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

29–692PDF 2018

NO ABDUCTED CHILD LEFT BEHIND: AN UPDATE

ON THE GOLDMAN ACT

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 FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

APRIL 11, 2018

Serial No. 115–121

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 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

ANN WAGNER, Missouri 

BRIAN J. MAST, Florida 

FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida 

BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah 

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 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

NORMA J. TORRES, California 

BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York 

TED LIEU, California

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 

DANIEL M. DONOVAN, JR., New York 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

THOMAS A. GARRETT, JR., Virginia 

KAREN BASS, California 

AMI BERA, California 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Ms. Suzanne Lawrence, Special Advisor for Children’s Issues, Office of Children’s Issues, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State ............ 5

Ms. Patricia Apy, international and interstate family law attorney, Paras, 

Apy, and Reiss ...................................................................................................... 31

Mr. James Cook, father of four children abducted in Japan ............................... 42

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Ms. Suzanne Lawrence: Prepared statement ........................................................ 8

Ms. Patricia Apy: Prepared statement ................................................................... 37

Mr. James Cook: Prepared statement .................................................................... 45

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 66

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 67

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: 

‘‘The Case for Reciprocity,’’ by Patricia Apy ...................................................... 68

Dr. Samina Rahman submission for the record ................................................ 76

Written responses from Ms. Suzanne Lawrence to questions submitted for 

the record by the Honorable Christopher H. Smith .......................................... 84

(1)

NO ABDUCTED CHILD LEFT BEHIND: AN 

UPDATE ON THE GOLDMAN ACT 

WEDNESDAY, APRIL 11, 2018

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 2:00 p.m., in room 

2200 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. Smith 

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The hearing will come to order, and good afternoon 

to everybody. Thank you for being here. 

I would just like to make one introduction. Sue Kiley, who’s the 

mayor, now deputy mayor of Hazlet, and her husband, three decades on the police force as well as number two there, is also with 

us today. 

I want to thank them for joining us and would like to thank all 

of you for being at this hearing, which is one of a large number of 

hearings we have held on child abduction and pretty much a series 

on it. 

And, of course, we will be focusing on this afternoon a continuing 

and excruciatingly painful crisis of international parental-child abduction and what the Trump administration can and must do to 

stop it. 

As many of you here today have experienced, international parental-child abduction rips children from their homes and whisks 

them away to a foreign land, alienating them from the love and 

care of a parent and the family that has been left behind. 

Child abduction is child abuse and continues to plague families 

across the United states and, really, around the world. 

According to the U.S. Department of State and their statistics, 

almost 800 children are today held hostage in a foreign country, 

separated from their American parent. 

Several hundred additional children join their ranks each and 

every year. If past is prologue, only 16 percent of these children 

will be returned to the United States. 

In 2014, Congress adopted legislation that I wrote known as the 

Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act, Public Law 113150, to change the status quo. 

Its template was the Trafficking Victims Protection Act and the 

International Religious Freedom Act, and on the former I was the 

author of that. 

2

Frank Wolf authored the International Religious Freedom Act 

and what we did was come up with ways of holding countries to 

account, and then prescribing a series of increasingly strong, or 

stronger, sanctions to try to change the behavior of offending countries. 

Since 2014, we have seen the reduction in new abductions of children but not an increase in percentage of returns of ongoing cases. 

Despite the new legislation, the State Department has persistently 

refused to use the return tools contained in the Goldman Act as envisioned by Congress. 

Moving beyond letters and meetings, the Goldman Act is an enforcement tool for the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of 

international child abduction and leverage for return agreements 

with non-Hague countries. 

The Goldman Act takes the lessons again from not only other 

legislation but from the successful return of Sean Goldman from 

Brazil and lays out actions like delaying or canceling of one or 

more bilateral working meetings or state visits, the withdrawal 

limitation or suspension of U.S. development, security, or economic 

support assistance and extradition. 

To my knowledge, extradition has been used only once and the 

other options not at all. The Obama administration said in the past 

that sanctions will not work. 

But in one case where sanctions were employed by Congress, 

they worked, and they’ve certainly worked in other programs both 

domestically and internationally and, frankly, all of our civil rights 

laws have enforcement that includes significant sanctions and that 

has worked as well. 

The inaction by the Obama administration has been noted and 

challenged. On February 14, 2017, 1 month into the new Trump 

administration’s tenure, Japan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, 

Kishida, noted in the Diet discussion of abduction that, and I quote 

him, ‘‘Until now, there is not a single example in which the U.S. 

applied the Goldman Act sanctions toward foreign countries.’’

He went on to note that, ‘‘According to the United States, Japan 

is not included in the category of the noncompliant countries.’’ In 

other words, no fear. Hasn’t been used, will not be used, and Japan 

is off the list. 

Three days later, the Osaka High Court overturned a return 

order for the four American children of James Cook, who will be 

testifying today, in flagrant violation of the Hague Convention, Japan’s own Hague implementation guide, and U.S. law. 

The court has reopened the case because Mr. Cook has moved 

into an apartment after the enormous legal bills from years in 

court in Japan. 

When did sharing a bedroom with a sibling—and this is something that has become part of his concerns—become a grave risk 

to a child’s physical or psychological wellbeing? It’s not, and yet 

that now is being thrown in his face. 

I believe and I urge the new administration to do more on behalf 

of these parents and especially on behalf of these children. 

At least 300 to 400 children have suffered abduction from the 

United States to Japan since 1994 and more than 35 currently wait 

3

reunification with their American parent. Most of these are left 

over from the previous administrations. 

In almost all cases, the child is completely cut off from contact 

with the left-behind parent. Most have aged out of the system without ever being reunited with their left-behind parent and, of course, 

then that’s a closed case. 

Some parents have won in court only to find that Japan’s law enforcement could not return their children unless the taking parent 

agreed to abide by the decision and the taking parent did not. 

That is underscored in James Cook’s testimony today, if I can 

find it. It certainly will make the point and it’s worth repeating 

what he will be telling us shortly. 

Numerous enforcement attempts have been made in Japan using 

all legal means of enforcement—talking about his own case—starting in February 2016 through September 2016. All attempts were 

unsuccessful. 

At the heart of Japan’s enforcement articles for Hague is required voluntary compliance from abductor for enforcement. When 

abductors says no, the enforcement ends. In contrast, if we were to 

go to see our children in Japan without permission, I risk arrest 

and being held for 23 days in jail before any changes need to be 

filed, after which I could be denied entry into Japan in the future. 

This is just one example he points out of systemic deterrents 

against left-behind parents attempting to have a relationship with 

their abducted children or effectuate foreign court ordered returns. 

So enforcement, even when the courts do the right thing, enforcement stands out like the sword of Damocles that says there is no 

way you’re getting your child to come back. 

The systemic non-enforcement of access and return orders is so 

bad in Japan that 26 EU countries recently issued a joint demarche to Japan asking Japan to fix the problem. 

