND. Yes, and it is absolutely one of the options 

that is out there for cases where we think and Justice agrees would 

make a difference. 

Mr. SMITH. But you know of no case as of now? 

Ambassador BOND. I don’t. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Could you get back to us if there is such a case 

of making its way through? 

[No response was received prior to printing.] 

Mr. SMITH. Let me also ask you with regards to India is a MOU 

or bilateral agreement being contemplated there? Because I know 

there is a great push, have them sign the Hague. But, again, that 

just grandfathers out all of those 100 children, 75 to so cases, including Bindu Phillips. 

Ambassador BOND. Right. Yes, and as you say, we are hearing 

very positive comments from the Indians with whom I also had 

meetings this month here in Washington about joining the Hague. 

They recognize the fact that there are a lot of cases and that that 

structure provides a way to address these and resolve them. So we 

would also then be talking to India about how are we going to resolve the cases that predate the convention. 

Mr. SMITH. Again, the argument was made as to why no MOU 

for Japan was that the atmosphere would be so improved under 

Hague that it would lead to possible resolution of those cases. 

Again, has any of that happened? Are they looking to resolve 

Captain Toland’s case? 

Ambassador BOND. I know, as I mentioned, that some of the parents have submitted Hague access requests and to the extent that 

they are able to resume regular contact with their children that 

may well lead to actions that actually bring the children home, especially if the children are older and in a position to express their 

own interests in where they want to live or where they want to 

travel. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just ask you finally, and this is regarding 

India and maybe other countries as well. But your reports to Congress this year and letters to left-behind parents, and I have one 

here which we can share with you, showed some confusion regarding the application trigger recounting a case against a non-Hague 

country such as India. 

When desperate left-behind parents contact you they are told 

there has to be an additional application procedure for their case 

to count as ‘‘unresolved’’ but that the content and the process for 

the application is kept secret. 

One enquiring parent was told the response to her direct questions regarding an application has not been submitted—that is 

from the letter—that the State Department will do so when appropriate. 

27

For non-Hague countries the Goldman Act starts the clock the 

moment the State Department formally raises the case by name 

with the country. 

What additional requirements have you added, if any, for an application and how can you fill them immediately in India? And we 

will share with you this letter if you would like to take a look. 

Ambassador BOND. I am not aware of——

Mr. SMITH. The family came away confused. 

Ambassador BOND. Yes. I am not aware of any additional requirements that are asked for parents whose children have been 

abducted to India. 

So, you know, I don’t know whether there was a misunderstanding in what you are describing or a failure on our part to communicate clearly but there aren’t any, as far as I am aware, additional requirements that are imposed on left-behind parents whose 

children are in India. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. I know you have indicated you need to leave. 

Is there time for Sheila Jackson Lee to ask a question? 

Ambassador BOND. Of course. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. Yield to the gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me thank the chairman for his kindness 

and the ranking member of this committee in this important hearing. 

And I thank Secretary Bond for your presence here today. I 

dashed from the floor so thank you for your patience. 

But I want to just hold up a face of mothers that have encountered challenges and difficulties even as this law has been passed. 

And I would like to be—I think all of us would like to be a help 

to the administration, to administrations plural and to these families. 

So I, first, would like to get from you a sense of the importance 

of the law being enforced through judicial and law enforcement 

education. 

It seems that there is a difficulty. One case comes to mind where 

the court said I don’t have jurisdiction—I am going to give it to 

Monaco when the children are U.S.-born, the mother is U.S.-born 

and a court is advocating their responsibility. 

What do you think we can do with the education about the enforcement of this law? 

Ambassador BOND. Well, one very valuable important tool that 

we have in terms of our education efforts is our network of Hague 

judges, Federal and state judges who are experts on the Hague and 

are prepared and very actively go out and talk to their counterparts in other countries in order to address very directly the questions that they might have about how this process works and to reassure them about how the process works in the United States. 

So that is one of the education measures that we have. We also 

have brought scores of foreign judges and prosecutors to the United 

States to be—to have the opportunity to meet their counterparts 

and to understand how the process works here and to exchange different cases they worked on and just talk, you know, robe to robe, 

if you will, about how the process works for them, how they understand it and how the American judges handle the same cases. 

28

So I think that is very much at the heart of the work that we 

are doing working also with the Hague permanent bureau, which 

has experts stationed in different regions of the world who also 

work to support different governments to make sure that they understand what they are supposed to be doing and that they get it 

right. 

In Brazil next week there is going to be a judicial training program that is being organized with our support by the Hague permanent bureau. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am on the Judiciary Committee and I think 

the education is a problem and I think also it might be helpful if 

the Justice Department joined in with the State Department as it 

relates to the judicial enforcement. 

Again, that is part of what you see in the understanding. I guess 

my concern is that the Goldman Act has not been as strongly enforced as the intention was behind the passage. 

How do you—do you think a collaborating with the Justice Department on the enforcement end or would be—would be helpful? 

Ambassador BOND. Congresswoman, we actually do collaborate 

very closely with the Department of Justice. We work very closely 

with the FBI on—especially in blocking abductions of children from 

the United States but also in addressing different cases, and Justice is very much involved in the work that we are doing, the interagency work, on preventing the abductions and also on working to 

effect returns. 

So I absolutely think that greater coordination with Justice is a 

good idea. We have—twice a year we have a specific interagency 

meeting which includes the Department of Defense. 