Although non-enforcement has plagued many U.S. cases, the 

U.S. did not join in that demarche. However, in the upcoming Goldman report, the U.S. has the chance, the opportunity, to hold 

Japan accountable for its failures in the Cook case as well as so 

many others, like that of the Elias children taken from my home 

state of New Jersey after their mother obtained duplicate passports 

from the Japanese consulate in contravention of a judge’s order in 

New Jersey. 

The report can and must better reflect the reality of the child abduction issue and the suffering of American children separating 

from their American parent every day in Japan. 

According to the Goldman Act, the country can find itself on the 

noncompliance list and eligible for sanctions if the country regularly fails to enforce return orders in Japan. 

The State Department should also put the country on the list if 

the judiciary fails to properly apply the Hague Convention, as we 

have seen in the Cook case in the past. 

Finally, a country should be put on the noncompliance list if 30 

percent of more of the cases in the country are unresolved or cases 

that have been pending for more than a year. 

Notably, the definition of an unresolved case makes no mention 

of a country’s Hague status. In other words, all of the cases that 

began before Japan’s ascension to the Hague Convention and that 

4

were communicated to the Japanese Government should be counted against Japan. 

No child should be left behind. We received assurances from the 

State Department years ago as they myopically pursued Japan’s 

ascension to the Hague Convention, knowing that the convention 

would not cover the existing cases grand fathered out of more than 

50 children that they would not leave these children behind—that 

they would find ways to resolve those cases. 

How many of these children have come home 4 years later? How 

many have even had access to their left-behind parent. Almost 

zero. 

The Goldman Act directed the State Department to develop an 

agreement with Japan for the previous children that were already 

abducted. The Goldman Act made a way for the State Department 

to hold Japan accountable for these cases. 

Four years later, we have no agreement, no MOUs with Japan 

for these cases. We have no action against Japan for these cases 

or current cases and we have yet to see the department even list 

Japan as noncompliant in the annual report. 

Every day these children are separated from their U.S. parent 

the damage compounds. It’s bad in the beginning. It gets worse, 

gets worse, then gets even worse. 

As the State Department’s own 2010 report on compliance with 

the Hague Convention on the civil aspects of intentional child abduction observes,

‘‘[A]bducted children are at risk of serious emotional and 

psychological problems. Research shows that recovered 

children often experience a range of problems including 

anxiety, nightmares, mood swings, sleep disturbances, aggressive behavior, resentment, guilt, and fearfulness. 

‘‘As adults, individuals who have been abducted as children struggle with identity issues, personal relationships, 

and experience problems in parenting their own children.’’

We must do better by our children. We must not leave any abducted child behind. Congress is currently looking at new ways to 

put pressure on countries with low resolution rates, like Japan, 

Brazil, and India. 

Last year, I introduced H.R. 3512, the Bindu Philips and Devon 

Davenport International Child Abduction Return Act of 2017, to 

amend the generalized system of preferences system so that any 

country named as noncompliant would use their trade benefits. 

The loss of trade preference would be automatic and not dependent of the administration choosing to apply sanctions. Currently 11 

of the 13 noncompliant countries receive trade benefits from the 

United States. That has got to change. 

In addition, I am working on a bill that would limit H-1B and 

other business visas for countries that have low abduction resolution rates and, again, that would affect Japan, Brazil, and India, 

among others. 

We have 13 egregious long-term cases pending in Brazil including Dr. Brann and Davenport cases. More than 90 American children were separated from their American parent in India. India 

5

will not even appoint a person to receive the applications and they 

have refused to join the Hague Convention. 

We asked in our hearing last year when is enough enough. We 

hope that the State Department will do its job and implement the 

Goldman Act robustly. 

We hope the Trump administration will be different than the last 

administration. But we are—so I do—would like to yield. 

We are joined by Dr. Harris of Maryland and I thank you for 

being here. I’d like to now introduce our first witness. We have two 

panels today, beginning first with Ms. Suzanne Lawrence, who is 

the new Special Advisor for Children’s Issues, having assumed the 

role late last year. 

Ms. Lawrence has previously served as the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Athens, Greece, and as a Senior Advisor for the Assistant Secretary in the U.S. Department of State’s 

Bureau of Consular Affairs. 

Her career at U.S. Foreign Service has given her a wide breadth 

of experience to apply to child abduction cases and we are very 

grateful that she’s here and look forward to her tenure in office, 

and without objection her full resume will be made a part of the 

record. 

Ms. Lawrence, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF MS. SUZANNE LAWRENCE, SPECIAL ADVISOR 

FOR CHILDREN’S ISSUES, OFFICE OF CHILDREN’S ISSUES, 

BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

STATE 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you. 

Chairman Smith, other members of the subcommittee, thank you 

for the opportunity to speak about the work we do to prevent and 

resolve international parental-child abduction. My written statement, which I ask to be entered into the congressional record, provides——

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. LAWRENCE [continuing]. Comprehensive review of our accomplishments and challenges. I will highlight the most critical of 

these in my opening statement. Allow me first to take a moment 

to thank Ms. Patricia Apy and Mr. James Cook for their commitment to our shared objectives. 

I also want to acknowledge the parents who are here today and 

who work to resolve their cases with my colleagues in the Office 

of Children’s Issues. 

I have had the pleasure of meeting many of them in the past 7 

months. My colleagues and I are encouraged by the continued interest and support from the American public and from Congress. 

As we advocate on behalf of the children and parents affected by 

the heartbreak of abductions, congressional involvement and oversight are unique tools we can use in our diplomacy. 

The 1980 Hague Abduction Convention remains one of the best 

methods for resolving abduction cases. Over the past 10 years, 

more than 4,500 children have returned to the United States. 

Further, the existence of the convention’s return mechanism has 

deterred an untold number of abductions, and we are heartened to 

6

see the number of new abductions reported to the Department of 

State has declined by more than 60 percent over the past 10 years. 

Allow me to mention three examples of the effectiveness of the 

convention. From 2014 through 2016, 95 percent of abduction cases 

to the United Kingdom, one of our biggest partners in terms of 

cases, closed in less than 1 year. 

In Mexico, our largest convention partner, more than 73 percent 

of abduction cases were closed within 1 year, and more than 340 

children returned to the United States from 2014 through 2016. 

And in Japan, there has been a 46 percent decrease in reported 

abductions since 2014. There is additional detail on the convention’s successes in my written statement, and these outcomes underscore our goal to encourage all countries to join and properly implement the convention. 

The Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction 

Prevention and Return Act has supported our efforts to promote accession to, and implementation of, the convention. 

For example, since 2014, seven countries that previously did not 

adhere to any established protocols to resolve abduction cases have 

acceded to the convention, and we are in the process of moving toward partnership with some of these countries. 

We have also welcomed five other countries into our community 

of convention partners, which now include 77 members committed 

to the shared purpose of resolving child abduction. 