It includes Justice, DHS and others—State, of course, because we 

lead it—to talk about what more we can be doing as a government 

to address this issue and to prevent the abductions but also to address the situations of the families that are already caught up in 

this. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And you can imagine that is very painful and 

I think we can only judge ourselves by the numbers of children 

that get reunited legitimately or legally with those parents who 

found themselves in an international quagmire and they just—

whether they have lawyers here they are just grounded by this 

huge umbrella of international affairs that can really be insurmountable for must an individual who lives in Iowa, an individual 

who lives in New Jersey or Houston or in the state of Texas—just 

insurmountable. 

So let me—let me ask this. In those meetings the FBI independently is there with the DOJ? Is that the—is that the enforcement 

arm—the FBI? 

Ambassador BOND. Yes, FBI is also there. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Then can you—I think the question would be, 

and we have the greatest respect for the mountain of responsibilities our law enforcement have and we thank them all for their 

service—but we wonder whether or not there is an educational 

issue there and what do you, the State Department—who is the 

overseer, if you will, of the success stories? 

How much—how much enforcement is the FBI engaged in? Are 

these cases high priority cases? Can we determine how many cases 

29

in the law enforcement term have been made by the FBI using the 

law and do we need now to assess that part of it, the enforcement, 

that then brings these cases before the court? 

Ambassador BOND. Well, we work, as an example, very closely 

with the FBI and local law enforcement when we are notified by 

a parent that that person believes that there may be an abduction 

in progress. 

We have 24/7 operators who are—they are not operators, they 

are officers who are trained in abductions who are available to take 

calls if people call in and say I just came home, my wife is not here, 

she left a note, I think she is planning to fly out with the kids. 

Our officers are able to give very immediate direct instructions 

to the parents. If they don’t have a court order they need one and 

they are told exactly what to do and we hook up with CBP, with 

the FBI, with local law enforcement in order to act—to interdict 

that abduction. So that is an example of a process that works very 

well. 

You spoke, and it is absolutely true, to the challenge to the average citizen of understanding, you know, what do I do now if my 

child has been abducted to a foreign country that I may not even 

know that country very well and that is why we have a team of 

officers working in our Office of Children’s Issues, the prevention 

team but also the abductions team that they are a part of, to provide information to the families that are caught up in this nightmare and to make sure that we’re well linked up with the central 

authority in the other country if it’s a Hague partner and to follow 

up on the case and provide the advice and the guidance that we 

can for non-convention cases to help people identify a lawyer in the 

other country and understand what their options are. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me add—and I appreciate that but let me 

add and hopefully I am being helpful to this committee of requesting that we get a list of the cases—active cases that the DOJ and 

working with this international law enforcement are acting upon 

now. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE MICHELE THOREN BOND TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

We routinely communicate with law enforcement on possible criminal charges and 

extradition requests on international parental child abduction (IPCA) cases. However, the Department of State does not have access to a list of active IPCA criminal 

cases with the Department of Justice and international law enforcement. For this 

information, we would refer you to the Department of Justice.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. It is interesting, as the chairman has taken 

the lead, the ranking member—I am on Judiciary and Homeland 

Security, two of the departments that you mentioned—so I think 

there is an opportunity for a partnership here but to get the list 

of cases, active cases and then the second would be the list of cases 

that have resulted in the extradition or the return of these children 

because the most instances is children.

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE MICHELE THOREN BOND TO

QUESTION ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE SHEILA JACKSON LEE

We do not have access to a comprehensive list of IPCA cases involving the extradition of the taking parent or return of the children as a result of criminal charges 

30

against the taking parent. The following are illustrative cases that we are aware 

of that fit these criteria; however, we would refer you to the Department of Justice 

for more comprehensive information:

• Mexico, 2016—One child was returned to the United States under the Hague 

Abduction Convention after the child’s aunt obtained guardianship following 

the taking parent’s alleged murder of the child’s mother and the child’s abduction to Mexico. Subsequently, Mexican officials arrested the taking parent 

for U.S.-based murder charges. 

• Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, 2015—Two children were returned to the United 

States after Saudi authorities acted on an Interpol Red Notice against the 

taking parent for international parental kidnapping charges. 

• Ghana, 2014—Two children were returned to the United States per a Ghanaian court order. German authorities subsequently arrested the taking parent on state custodial interference charges and the taking parent was extradited to the United States. The taking parent’s travel to Germany was unrelated to the abduction case. 

• Spain, 2013—One child was returned to the United States per a Spanish 

court order after the taking parent was arrested on federal international parental kidnapping charges. Subsequently, the taking parent was extradited to 

the United States.

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think the intent of the Goldman Law was 

to stop the bleeding. We were just amazed at how many cases—

how many families had experienced this and with their own domestic-based lawyers—some may have international experience—they 

just were going up against really the firewall of sovereignty. 

And we were trying to find a way to pierce that and give some 

hope to individuals. Stories that we’ve had before this committee—

I have had the privilege of sitting in on this committee—were ones 

where the family wound up in a domestic court in California, for 

example, and then completely obliterated in terms of that case, giving up jurisdiction. 

I don’t know how—I am just baffled, as I conclude, how a local 

court ignores the citizenship of the children, which are U.S. children, and they send them overseas. I am just completely baffled—

with no showing of a parent that is not able to provide for them 

here in the United States. 

So then when they are taken we would like at least the Goldman 

Law to step in and give some equality, some equal playing field. 

So it would be very helpful. 

I think what we need to do is to really hear from all the agencies—the State Department is certainly working but you are collaborating with the Department of Justice, Homeland Security, to 

a certain extent some of the local law enforcement to understand 

that the law is in place and the law can be useful to save some of 

these individuals, which I would like to see. 

So if we could get both of those numbers it may be helpful to this 

committee and the chairman and then we might be able to again 

look at our other agencies and how they can be—how they can be 

helpful in collaborating to bring some of these children home. 

And I don’t know, as I close—Secretary Bond, do you have any 

recent examples of success—whether you call it Case A or B—do 

you have an example of the reuniting of children that have been 

abducted, brought home to the United States? 

Ambassador BOND. Oh, absolutely. There—in terms of what you 

were speaking to just a moment ago about the interagency work including the FBI, a lot of that is focused on prevention. 

31

Discussions of what more we might be able to do to inform parents who may be at risk for this sort of thing to make sure they 

know what steps they need to take to protect their children and 

also to ensure that there is a coordinated response if we get an indication that there is an abduction underway. 

That is a lot of that focus from the FBI and law enforcement and 

other—and other parts of the interagency working together. But 

there have been several hundred return. 

There are also—of course, we don’t know how many cases where 

children were protected from abduction because of advice that their 

parents got by calling into our team or by reading the information 

that is on our Web site so that they would be aware of the fact, 

for example, that you can—you can register with passport services, 

the fact that even though we require for all minors both parents 

have to agree to the issuance of a passport, you can take the additional step of saying I want you to contact me personally if any application for my child is filed because I want to be sure that my 

spouse doesn’t, you know, pretend to have a notarized document 

from me that is false. So we have that program and we have other 

programs that are available for people to ensure that their children 

are protected or flagged so that they won’t be the victims of an abduction. 

But, of course, that doesn’t help in every case. 

We have plenty of cases where the child travelled with both parents’ knowledge and agreement because one parent didn’t know 

what the other parent was planning. So——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And that is where the abduction comes in, and 

that is the problems that we would like to solve. So, again, let me 

add a third request. 

If you have to protect the privacy but if a report could—we could 

find a list that is either listed by number or something that says, 

you know, we returned this person from Kosovo to the United 

States. 

But I would like to see the list, to see that myself. Is it over a 

period of years or it is in the last year or——

Ambassador BOND. We submit an annual report——

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Right, under the law. 

Ambassador BOND [continuing]. And it does include the statistics 

on the returns by country. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And the most recent annual report was when? 

Was it——

Ambassador BOND. It was issued in April. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. In April. If you are about to give to your other 

annual but I would like to—I would just like to ask for that report. 

I know it comes to Congress but I would like to——

Ambassador BOND. We will make sure you get it. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE [continuing]. Ask for it and if there is an updating between now and then I would appreciate that as well. Mr. 

Chairman, I could pursue a whole line of questioning but I would 

like to yield back. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so much. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you very much, Ms. Secretary. 

Mr. SMITH. Can I just ask you—you know, Sheila Jackson Lee’s 

questions prompted a question from me and that would be as you 

32

know Title 3 outlines or makes clear that there needs to be an 

interagency working group headed up by the secretary of state and 

it would include Homeland Security, Department of Justice and it 

would also work with Department of Defense. 

Has that interagency group met and what has been the outcome? 

How often do they meet? 

Ambassador BOND. So far, I believe they have met twice and in 

addition to the agencies that you have mentioned they also include 

now at the last most recent session the attorney general of Utah 

attended because they are also reaching out to the state level officials who would be in a position to contribute to a discussion of 

how can we get this done better—how can we protect the kids. So 

those will be regularly held. 

Mr. SMITH. This is the final question and then we will submit the 

rest for the record. But in June—at the June hearing sitting right 

where you are sitting was a woman, Edeanna Barbirou, from Tunisia. 

She has been trying to get her son, Eslam Chebbi, back home to 

the United States. She testified—her testimony was very, very riveted. She has won four court orders and yet she still has not gotten 

her son back. 

Secretary Kerry recently praised Tunisia for being an example of 

democracy and, again, despite these court orders she does not have 

her son back. What is the department doing to get her son back? 

Ambassador BOND. She is present here today, as a matter of fact, 

and we were chatting a few minutes ago. Of course, we are familiar 

with her situation. 

The—to be honest, I think, due to the privacy act I actually can’t 

go into the details right now of what the current status of her case 

is. 

But we are very engaged on it and remain hopeful that we will 

be able to get him home. As you say, the courts have ordered his 

return several times. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. And I will submit some additional questions and the members might do likewise. Thank you for your testimony. 

Ambassador BOND. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. I would like to now invite panel two, being first with 

Mr. David Goldman, a father of a child abducted to Brazil. Mr. 

Goldman is father of Sean Goldman, who is here in the audience. 

He was born in Red Bank—Sean was, abducted to Brazil in 2004. 

Mr. Goldman spent the next 51⁄2 arduous years, enormous 

amounts of time and financial resources and had a great number 

of people supporting him in the New Jersey community and really 

around the country to secure the return of his son. 

In December 2009, Christmas Eve to be exact, he actually got his 

son back and flew back to the United States and what a great reunion that was, not just for David but for his entire family. 

We thank him for the work that he has done not just for himself 

but the Bring Sean Home Foundation and the other work he has 

done. He has been a shining example of what can be when the levers of government, the private sector, the media, all work in concert to bring about justice and a—in this case, a much needed family reunification. 

33

We will then hear from U.S. Navy Captain Paul Toland, who has 

been fighting for access to and return of his daughter Erika since 

2003. 

Captain Toland—she was abducted, I should say, as an infant 

from a Navy family housing in Japan. Captain Toland has been the 

sole surviving parent since 2007 when Erika’s mother died. But 

still has been prevented from unification with his daughter who is 

living with her grandmother. 