In countries where the convention has not been embraced, we 

turn to other tools. Non-convention cases are extremely complex, 

and we work with left-behind parents, interagency partners, and 

foreign counterparts to resolve those cases. 

Since my arrival in September of last year as the Special Advisor 

for Children’s Issues, I have traveled the Hague, to India, to Japan, 

and to South Korea to personally engage in elicit cooperation. 

In India, I urged the government find a resolution for the many 

abducted children located there and for India to join the convention. 

In Japan, I raised our concerns about the enforcement of convention court orders and also urged the Government of Japan to find 

a resolution for the children involved in pre-convention cases. 

In South Korea, I addressed potential areas of improvement in 

their handling of convention cases and explored opportunities to 

strengthen multilateral efforts to advance the convention in that 

region, and at the Hague, I worked with the Hague Permanent Bureau and representatives from dozens of member countries to improve implementation of the convention around the globe. 

The act has also bolstered our ability to manage a robust prevention program which continues to be a key priority. 

In 2017, we enrolled over 4,000 children in the Passport Alert 

program, which is a 13 percent increase from the previous year, 

and thanks to the act, the department continues to meet biannually with the Interagency Working Group, which has had a daily 

direct impact on preventing abductions and has improve the U.S. 

Government’s response to combating abduction. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, please be assured that the act has 

significantly reinforced our work to address international parental/

child abduction around the world. 

7

We constantly strive to increase our effectiveness and always 

look for ways to collaborate with our partners, including you, Members of Congress, who have committed so much time and energy to 

addressing this very important and urgent issue. 

Thank you, and I look forward to answering your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lawrence follows:]

8


29692a-1.eps

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

STATEMENT 

OF 

SUZANNE I. LAWRENCE 

SPECIAL ADVISOR FOR CHILDREN'S ISSUES 

BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS 

BEFORE THE 

US HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRJCA, GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL 

ffiJMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERN A TTONAL ORGANTZA TTONS 

HEARING 

ON 

APRIL 11, 2018 
9


29692a-2.eps

Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Bass, and distinguished Members of the Subcommittee 

-Thank you for the opportunity to be here and address you today. 

My colleagues and l welcome your continued interest in the work we do to prevent and resolve 

international parental child abductions (IPCA). We recognize the importance of your efforts to 

advocate on behalf of the families affected by the heartbreak of abductions. We look forward to 

our continued collaboration on our shared goals of preventing abductions, expeditiously 

resolving cases, and strengthening and expanding our partnerships under the 1980 Hague 

Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Convention). 

The tools you gave us in the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention 

and Return Act of2014 (the Act) are critical to aiding us to leverage our diplomatic engagement 

with countries, and we are getting results. 

l would like to start by recognizing my hard-working colleagues in the Bureau of Consular 

Affairs at the Department of State. They advance the foreign policy goals of the Department by 

assisting thousands of U.S. citizens affected by political crises, natural disasters, abuse, mental 

illness, and crime in all parts of the world. The Office of Children's Issues (CI) in the Bureau of 

Consular Affairs, which serves as the U.S. Central Authority for the Convention, leads the U.S. 

government's work in attempting to prevent and aid in the resolution of hundreds of international 

abductions each year. In 2017, the Office of Children's Issues opened cases for almost 500 

children who were reportedly abducted by a parent from the United States to another country or 

retained in a foreign country. 

Overall, our efforts are a success story. In the past 10 years we assisted in the return of over 

4,500 children to the United States. Further, we believe the existence of the Convention's return 

mechanism deterred an untold number of abductions. In fact, the number of new abductions 

reported to the Department of State has declined by over 60 percent in the past ten years. 

However, there are still many cases where the children have not been returned. Many of these 

cases, in some countries, pre-date the entry into force of the Convention between the country and 

the United States. l want to assure you, Mr. Chairman, and Members of Congress, that we are 

redoubling our efforts and looking at all available options to resolve these cases. 

Each day we work tirelessly both in the United States and at our embassies and consulates 

abroad on behalf of children involved in IPCA cases. Our dedicated staff perform welfare and 

whereabouts checks, help locate missing children, and issue passports to children returning 

home. 

Diplomatic Efforts 

Much of the day-to-day diplomatic engagement on abduction matters is handled by country 

officers in the Office of Children's Issues. Our team of experts, based here in Washington, is 

continuously in direct touch with foreign counterparts abroad and embassies in Washington, and 

our U.S. diplomatic missions overseas. 
10


29692a-3.eps

We work with parents, counterparts in foreign governments, and the interagency to help resolve 

individual IPCA cases. Each country, like our own, has its own judicial system, law 

enforcement entities, and cultural and family traditions. We tailor our strategy to deploy the 

most effective approach toward resolving each abduction case, including facilitating a child's 

return to their country of habitual residence or parental access to children. 

As we elicit cooperation from foreign governments on abduction cases, we actively encourage 

countries to become party to the Convention, which, in addition to being the best option for 

parents seeking the return of their children, is also the best means of ensuring that countries share 

the same objectives for resolving IPCA. 

Since his confirmation last year, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs Carl C. Risch has 

personally raised IPCA in bilateral meetings with the governments of India, Brazil, and 

Indonesia. I can assure you that Assistant Secretary Risch is highly engaged with the issue and 

raises IPCA at every available opportunity both in Washington and overseas. 

In February of this year, I traveled to India to encourage government officials there to resolve the 

numerous abduction cases they have, and for India to join the Convention. Although India is not 

party to the Convention and has demonstrated a pattern of noncompliance as defined in the Act, I 

believe, based on my recent trip, and due to persistent engagement on TPCA from other officials, 

India is beginning to work with us to find practical solutions for children who are abducted 

between our two countries. 

Also in February, the Director of Children's Issues, Ted Coley, traveled to South Africa, 

Botswana, and Zambia with a member ofCI's Africa team. As partners under the Convention, 

our meetings with South Africa's Central Authority, and other government offices served to 

strengthen our relationship and promote the Convention in the region. The visits to Botswana 

and Zambia were to determine the viability and development of accession to the Convention and 

partnership under the Convention, respectively. All three countries positively received the visit, 

and we came away with optimistic messages and a plan for forward action in the region. 

In addition to my work and the work of CI, our embassies and consulates around the world play 

an important role in addressing IPCA. From the highest levels within our embassies to the 

dedicated staff of American Citizens Services sections, our colleagues abroad work tirelessly to 

raise the profile of this serious issue while advocating for local laws to assist parents seeking 

their children's return to the United States, accession to the Convention, and effective 

implementation of the treaty. 

In 2017, we welcomed Fiji as our 76th partner under the Convention, and we welcomed 

Jamaica's, Pakistan's, and Tunisia's accession to the Convention. Our work, therefore, in 2018 

has been to build on this success and strive to bring additional countries into the Hague 

community. 