Captain Toland recently launched a new legal effort in Japan’s 

courts calling on the courts to recognize the fundamental human 

rights of a biological parent to have access to his or her child. 

He is the co-founder and national director of Back Home, a nonprofit organization dedicated to the immediate return of internationally abducted children who have been wrongfully detained, 

especially in Japan. 

I would like begin with Mr. Goldman and then go to Captain 

Toland. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID GOLDMAN, CO-FOUNDER AND DIRECTOR, BRING SEAN HOME FOUNDATION (FATHER OF 

CHILD ABDUCTED TO BRAZIL) 

Mr. GOLDMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Meadows and 

Ms. Jackson. It is wonderful that you are here to support this. I 

know Mr. Meadows has been here on a few of these hearings and 

we appreciate that. 

I would like to just start before I go into my actually testimony, 

and all these hearings that I attend and some participate in I do 

keep hearing about the quiet diplomacy, and I always wonder, like, 

the questions that you ask, instead of deflecting them what is the 

real reason that they won’t use the tools in the toolbox? 

What is it? Just come clean. We don’t believe in it. It is against 

what we stand for. I always thought it would just be against—they 

are more concerned about their bilateral relations than the 100 

children in this country, the 200 children in this country—they are 

more worried about trade, they are more worried about arms, they 

are more worried about drug smuggling, border control in certain 

countries. 

But why can’t they just basically come clean and say what is the 

reason they won’t use the tools in the tool box that they need, that 

they wanted? I just listened and we talk about Brazil. 

They have acceded to the Hague Convention in 2004 and they 

are always on noncompliance. They just said nine times consecutively noncompliant. When is it time to use the tools? Does it take 

9 years? Some child who is kidnapped at 9 is now an 18-year-old. 

They’re a grownup. They are not a child anymore. That goes in 

complete contra Hague Convention, what it stands for. 

Nine times and they are noncompliant and that does show that 

quiet diplomacy in that case doesn’t work. And as you said, a 27-

percent return rate from Germany, to me doesn’t seem very successful. 

But I diverged because those are just points that I just hear 

every time. So I was—I will give you a brief history of my case. For 

51⁄2 years I was a left-behind parent. I did live in a world of deVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:53 Aug 23, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\_AGH\111915\97636 SHIRL
34

spondency and desperation with a searing pain through my entire 

being. 

Everywhere I turned I saw an image of my abducted child. Sleep 

was hard to come by. It was never restful. If I smiled I did feel 

guilt. 

When I saw children, whether it was in the store, a park, on television or on my charter boat, where clients often take their families 

for day on the water, it was more than painful. 

For the longest time it was too painful to be around my own 

nieces and nephews. I was wondering—I wanted to be and where 

was my son. Where was my child? 

He had been abducted. He had been illegally held. He was being 

psychologically, emotionally and mentally abused. I needed to help 

him but I was helpless. I needed to save him. He needed me, his 

father. 

It was our legal, our moral, our God-given right to be together 

as parent and child. I did everything humanly possible leaving no 

stone unturned when for many years the result remained the same. 

My son, Sean, was not home. 

There were court orders in place—many court orders from the 

U.S. demanding the immediate return of my child. The courts, as 

you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, acknowledged that my son had 

been held in violation of U.S. and international law. 

However, he remained in the possession of his abductors. Why 

were so many laws being ignored? Why were the abductors and in 

my case, the Government of Brazil, allowed to flagrantly violate 

international law without consequence? 

Why were my child and over 50 other American children still in 

Brazil, another plus in Mexico and thousands of other American 

children also held illegally in other countries in clear violation of 

the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of international child abduction? 

It would take 41⁄2 years, numerous court hearings, extraordinary 

work from my attorneys in Brazil and the U.S. and a tremendous 

amount of political pressure applied publically and internationally 

in House and Senate and State resolutions for me to finally be able 

to visit my abducted son for a few short periods of time. 

It took Congressman Smith traveling to Brazil with me. It took 

Senator Lautenberg holding up a trade bill that would have given 

Brazil nearly $3 billion of trade preferences for my son to come 

home. 

So as I prepared today’s hearing, I began to review my own testimony from previous hearings as well as testimony of others who 

had given powerful and moving accounts of their own experiences 

with this issue. 

In past, what was obvious was that our Government lacked the 

tools they so desperately needed to bring abducted American children home. 

That is not the issue any longer. It has been over a year now 

since President Obama signed the Goldman Act into law, and 

thank you, Mr. Chairman, for authoring that legislation. It is much 

needed and I hope we can use it. 

I hope our Government uses it. I beg, I plead on behalf of all 

these other left-behind parents and families and grandmas and 

35

cousins and nieces and nephews and the community that they were 

ripped away from that we use the tools to get these children home. 

It provides our Government with a number of options to persuade 

countries to return abducted American children. 

One of our first duties of government is to protect its citizens and 

the Goldman Act does just that. We no longer need one senator. 

Important. We no longer need one senator to hold the trade bill in 

which 131 countries would see tariffs on their imports to the U.S. 

rise sharply and billions of dollars of their trade disrupted. 

The Goldman Act is designed to work country to country—on a 

country to country basis and may impose punitive measures 

against individual nations harboring abducted American children. 

And I go to the press release—there can be no safe havens for 

abductors. That was released yesterday by Secretary Kerry. Point 

in case—let’s take action. 

We need not—our Government needs not be so concerned about 

upsetting a country that harbors child abductions of American citizen children. We must demand their return. We are not asking for 

any favors. 

We are expecting the rule of law to be followed and if it isn’t then 

let them see there are tangible consequences. And when we do, and 

hopefully we will use some of these powerful tools, stronger tools, 

they are not permanent. They send the children home and whatever penalty, whatever punitive measures they face may be lifted. 

It doesn’t mean it’s forever. But let’s make a statement and if 

they get angry at us—how can we be concerned a country being 

angry at us for demanding our American children home? These are 

our citizens. It is our duty to protect them. We can’t be concerned 

if they are going to get angry at us for demanding the return as 

they would their own. 

It’s intended to work side by side with the Hague Convention on 

the civil aspects of international child abduction, ensuring countries honor their treaty obligations, and this way the Goldman Act 

almost acts like a bodyguard to the treaty, protecting it and ensuring that it is followed as it was intended. 

It took several years and several markups before becoming law 

and we now have the ability to help bring home this country’s abducted children with both Hague signatory countries as well as 

non-Hague countries. 

I would just quickly like to address the criminal approach. We 

talked about Department of Justice. And in my case as well as 

most cases, the first instincts are to pursue criminal remedies—go 

to the police, hunt down the abductors and hope for a return of the 

child through law enforcement. I understand and sympathize with 

that approach and that was in fact my first instinct. 

But I do think that approach adds another layer of complexities 

to the process. What the Hague treaty does in simple terms is put 

a signatory country—it puts all signatory countries in agreement 

on how the issue of international child abduction should be resolved without complicating it on the basis of cultural and domestic 

laws. 

Essentially, there are two extremely important issues that arise 

from criminal proceedings and demand from extraditions of child 

abductors. 

36

Domestic courts will often refuse the return of an abducted child, 

knowing that the taking parent will face criminal prosecution by 

coming back to the country where the child was abducted from and 

many countries it is in their constitution—they just simply will not 

extradite one of their own citizens. 

And even if they do extradite one of their own citizens, so you 

got the abductor back but the child is still over there. 

It just adds a whole other layer of complexities and that is why 

the basis of the Hague Convention is on the civil aspects and that 

is why the tools of the Goldman Act are civil actions. 

And as we also talked about, with regard to the Hague Convention itself, there are two areas which are most often abused by foreign judges when deciding these cases. 

One is in Article 11 about the judicial administrative authorities 

shall expeditiously in proceedings so act expeditiously to return the 

children and if they don’t reach that decision within 6 weeks of the 

date of commencement of the proceedings the applicant or the central authority of the requested state on its own initiative or if 

asked by the central authority of the requested state shall have the 

right to request a statement for the reasons of the delay. 

So, clearly, the spirit of the convention is to have these cases 

handled swiftly so that there is little disruption as possible in the 

life of a child. 

We all know that is not what happens. Most of the time when 

Americans are abducted because of the endless legal delays resulting from motions filed by the abducting parents the convention’s intent is thwarted and the spirit of the convention is lost. 

And, as an example, they use Article 13(b) about you don’t have 

to return a child if the court where the child was abducted says 

there is going to be grave risk or harm to return the child. 

So what they do is they interpret these legal delays and proceedings as the grounds for denying the return of a child based on 

the assumption that the passage of time somehow eliminates the 

urgency of returning that child to their home country of habitual 

residence. Because of their own slow judicial process they say it is 

now going to disrupt the abduct child to return them, thus rewarding the kidnapper. 

As Congressman Smith mentioned, that case in Brazil, which is 

going on right now, they actually denied Chris Brann’s—Dr. Brann, 

who I take a side note, is a internist. He works at Baylor University in Texas. 

He dedicated his life to helping others yet he can’t help his own 

child. He can’t nurture and help and be with his own child. 

Someone whose calling in life is to help heal, he can’t even participate in his own child’s life and the pain he is experiencing as 

well as all the other parents is just tremendous and devastating 

there really are no true words to imagine the level of despair that 

these parents suffer every day. 

But they—in this case the judge cited, in Chris’ case, the denial 

of my son because of the passage of time and the well settled issue. 

They denied the return of his son, citing my case. I was floored 

when I realized that, when I read that. 

This judge that decided his case must have never read the news, 

seen the television or looked at a legal precedence because my son 

37

is home and he’s been home for nearly 6 years. So for her to cite 

that case is just showing that they are looking at any reason to not 

return children. 

Another example in Brazil, and this is about the enforcement 

issue, so now we have one judge just denying the return in a blatant disregard for the law. Another case is Nadia Davenport. 

It’s been more than 7 years since Devon Davenport’s baby daughter was abducted from North Carolina to Brazil and he has fought 

admirably to bring his daughter home and he has even testified before this same committee last year making an impassioned plea for 

help. 

The Brazilian court has ordered his daughter, Nadia, home and 

all legitimate appeals have been exhausted. Yet, nearly 2 years 

have passed since that decision without enforcement of the return 

and Nadia remains in Brazil illegally and Devon Davenport is not 

closer to being with his child. 

So we have a country noncompliant for nine times. When they 

do get a judicial order it doesn’t get carried out if they do get a judicial order. 

There is no country that’s screams, that is a member of the 

Hague for this long, to try your quiet diplomacy, to use the tools 

and these parents, like so many others, suffer so much. It is beyond 

words to describe and I know because I was one of them. I did feel 

like a dead man walking—lifeless, struggling day to day to get 

through the most meaningless tasks. 

I am now so fortunate to be on the other side, having been reunited with my son, and to my knowledge, to answer a couple of 

your questions, Sean—my son, Sean Goldman—is the only American child ever to be returned from Brazil to America under a court 

order under the provisions of the Hague Convention. 