Our goal is to see abducted children returned to their communities as quickly as possible and in 

accordance with the Convention. 
11


29692a-4.eps

The Annual Report on International Parental Child Abduction 2018 

Since 2007, we have reported the impact of lPCA around the world. Our 2018 Report will be 

released soon. We continue to strive to not only meet the requirements of the Act, but also to 

provide useful infonnation to parents, courts, and organizations to help prevent and resolve these 

heart wrenching cases. We have taken feedback from previous years and are committed to 

providing a valuable resource to the American public. We believe the 2018 Report will be a 

responsive and helpful tool for all stakeholders. 

Continued Efforts for Resolutions 

Despite the progress made, there are families that continue to suffer as their children are 

wrongfully removed or retained across an international border. We continue to use all 

appropriate tools to help facilitate the resolution of abduction cases globally. 

The judicial delays that affect most of our Convention cases in Brazil are unacceptable. First 

instance courts often take one to two years to make determinations, and the appeals process can 

add years to the life-cycle of a case. We raise these issues publicly and with senior Brazilian 

officials whenever appropriate. In 2017, we continued our persistent efforts to resolve cases and 

improve compliance throughout the year. The Brazilian government also undertook initiatives to 

improve judicial compliance with the Convention. Over the last year, several of our longstanding cases were resolved; the Brazilian judiciary facilitated the return of four children to the 

United States, and ordered access agreements for three other children. We are pleased by this 

progress and will discuss it further in our upcoming report. 

Tn our 2014 testimony to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee we stated that while "Japan 

has been one of the most intransigent countries regarding I PCA cases for many years, Japan's 

decision to ratify the Convention opens a new chapter in its approach to TPCA." As we have 

reached the fourth anniversary of Japan's becoming party to the Convention, I would like to 

share with the Committee my candid view of the strengths and weaknesses we have seen in 

Japan both as a Convention partner and in regards to abductions that occurred before the 

Convention came into effect. Prior to joining the Convention, Japan was historically resistant to 

the idea that access to both parents is usually in a child's best interest. As a result, Japan had a 

wide cultural and legal gulf to cross when it ratified the Convention. 

Over the past four years, we established a close working relationship with Japan's Central 

Authority and have regular discussions with our Japanese counterparts about steps we can take to 

improve the resolution of IPCA cases. We have seen many positive developments in Japan. 

There was a 46 percent decline in the number of new reported abductions to Japan in the three 

years after the Convention came into force compared with the previous three years. Japan made 

significant efforts to educate its citizens and government officials to prevent abductions. We 

have also seen a significant improvement in the resolution of abduction cases. Since the 

Convention came into force, we submitted 18 applications for return to the Japanese central 

authority. Of these, nine were resolved by voluntary arrangements between the parents and five 

were resolved by judicial decisions. We are also aware of four additional cases where the 

parents reached a voluntary agreement prior to an application being submitted to the JCA. 
12


29692a-5.eps

In spite of all of these positive developments, there is a serious flaw in Japan's implementation 

of the Convention. When a taking parent refuses to comply with a return ordered pursuant to the 

Convention, Japanese authorities have very limited means to enforce the order. ln 2017, we had 

two cases in Japan that were unresolved for over twelve months as a result of the failure of 

Japanese authorities to enforce return orders. This is unacceptable and I am deeply concerned 

that, as a result, there is a pattern of Japan not complying with its obligations under the 

Convention. I am personally engaged on this issue with the Japanese government. I urged them 

to create a mechanism ensuring that judicial orders will be enforced in a timely manner. While 

this issue remains unresolved, I am pleased to report that there is progress. 

The Government of Japan is reviewing its enforcement procedures, and recently, the Japanese 

Supreme Court ruled that a taking parent's failure to comply with a Convention court return 

order violated Japanese law, constituting the illegal detention of the child. As a result, it appears 

that Japan's civil courts can apply habeas corpus measures to compel the return of a child to the 

United States. While these are hopeful signs, we will not rest until Japan's enforcement system 

is fully compliant with Convention obligations. 

Regarding the abduction cases that occurred prior to Japan's ratification of the Convention, we 

have met regularly with the Japanese Foreign Ministry to review these cases and see where there 

are opportunities to resolve these cases. Here again, there has been progress, but also 

disappointment. Since Japan ratified the Convention in 2014, more than half of the left-behind 

parents in pre-Convention abductions cases achieved some form of access to their children. The 

remaining cases are some of the most difficult and heartbreaking cases that we have. Tn the 

international arena, custody orders entered by State courts in the United States are generally not 

enforceable outside the United States, and the reach of the United States may be limited by 

decisions of separate sovereign states and their independent judiciaries. 

In all of the pre-Convention cases, we continue to support the left-behind parents and their 

children to the best of our abilities. Each case is different, and each person must decide what 

steps make the most sense in his or her case. Their options may include criminal measures, 

mediated solutions, and legal action in civil court. We work tirelessly to bring mediation and 

legal resources to left-behind parents, and with our colleagues in law enforcement to resolve 

cases where criminal charges exist. With remaining pre-Convention cases in Japan, we stand 

ready to support parents when they decide what steps are right for their families. 

Prevention 

Fighting for individual returns is not enough. Getting a child back can be infinitely harder than 

preventing the abduction in the first place, so we have made prevention a cornerstone of our 

efforts. From a child's first U.S. passport application, we work to prevent children from 

becoming victims of international parental child abduction. 

In 2017, we enrolled over 4,000 children in Child Passport Issuance Alert Program (CPIAP) and 

helped enroll over 200 children in the Department of Homeland Security's program aimed at 

preventing IPCA. In both cases this represents an increase and for CPIAP, a 13 percent increase, 
13


29692a-6.eps

over the prevention services we provided in 2016. We work with U.S. and foreign law 

enforcement agencies, airlines, and others to prevent children from being unlawfully removed 

from the United States. Our prevention officers are available around the clock and through our 

broad public affairs campaign, we encourage parents to reach out to us for information that can 

help thwart abductions before they happen. 

The Department of State works closely with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to help 

ensure that parents who have court orders prohibiting the international travel of a child can 

request assistance from CBP and U.S. law enforcement to prevent outgoing abductions. 

Conclusion 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Bass, distinguished Members of the Subcommittee; the Act has 

significantly reinforced our work to address the complex problem ofTPCA. 

Tn our efforts to return abducted children to their places of habitual residence, we are using all 

effective means available to us under the law. This is our mission. The Department of State 

weaves our concerns about TPCA into our diplomatic discourse with nations around the globe. 

We remain convinced that the Convention's framework is a worldwide standard and we continue 

to encourage new countries to accede to the Convention. Where that may not be an option, we 

continue to use all available tools to encourage the resolution of abductions through persistent 

diplomatic engagement, an approach that has produced results with many countries around the 

world. 