So you asked the question. That’s the answer. My son is the only 

child ever to be returned from Brazil to America under provisions 

of a court order under the Hague Convention and they have been 

acceded to the treaty since 2004. 

We are lucky. We can’t recover the years we have lost but we can 

enjoy our time now. We can live as parent and child. I can watch 

him grow and evolve and become a young adult. 

We can interact with each other, participating, educating, encouraging and disciplining as a parent should be able to do with 

their own child. And so many other left-behind parents were given 

hope and, painfully, celebrated my son’s return without their own 

children at their side. 

And please don’t allow their hope to be a cruel and anguishing 

false hope that their children may one day come home. Accompanying me to this hearing today are my son and stepson, Sean, 

and his stepbrother, Jesse. They are brothers and good buddies, 

and Sean can grow up as a normal boy with family and friends like 

it was intended. 

I was able to assume my role as his father and he as my son. 

It is our legal and God-given right to be father and son. And next 

to me is Captain Paul Toland. The empty chair behind him awaits 

for his abducted daughter, Erika. 

38

It is this government’s duty to protect its citizens, to protect the 

rights of Erika and allow her to come home to America and grow 

up on the care of her father, her only living parent. 

The tools are in place. Please use them. Help Paul reunite with 

Erika. Please help these suffering mothers and fathers reunite with 

their abducted American children. Our country is about keeping 

families together and they desperately need your help. 

Paul needs your help. We have the tools. Let’s use them. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldman follows:]

39


97636b-1.eps
40


97636b-2.eps
41


97636b-3.eps
42


97636b-4.eps
43

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Goldman, thank you so very much for that very 

passionate, well informed, articulate—not only telling your own 

story but your concern for all of the other left-behind parents. 

And with that, I’d like to yield to Captain Paul Toland. 

STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN PAUL TOLAND, USN, CO-FOUNDER 

AND NATIONAL DIRECTOR, BRING ABDUCTED CHILDREN 

HOME (FATHER OF CHILD ABDUCTED TO JAPAN) 

CAPT TOLAND. Thank you, and thank you, David, for that touching speech. 

Congressman Smith, Congressman Meadows, Congresswoman 

Jackson Lee and other members of this committee, thank you for 

allowing me the opportunity to speak today about the scourge of 

international parental child abduction, specifically with regard to 

the country of Japan. 

I am here today to explain to you why punitive measures up to 

and including sanctions may soon be the only viable option that 

will bring about the change necessary within Japan to comply with 

the Hague Convention and the Goldman Act. 

My name is Paul Toland. I’m a captain in the United States 

Navy with over 26 years of active military service. I am the cofounder and director of Bring Abducted Children Home. 

My daughter Erika was abducted off the U.S. Navy housing in 

Japan over 12 years ago. In 2007, my wife, Etsuko, committed suicide and since that time Erika has been wrongfully retained in 

Japan by her grandmother Akiko Futagi. 

I was recently in Japan, where I filed through their family court 

system for physical custody of Erika. Japan signed the Hague Convention in 2014 but abduction cases like mine that transpired before Japan’s ratification of the Hague are not eligible for returns 

under the Hague. So I am utilizing the Japanese system to see if 

they will in fact respect the rights of a parent over a nonparent 

and provide custody to me, Erika’s only living parent. 

Yes, Akiko Futagi is a grandparent to Erika Toland. But that 

also means she is not a parent. Under law in most countries she 

would have no right to keep my child away from me and yet to this 

day she has been allowed to keep Erika away from me without allowing so much as a phone call in 8 painful years. 

In most countries with modern family law systems this abduction 

and denial of access to a parent would be perceived no differently 

than if a stranger abducted a child and it would be a felony crime. 

But in Japan, abduction by a nonparent relative is not only accepted, it is condoned. I am the only parent in the world to Erika, 

yet every day I have no idea if she is sick or injured. 

I have no idea if she is safe or in danger. I have not even been 

offered a single photo of my beloved daughter in the 8 years since 

the grandmother has held her, let alone a visit or a walk in the 

park together or the opportunity to say happy birthday even once. 

Historically, Japan has stood alone in the modern world as a notorious haven for child abduction and is still considered a black 

hole from abduction from which no child ever returns. 

The Japanese Government has never enforced the return of a 

single abducted child including over 400 American children abducted to Japan since 1994. 

44

But recently there has been some hope for change in Japan. 

Japan has signed the Hague Convention and many Japanese politicians are speaking openly about changing Japan’s views on parental abduction and shared custody between parents after divorce. 

Those inside and outside Japan who want Japan to change and 

become a modern country in regard to parental rights see my case 

as an opportunity for Japan to prove to the rest of the world that 

it is changing and that Japan is moving forward toward joining the 

rest of the developed nations of the world. 

For Japan to prove this to the rest of the world, we fully expect 

that the Japanese court will both order and enforce the return of 

Erika Toland to me, her father and only living parent. 

The judge’s ruling in this case will be a reflection of the entire 

Japanese Government and the entire nation of Japan. There could 

be no clearer case than this case for Japan to demonstrate that it 

has at least a very basic and rudimentary understanding of its responsibilities toward parents and children. 

How can we expect Japan to ever resolve more complicated divorce and child custody issues if it cannot even resolve this very 

straightforward case where one parent is deceased and a nonparent 

is withholding the child from a loving parent who wants to care for 

her? 

The U.S. Supreme Court has found that, and I quote, ‘‘the interest of parents in the care, custody and control of their children is 

perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests.’’

The U.S. Supreme Court has further ruled that it is cardinal 

that the custody, care and nurture of the child reside first in the 

parents and that same court has held that the relationship between parent and child is constitutionally protected. 