We appreciate the tools provided to us, including the option of actions provided in the Act. We 

take actions based on the conclusions of the Annual Report and on the Act, and take action any 

time we consider it to be timely and effective. We frequently deliver demarches and discuss 

cases with senior government officials in countries that have demonstrated a pattern of 

noncompliance. These are very frank conversations, and we are adamant that each country be 

aware of the importance of this issue and, when appropriate, point out the possible consequences 

provided in the Act. For example, Tunisia was cited every year since the passage of the Act. We 

consistently held frank discussions with all levels of government, including the President, on the 

importance of resolving cases and joining the Convention and used the tools within the Act to 

demonstrate the seriousness we place on these actions. Tn 2017, as a result of sustained 

diplomacy, all open abductions were resolved with the return of the children to the United States. 

Additionally, Tunisia acceded to the Convention. We will report on our continuing engagement 

with foreign countries in the follow up Action Report. 

We constantly strive to increase our effectiveness and always look for ways to collaborate with 

our partners, including you, Members of Congress, who have committed so much time and 

energy to addressing this very important and urgent issue. 

Thank you. 
14

Mr. SMITH. I thank you so very much. 

If I could, Ms. Lawrence, if you could tell us—you said you raised 

with India and Japan, other countries. What was India’s response 

when you raised it? When you spoke in Japan not only about 

Hague cases since they have become—acceded to it but all the preHague cases, the legacy cases, what was their response? What did 

they say they were going to do and did you do it by name? Did you 

raise specific cases? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. I’ll 

start with India. So I was in India in February, and I met with a 

number of staffers before I went to India to discuss some of the 

issues that we have had. 

When I was there, I was joined, of course, by the team at our 

mission there, and I know that that has been a concern previously 

to have our chiefs of mission, our Ambassadors engaged, and I can 

assure you that Ambassador Juster has taken this onboard from 

the time he arrived to take up his responsibilities there through 

today, and he will continue to advocate on behalf of the families 

that are, tragically, affected by this issue. 

He had meetings with Minister Gandhi, who is the head of India’s Ministry for Women and Child Development, and when I traveled to India it was, hopefully, to build on some of the momentum 

that we felt the Indian Government was showing with regards to 

accession to the convention and also with the willingness to work 

with us on those pre-convention or the current cases. 

I met with a range of individuals. I was in Chennai. I was in 

Delhi. I spoke with the attorney general for India. I spoke with 

members of the judiciary. I spoke with Minister Gandhi at the Ambassador’s residence. 

I spoke with opponents to the convention, proponents of the convention. It is an issue that we will not stop advocating for. 

We have engaged with—as you know, the Chandigarh Committee 

was the committee that the Indian Government put together to investigate a recommendation that they would make to the Indian 

Government about accession to the convention. 

We have spent several hours answering questions with the 

Chandigarh Committee. I spent another hour-plus with the 

Chandigarh Committee via digital video conference, again addressing some of the myths that persist about the types of cases we are 

talking about and also about what the convention actually means. 

So we did have a range of meetings. We had them at the highest 

levels of the government. Ambassador Juster has raised this at the 

highest levels of the government, and we are told that they are still 

considering accession to the convention. 

With respect to the cases that we have now, we have offered to 

the Indian Government to sit down and meet on all of those cases 

individually and, again, in my conversations I have emphasized 

that if we sat down and looked through all of those cases, that in 

and of itself would inform them of the scope of the problem and 

perhaps open up some areas where they could work productively to 

resolve some of these cases. 

Without the convention or any other protocols in place for these 

cases, the parents are left to pursue their custody of abducted chilVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:04 May 15, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\041118\29692 SHIRL
15

dren in the Indian courts and typically the resolution of custody 

cases in India has been slow. 

Indian courts generally do not order the return of abducted children to the United States, and in general, custody is given to the 

taking parent and the parents are left really to pursue their matter 

in the court system which has not been a very effective method. 

So that is the short answer of my time spent there. I believe you 

also asked about Japan. In my travels there, again, I will say that 

Ambassador Hagerty has also been very engaged in this issue. 

He has raised this issue at the highest levels appropriate to him 

in the Japanese Government. I have myself met—I’ve been in this 

position for a little over 7 months. I’ve had four occasions to meet 

with the head of the Central Authority in Japan. 

And while, as I did in my opening statement, I have acknowledged that the number of cases has gone down since Japan acceded 

to the convention and that we have a very productive working relationship with the Central Authority, there are still problems with 

enforcement of judicial orders. 

When you cannot enforce those orders, it undermines confidence 

in the system and it does not bode well for the future of the convention with respect to Japan. 

So I met with, again, the Central Authority there. 

I met with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to talk about the preconvention cases. They are well aware of which cases those are. 

We meet regularly with them to review that they have the correct cases that we consider to be open pre-convention cases and, 

again, we are in some—to some degree stymied by the fact—and 

I know the parents who are affected by these pre-convention cases 

are reluctant, under the convention, to even file an access case because they also feel that in the instance where there might a judicial ruling that would give them some sort of access that the enforcement of that ruling also would be ineffective or not take place. 

So I have made those concerns known. The Ambassador has 

made those concerns known. We also met with the officials from 

the Indian Embassy and the Japanese Embassy here in Washington to deliver those same messages. 

Mr. SMITH. What’s your take on the Foreign Minister saying how 

did the department respond to his comments that they are not 

going to be put on the list of noncompliant countries, there has 

been no enforcement, no sanctions meted out as they should be? 

You know, when a country shows such a pattern of noncompliance, the decision to enforce it ought to be almost automatic. 

There can be mitigating circumstances. We all know that. But in 

Japan’s case, they are gaming the system. And so your answer to 

that, and also Mr. Cook’s comment about the required voluntary 

compliance from the abductor for enforcement to occur, when the 

abductor says no he will write and say enforcement ends. 

That seems to be—I have to say when the previous administration kept arguing that if they just signed the Hague our problems 

will go away and the legacy cases would take care of themselves. 

There would be a good will that would be generated and would 

lead to resolution and not resolution by way of aging out so it’s no 

longer a case that we look at. 

16

I traveled with Mike Elias’ mother and father to Japan, raised 

all of these issues and said, look, to me it seems like the nose on 

my face it’s so stark, looking in the mirror. 

You can’t get away from it that, one, the past cases will be treated with even more prejudice than before if they sign the Hague and 

that when they get to enforcement they are going to do it in a way 

that it’s like Swiss cheese and it won’t happen. 

All of that has happened. I am not a prophet, but it seemed very 

clear from the conversations and from their past very quickly becoming a prologue. 

So this idea of required voluntary compliance from the abductor 

for enforcement, to me, that’s outrageous that a country, a great 

country like Japan, would use that kind of impediment. 

That makes all the Hague cases, you know, moot. It’s going to 

be, you know, a voluntary—you know, yes, you can have the children back. So why do you even need the Hague except for a nice 

backdrop to say, look, we have got a treaty and a convention. 

So if you could speak to those two, and again, when you talk 

about Michael Elias, one of the concerns that many of us have had, 

and we have this with several of our left-behind parents, as you 

know, these are military men and women who are deployed to 

Japan for the defense of Japan in Okinawa, in Yokohama, and 

other places. 

And then their child was abducted and then they ran into this 

buzz saw of opposition from a government that if Japan isn’t put 

on the noncompliant list this year, I can’t tell you how egregious 

that will be not to see that happen, and then followed very quickly 

thereafter with serious sanctions. 

You know, if President Trump—because Obama wouldn’t do it so 

let’s lay that aside—and I found that to be outrageous—but if 

President Trump can levy sanctions on China and talks sanctions, 

NAFTA—renegotiating NAFTA on economic issues and if our aluminum industry and steel and other things are so important, which 

they are, how about for people, for American children who’ve been 

abducted. 

That, to me, is in a class of its own, a league of its own, and 

there needs to be—if ever there was an America first, this looks 

like this is one of them—it’s the children. It’s their parents. 

So I would appeal to you because it starts with what your findings will be and then, obviously, it goes up the chain of command 

as to what they finally do. 

But it seems to me it’s a no-brainer. It’s been a no-brainer. This 

year it’s got to be. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We share your concerns, as I said, about Japan’s failure to enforce convention court orders and in many of my meetings I don’t 

only talk about the convention writ large or the issue of parentalchild abduction. 

But I do take it to that personal level. As you have referred to, 

these are people, these are their lives, and people need to be reminded that for someone who has not seen their child in a day, a 

week, a month, years, this is a life or death matter. 

17

This is a very important life-altering event, and we owe it to all 

of these children, all of these families, to continue to press where 

we need to press. 

When a Japanese parent—taking parent refuses to comply with 

the return order, we have found that Japanese authorities have 

very limited means to enforce the order and we have worked to 

broaden the discussion to different parts of the Japanese Government. 

But it will require some changes in their domestic legislation to 

give law enforcement the kind of power you’re talking about in 

terms of enforcement. 

And we have—we have raised our concerns about enforcement 

failures at the highest level. This year, the relevant entities across 

the Japanese Government have heard our call to take a whole-ofgovernment approach, and they have brought others to the table, 

and we have had a chance to talk to those agencies about the needed legislation to improve their enforcement of court orders. 

With respect to citations, we can’t, of course, discuss the individual country citation before we give the report to Congress and 

it’s published. 

But I can assure you that we have had a number of conversations about how those decisions are made and enforcement of convention court orders is a component of the Hague Convention. 

Your compliance with the convention also depends on your enforcement of court orders, and the department will most certainly 

take into account Japan’s enforcement failures in this year’s 

ICAPRA report. 

Mr. SMITH. Patricia Apy, who is the brilliant lawyer who was the 

lawyer for David Goldman—the American lawyer who just did a 

wonderful job in helping to make his reunification with this son, 

Sean, possible, she’s testifying today and in her comments notes, 

and I’d appreciate your reaction to this, prior to the enactment of 

the treaty—this is regarding Japan—parents who had pending abduction matters were sent from time to time urgent time-sensitive 

updates, repeatedly promised that the Hague ratification would enable them to at least secure access to their children. The promises 

were entirely illusionary. 

Now, those memos came from OCI, and I am wondering, how do 

you respond to that? I mean, here’s what the parents tell me, and 

I meet with so many of them. 

They get frustrated. They know that there are good people working—you and the others are wonderful people. But you do have the 

tools with the Goldman Act and it seems like those tools stay in 

the toolbox. 

We were just talking about access here, not even reunification 

and bringing those children back home. 

Your thoughts on that? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

We have already discussed a little bit about the pre-convention 

cases. But, again, we do continue to work with the parents who 

are—there are approximately 20 preconvention cases that remain 

active and we work with the left-behind parents to see which methods or avenues they might have available to them. 

18

As I said too in my written statement approximately half of those 

left-behind parents have achieved some access. It’s limited. Sometimes it’s a Skype call. Sometimes it’s an exchange of letters and 

gifts. 

We know of one parent who has had an in-person visit. Going 

back to what we just spoke about, if you’re a parent, that’s your 

child, is that adequate? 

That is not adequate. However, we continue to press, again, on 

this enforcement issue because I think a lot of parents are put off 

by the idea that even if they pursued an access case under the convention, their sense is there may be no effective mechanism to enforce the court order for access. 

And so, again, what I am saying to you here about access, about 

these parents, about their disappointment, is what I have said to 

Japanese officials and we will continue to say that, and I appreciate your support in carrying that method forward. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, again, putting Japan on the list and then enforcing it with sanctions will send the message that none of our 

words can possibly achieve. 

So that the Foreign Minister, so that the Prime Minister cannot, 

in their meetings, or even as he did before the Diet, claim accurately that there has been non-enforcement and they are not on 

any list. 

I can’t stress that enough. It would be negligence of the highest 

degree to leave them off the list, given their track record, which is 

abominable. 

I mean, if this were reversed and the U.S. was doing this, I could 

tell you I’d be holding hearings on that and pressing our own Government to, in the sense of reciprocity and good governance, to hold 

ourselves to account. 

And what we do in not putting them on the list has bearing with 

what the judges will do when they get a case before them. They 

will say, well, I guess Japan’s not so bad. 

And what’s your sense on that? So it’s not only is the risk factor 

to a potential abduction very high if the judges get the wrong information about a specific country, including Japan. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I’ve had a lot of opportunity to consider the efficacy of the report 

in and of itself as I travel around, as I meet with other countries, 

and it’s a really powerful tool. The convention is a powerful tool. 

The report is a powerful tool. 

As far as I am aware, we are the only country that produces a 

report like that, and I know what you mean by sanctions, but I can 

say that in my meetings very often the foreign counterparts will 

bring the report up. 

And I agree with you that the citations in the report can have 

very positive effects in terms of the actions that a country will 

take. 

Sometimes it takes a while. But I do think that the report is an 

extraordinarily valuable tool and for some countries they believe 

they are being sanctioned by having their—the citation in the report. 

19

And, of course, beyond the citations there are narratives in there 

that really talk about performance and countries are very keen to 

see how that will be characterized in the report. 

So I do believe that we have some tools at our disposal that are 

very meaningful to these countries. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Jayapal. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for having 

me here. Thank you for having this hearing and I want to thank 

you for your years of work on this important issue. 

I think we all understand that there are many of us that are 

deeply concerned and we are grateful to the State Department for 

your efforts over the years and I want to especially just recognize 

the families in the room that some of you have traveled. 

I know, as a mother, I cannot imagine the pain of what you have 

gone through and I want to thank you for continuing to be here 

and continuing to push for us to resolve these situations to bring 

children home to their—safely into their loving families. 