As in U.S. courts, the rest of the modern developed world would 

never tolerate a custody battle between a parent and a nonparent. 

In civilized countries the automatic presumption of the court 

would be that the best interest of a child is to be raised by her parents, not some other more distant relative or stranger. 

A parent does not have the burden of proving that he or she can 

raise the child better than a nonparent. If Japan rules, as it should 

in favor of my daughter’s right to know and love her father, then 

it would truly be a threshold step for Japan and Japan would be 

closer to joining the rest of the international community as a nation that respects the basic fundamental bond between parent and 

child. 

However, after attending family court in Japan last month, I 

came to a single conclusion regarding the Japanese family law system. Nothing has changed. 

That is right. The court system is no different than it was 10 

years ago. The courts still have no mechanism of enforcement. The 

courts still drag cases out over many months to run out the clock 

and judges simply find a way to maintain the status quo. 

In my clear-cut and unambiguous case, I have endured three 

court dates over the course of 8 months with another court date set 

for December and no end in sight. 

Signing the Hague was simply a smokescreen devised by Japan 

to relieve international pressure. The Japanese Ministry of Foreign 

Affairs knows this. They know that Japan’s family court system is 

45

a completely broken mess and that is why they have done everything in their power to keep Hague actions out of their court system and instead attempt to resolve cases through mediation and 

provide access via monitored video conferencing between victimized 

parents and children. 

These efforts have all been dismal failures. Why would an abductor want to mediate knowing that he or she can withhold a child 

without consequence? All they need to say is no and there is nothing that the Japanese Government will do about it. 

Other recent signatories of the Hague such as Korea have made 

necessary reforms to their family law system but Japan simply refuses to do so and because of this they can never be compliant with 

the Hague. It is literally impossible. 

So what are we to do about it? How will Japan make the changes 

it needs to join the rest of the global community? I and everyone 

who has been associated with this issue for years have come to a 

single conclusion—foreign pressure. Yes, that is the only solution 

that can bring about change within Japan. 

Real changes to human rights issues in Japan are rarely if ever 

accomplished internally. Instead, it is almost exclusively foreign 

pressure that elicits change in Japan. Take child pornography as 

an example. 

For years and years, Japan openly allowed possession of child 

pornography and did nothing about it. It was only intense and continued foreign pressure that compelled Japan to make the changes 

necessary to join the rest of the civilized world in this area. 

Likewise, it will only be constant and intense foreign pressure 

that will bring about the required changes in family law that will 

allow Japan to comply with the Goldman Act and the Hague Convention. The State Department has been completely remiss in applying foreign pressure to Japan or demanding the return of any 

of the 400 children kidnapped to Japan since 1994. 

They have instead actively tried to cover up for Japan’s noncompliance with no regard whatsoever to the suffering of countless 

American parents and children. 

If Japan rules against me and demonstrates that it cannot and 

will not protect the fundamental bond between parent and child 

and the inherent rights of parents and if Japan continues to deny 

access to parents under the Hague and fails to return abducted 

children under the Hague, I ask for punitive measures up to and 

including sanctions under the Goldman Act. 

Why do you think Brazil returned Sean Goldman? It was because 

of the threat of sanctions. As David just alluded to, holding up that 

trade bill—that is what really hit home. And then after Sean was 

returned—thank God he was returned—then the pressure was relieved. They were no longer holding up the trade bill and no more 

children were returned. 

That speaks for itself. Sanctions represent a real expenditure of 

political capital on behalf of the United States. 

I once told a high ranking State Department official that our 

children could be returned in 1 year if the United States Government was willing to expend real political capital on behalf of our 

children. 

46

If a governor or some famous celebrity’s child were abducted 

overseas you can bet our Government would expend every resource 

possible to ensure the return of these children—their children. 

But the sad reality is that our children are simply not important 

enough for the American Government to expend the political capital necessary to return them. 

Additionally, if Japan cannot protect the fundamental bond between parent and child and the inherent rights of parents, then no 

American families are safe in Japan including military families. 

If our military families’ members and their families stationed in 

Japan can lose their children so easily in violation of our constitutional protections, then the military will need to rethink its policy 

of allowing family members to accompany their military sponsor to 

Japan. 

Ever since Erika was stolen from me over 12 years ago, my only 

desire in the world and everything I have worked for has been done 

with one goal in mind—to be reunited with Erika so she can know 

and love her only father and so I can know and love my only child. 

That goal has never changed and it never will. 

I have heard some people from Japan say, ‘‘Why would you want 

to take Erika away from her home in Japan?’’ Well, to that I say 

Japan is not necessarily her rightful home. It is not even necessarily the United States. A child’s home is with her parents no 

matter where that may be, and that means that no matter where 

I may reside Erika’s home is and always will be with me. 

True, it’s a fact that she’s 13 years old now and she may not 

want to come to America, and if that’s the case she and I will work 

that out together. I will ensure that I have the best team of reunification experts and medical professionals to help us through these 

times. Japan expeditiously ruling in my favor will sanctify the sacred bond between parent and child. 

Japan expeditiously ruling in my favor will be a recognition that 

these difficult issues regarding Erika’s future are issues that she 

and I must face together and it will also recognize that neither the 

state of Japan nor a more distant nonparent relative will come between the sacred bond of parent and child. 