I was introduced to this issue—I am new to the issue but I was 

introduced to it by my constituent, Jeffrey Morehouse, who has 

been fighting for the return of his kidnapped son, Mochi, since Father’s Day of 2010, and that was the last time that Mr. Morehouse 

saw or heard from his son. 

And despite having custody of his son under Washington State 

law since 2007, a mutual agreement with his ex-wife that she 

would not travel outside of the state or get a passport—an agreement that the United States is actually Mochi’s home country—

that was all outlined in this agreement—and the jurisdiction for 

any custodial dispute, Mochi was still abducted. 

And Mr. Morehouse even took the preemptive step of notifying 

all of the Japanese consulates and their Embassy in the U.S. in 

writing that he was the custodial parent and requested that they 

deny any requests for a passport for Mochi. 

However, in June 2010, as you may know, his ex-wife was provided a passport for their son by the Portland consulate so he went 

over our state’s border into Oregon. He was provided a passport 

after being denied one by the Seattle consulate and in 2014 and 

2017 Mr. Morehouse then went and actually defended successfully 

his custodial rights in Japan where the courts ruled that his U.S. 

sole custody order is legal in Japan. 

His ex-wife has twice been denied custody rights under Japanese 

law and during proceedings she admitted to committing passport 

fraud and forgery in order to abduct Mochi to Japan. 

Mr. Morehouse is the executive director of Bring Abducted Children Home. He’s come to Washington, DC, over a dozen times on 

his own case and the more than 300 U.S. children that have been 

kidnapped to Japan since 1994 when the Office of Children’s Issues 

was formed. 

And yet for nearly 8 years he’s been shuttling back and forth between Seattle and Japan all in vain, and there have been some 

small victories but really nothing that has resulted in his actually 

reuniting with his son. 

And so I just wanted to follow up on the chairman’s questions 

and I apologize if you said some of this before I walked in the room. 

20

But my understanding is that we have provided in the Goldman 

Act a number of steps that can be taken and, obviously, the first 

of that is, you know, using the diplomatic channels. 

But there are others, and they go all the way up to formal requests to the foreign country to extradite somebody. But there is 

other things around an official public statement that details the 

unresolved cases. I guess that’s our report. 

I don’t believe we have done a public condemnation in any of 

these situations but perhaps you can educate me if we have, and 

I guess I am just—it seems clear to me from reading these, and I 

am, as I said, new to the issue but it seems clear to me that voluntary is not—is not going to produce the results we are looking 

for and that we can continue using diplomatic channels and we 

should. But we have provided other tools here for the State Department to utilize. 

And so I am just wondering what brings this issue to the threshold where—because we have already crossed the thresholds that 

are outlined in the Goldman Act, as I read it, and so how—what 

can you do differently to ensure, for example, that Japan is going 

to reunite Mr. Morehouse’s son because I—my deep concern is that 

the more these different countries see that the United States is not 

using the tools, the easier it gets for these countries to continue to 

just say, well, we will just work through diplomatic channels, 

which really means nothing would move forward. 

And so if you can just help educate me about how you see that. 

What is the threshold to move from one step to another within the 

tools that we have given to you and what can we possibly tell our 

families about what we are going to do differently than what we 

have been doing because, clearly, that has not produced the results 

we are looking for. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Congresswoman. 

Again, with respect to Japan, as the chairman has pointed out, 

we pursued their accession to the convention—Mr. Morehouse’s 

case is, clearly, pre-convention—and we have seen a result since 

they acceded to the convention in terms of a reduction in the number of reported cases and a resolution to the 2014 and beyond 

cases. 

We have actually, as a Central Authority to Central Authority, 

filed 18 cases with the Japanese Central Authority, and we have 

had resolution in 14 of those 18 cases. These are convention cases. 

Most of those have come through this voluntary mediation process. Again, we understand that enforcement of judicial orders is a 

failure, and it is something that we continue to work on. 

The Central Authority doesn’t have, it seems, the power or authority to make changes that would make enforcements work, 

which means we have had to broaden—ask them to bring other 

people to the table. 

We do consider all the tools we have at our disposal, and we do 

that with our interagency partners and try to use the best tool at 

the best moment on a case-by-case basis. 

I hear your concerns about the use of the other tools, and we continue to speak with our interagency partners and the rest of the 

department who clearly have interests in our bilateral relationships with many of these countries, Japan included, and we know 

21

that we have those tools at our disposal and consider them when 

we think they will be effective. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. So what would—what would move—what would 

move the threshold in order to use those tools? I am still not clear 

on that, because I understand you’re discussing with other agencies 

and maybe you could describe that a little bit more which are the 

agencies and departments that you routinely work with and are 

there some that have not engaged that need to be engaged? 

But I am just trying to understand what would be done differently now that has not been done before, because it’s very difficult for us to go back to our constituents who actually have gone 

through everything that they could possibly go through, both here 

in the United States and, in some cases, in the country where their 

child has been abducted to. 

What more do we need to do to ensure that you utilize those 

tools and crossed that threshold from just pure diplomatic advocacy? 

And I do—I just want to, you know, echo and recognize the work 

that you all have done. I think you have made tremendous progress 

in a number of places and particularly on those post-convention 

cases. 

But I feel like some of these—some countries are hiding behind 

that specific date and we are not getting resolution. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. And again, I think, Congresswoman, that from 

many countries’ point of view, citation in the report would be considered a serious step, and it has resulted in some profound 

changes in many places. 

As I said, we wouldn’t be able to talk right now about what citations will appear in this upcoming report, but we have had a number of conversations with our Japanese counterparts explaining our 

frustration with the lack of momentum on enforcement of orders. 

And in the case of Mr. Morehouse, because I’ve had the opportunity to meet with him a number of times, we have—the characterization of the history of his case is something that we have directly spoken with them about. 

So, again, we do our best to use the tools at our disposal. I don’t 

have a specific answer for you on what the threshold is. We are one 

voice, one part of the conversation, and I will take back certainly 

the frustration from Members of Congress on not utilizing the full 

range of tools. 

And we do feel that we are getting results from a lot of our engagement, certainly from the annual reports and certainly from the 

engagement by our chiefs of mission including Ambassador 

Hagerty. 

They are the President’s personal representative in that country 

and the chief of our bilateral relationship with that country, and 

I think their voice on these issues carries an enormous amount of 

weight. 

So we are working in the avenues that we think will produce the 

best results, and I take on board your point that you believe that 

there may be results from the use of other tools. 

At this point, the tools that we have employed and continue to 

employ have shown some results. 

22

Ms. JAYAPAL. You mentioned earlier that Japanese authorities—

I think I wrote this down—Japanese authorities have very limited 

means to enforce the orders. 

That seems to me to be—you know, if they are saying that I 

think it feels a little perhaps not fully forthright—that there are 

many more things that could be done and it seems to me that if 

they need to hear that this is critically important to us that that’s 

where that list of tools—and I don’t want to continue to harp on 

this point but I just think that at some point we need to move 

down that list. 