However, if Japan rules against me and violates this fundamental bond between parent and child and continue their pattern 

of denying access to parents of abducted children and fail to expeditiously return abducted children under the Hague Convention, I 

once again ask that punitive actions be taken by the U.S. Government to include sanctions under the Goldman Act. Only foreign 

pressure will resolve this situation and that foreign pressure starts 

right here in this room. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of CAPT Toland follows:]

47


97636c-1.eps
48


97636c-2.eps
49


97636c-3.eps
50


97636c-4.eps
51

Mr. SMITH. Captain Toland, thank you so very, very much. 

Again, an extraordinarily eloquent statement, an expression of a 

father’s love for his daughter, Erika. 

And I can assure you that this subcommittee and Mark Meadows 

and other members of the committee are steadfast. We will be unceasing in our efforts to try to get your child home, the other children who have been abducted and to use the Goldman Act as it 

was intended—to use it. 

Words are cheap in this town and, you know, I have been here 

35 years now and I can tell you far too often people make these 

statements. 

Secretary Kerry made a very find statement yesterday that all 

the tools will be employed and used. Well, they have to be and Ambassador Bond did not make clear whether or not even now with 

the gap that they had in the original report that Japan, with its 

50 plus cases and even those post-Hague not being resolved either, 

would be designated as a pattern—as a country with a pattern of 

noncompliance and that is very deeply disappointing. And I think 

your point about the Hague being a smokescreen, never more truer 

words were ever spoken. 

Now, it may have a positive ameliorative effect going forward. 

But as we argued right from the get-go when this administration 

are doing the same—it is like deja vu all over again, to quote Yogi 

Bera—it is—they are just committing the same act vis-a-vis India 

with all the 75 cases that are unresolved. So I can assure you we 

are going to do everything we can to keep the pressure on. 

I will initiate a letter. Hopefully we will get members of the 

House and the Senate to sign it, to the President—that the G–7 

meeting that will be held—the 42nd G–7 summit on May 26th or 

27th in Shima, Japan, with Japan hosting, of course, that your case 

and the cases of other left-behind parents, and other countries do 

have similar situations. 

So my hope is that they will too rally. I remember meeting with 

Ambassadors from other nations, mostly European nations, that 

had a very similar track record of not having their left-behind children brought back to their families as well and their parents. 

We do have 30 minutes or so of votes. If there is anything you 

would like to add—both of your statements were extraordinarily eloquent. Ambassador Bond’s statements today—did it give you any 

hope? 

Frankly, I was concerned by a lack of commitment to using the 

tools other than saying we’ll use all tools—everything is on the 

table. 

But until you start sanctioning and having—as one of our colleagues said earlier, until you really start really saying we’re not 

kidding, they will think these are mere words and admonishments 

rather than actions that have penalties and consequences. So if 

you’d like to add anything, you know, please do at this point and 

then we will conclude the hearing. 

CAPT TOLAND. Congressman Smith, I would just like to add one 

thing on behalf of a number of other parents that I’m associated 

with. 

We are currently—me and a number of other parents are seeing 

our kids that were abducted at a young age moving into their teenVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:53 Aug 23, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\_AGH\111915\97636 SHIRL
52

age years now and we are hearing the same thing over and over 

from the abductors—the child does not want to see their parent, 

and this is from the abductor saying this, not necessarily the children. 

This is happening—I will say it—I am hearing this from—regarding my daughter Erika as well as Randy Collins hearing it 

about his son, Keisuke, Chris Savoie hearing it about his children, 

Isaac and Rebecca. 

We don’t know if these children are really saying this or if the 

kidnappers are simply saying this as a last ditch effort. 

But what we do know is that these children were kidnapped at 

a very young age and brainwashed for many years. Unfortunately, 

these children will never heal from the psychological damage that 

their kidnapping parent inflicted upon them. 

But our hope is that in a few more years these victimized children will realize that most of their life was a lie and we pray that 

they will come to know and love us, the parent that they were 

taken from. 

Thank you. 

Mr. GOLDMAN. I am still wondering where is that disconnect. 

Why doesn’t the State Department come out and say why they 

don’t want to use these tools. 

I have yet to hear a legitimate reason, just sort of deflections. 

Secretary Bond, she was an advocate in my son’s return. She spoke 

adamantly on national television. 

She’s got the tools. She knows—they all know what it takes. 

They do have their hearts in the right places. They do work long 

hard hours. 

But they have this right at their fingertips, which can make a 

difference, and if used against the worst offenders it’ll send a message to the other countries. 

And they are not permanent tools. Once they are invoked they 

can be—you send the kids home, that penalty is removed. But 

knowing that it’s there and knowing we will use it will make all 

the difference in the world. 

And I still am wondering—I don’t hear an answer why after 9 

years and only one child ever to be returned under provisions of 

the Hague Convention by way of court order they don’t want to 

open up every tool, every—and use every tool in their tool box to 

get the kids out of Brazil specifically and also India, Japan—these 

countries that aren’t Hague countries can use the same tools, and 

that is one of the questions that I still have never heard an answer 

from. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know you have——

Mr. SMITH. We are out of time. 

Without objection, a Washington Post editorial from August 12th 

will be made part of the record and it cites Jeffrey Morehouse, who 

is here with us today, and without objection be made a part of the 

record. 

Thank you very much. The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:37 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(53)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

54

f


97636n.eps
55

f


97636m.eps
56


97636d.eps
57

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


97636e.eps
58

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


97636f-1.eps
59


97636f-2.eps
60


97636f-3.eps
61

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS


97636g-1.eps
62


97636g-2.eps
63


97636g-3.eps
64


97636g-4.eps
65


97636g-5.eps
66


97636g-6.eps
67

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, 

A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY, AND CHAIRMAN, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

Æ


97636h.eps