Otherwise, the act is not really being implemented the way I 

think the chairman and others had envisioned when we put it into 

place because it is working on some but I think we need to really 

look at that whole piece and I hope you hear our frustration in not 

seeing, particularly on certain cases that have been in process for 

a long time, not seeing any results there and not having anything 

to advocate for our children. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you, again, for that question and also for 

expressing that level of dissatisfaction with the progress to date because it is useful when we sit down and talk about the lack of enforcement. 

Again, I think when the United States Government was pursuing 

Japan’s accession to the convention we understood that there was 

quite a gulf in terms of the cultural norms and the way in which 

Japanese society viewed custody, and we knew that there would be 

a period of adjustment. 

When I say law, the Japanese Central Authority or the Ministry 

of Foreign Affairs is limited and also law enforcement is limited. 

It’s the perspective of how they carry out these kinds of judicial 

decisions, and we have spoken about that, and I think the chairman referred to a letter earlier that a number of the EU countries 

sent. 

Again, there is nothing in existence even in their domestic law 

about these kinds of enforcements of judicial decisions with respect 

to custody that are useful at this moment and that’s why, you 

know, we continue to implore them to look at ways to put into 

place domestic legislation that would also have an effect on these 

international cases and it’s something that we continue to talk 

about and raise at every opportunity. 

So thank you again for sharing your perspective with me and 

your frustration on that level. It is helpful when we are talking to 

our counterparts to explain that this is felt throughout the U.S. 

Government and it is on behalf of our citizens and our—and your 

constituents that we bring these matters to their attention and ask 

that they do something to resolve the problem. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Jayapal. 

Let me just note for the record, and I know you know this, Jeffrey Morehouse has done it by the book. He is so disciplined, like 

so many of the left-behind parents, dotting every I, crossing every 

T. 

He testified in May 2015 before our subcommittee—very, very 

comprehensive testimony he made. So thank you for raising his 

case. 

23

I’ll go to Dr. Harris in 2 seconds—as you may know I am the author of the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. That has sanctions 

on it. 

When Israel and South Korea, two of our closest allies, had—

were deemed to be Tier 3 egregious violators on human trafficking—they were worried about security assistance and other assistance, but particularly security assistance, being limited in some 

way. 

They change their laws. They enforced, in the case of Israel, existing law and they shut down the brothels and came into compliance within 1 year. 

Sanctions work, and if Japan doesn’t get it through your persuasion—and I thank you for trying so hard—it is time to lower the 

boom, please, with respect, and say, you have failed utterly. 

These longer-term cases are egregious. These families are broken, and security assistance, as you know, in the Goldman Act is 

one of those sanctions that can be levied upon a country. 

Dr. Harris. 

Mr. HARRIS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for giving me the opportunity to be at today’s hearing. 

And Ms. Lawrence, thank you for the work you do because, you 

know, there is some things where Americans have to look to the 

Federal Government as their one and only hope. 

There is just some issues that they—the Federal Government is 

the only thing that’s going to solve their problems and this is one 

of those issues. 

So and we probably, you know, move a little broader than just 

Japan but, obviously, the Goldman Act lists a series of escalating 

actions that the State Department can take when an international 

child case—abduction case remain unresolved. 

But I am curious—just to run down some of these things to see 

if, you know, what tools in the toolbox have been used, has the 

State Department cancelled or delayed any state visits, bilateral 

working groups, or other official visits in response to any unresolved abduction cases in any country? 

Because that’s one of the tools in the toolbox and that—you 

know, that seems like a pretty simple tool because some of these 

nations I think need a bilateral working relation. 

So has the State Department done that in any case? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. I’ve looked through the list of tools—thank you, 

Representative Harris, for raising that. I am sure that there have 

been some meetings or other events that may have been canceled, 

but I cannot speak to the fact if they were canceled directly related 

to the issue of international abduction. 

So I would have to go back and really——

Mr. HARRIS. If you can get back to me, that’s fine. And, you 

know, I sit on the Appropriations Committee so, you know, we 

want to make sure that American taxpayer dollars are spent appropriately and according to the law, including the Goldman Act. 

So has the State Department limited or suspended U.S. development assistance in response to any unresolved abduction cases 

since the act was passed 4 years ago? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. I am not—I am not aware of us having used that 

particular aspect of the act. 

24

Mr. HARRIS. Okay. How about foreign assistance? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Again, I am not aware of any instance where we 

have suspended foreign assistance in relation to the act. 

Mr. HARRIS. Okay. Even though you, clearly, have the ability? 

And the Appropriations Committee has never, you know, said you 

have to do it. But you’ve had the ability over the years, right? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Correct. 

Mr. HARRIS. What about security assistance, which I think the 

chairman has spoken about in terms of Japan? But there are other 

countries where that is important. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Again, I am not aware of where we have used 

that. 

Mr. HARRIS. Okay. The reason I am asking that is because one 

of my constituents, Stanley Hunkovic, has been fighting for the repatriation of his children since 2011. It’s a case, by the way, that’s 

mentioned in your annual report. 

His children, Gabriel and Anastasia, are American citizens who 

were abducted by their mother, Leah, and they are currently wards 

of the state in Trinidad and Tobago. So the issue of noncompliance 

with orders is kind of rendered moot because they are actually 

wards of the state. 

Now, he’s not been able to see or speak to them in years and 

until very recently the State Department could not even confirm 

the children’s whereabouts, much less their wellbeing. 

And that’s despite the fact that, again, the Goldman Act has 

been in place going on 4 years now. Can you commit to me today 

that the State Department will use any and all means at their disposal to pursue the return of any and all abducted American children, including Gabriel and Anastasia Hunkovic, from any country 

to which they’ve been abducted including Trinidad and Tobago? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Harris, for that question and 

thank you for your interest in his case. I know that one of—several 

of my colleagues will be meeting with you later this afternoon to 

discuss with you the latest developments in that case. 

Of course, this is a pre-convention case. Trinidad did join the 

convention, and we have had a productive relationship with them 

which, of course, does not take away from the pain that your constituent has expressed to you as he has worked through this very 

difficult situation. 

I absolutely will pledge to you that we do look at all the tools 

available. We will continue to consult with you. We will continue 

to consult with our interagency partners, with all of the stakeholders in the Department of State and use the tools that are most 

appropriate to get the best result. 

Mr. HARRIS. Well, let me—and thank you. No, thank you for that 

and, yes, I have met with people months ago and there is still no 

resolution. 

Of course, pre-convention is irrelevant because the Goldman 

sanctions apply to that case regardless of whether it’s pre-convention or post. Am I correct in that assessment? 

So that is—that makes no difference whatsoever, and the—these 

children—it’s now 7 years since they were abducted. They are 

wards of the state. 

25

The state actually has the legal authority over them. So I just 

don’t understand and, again, I can see where, you know, compliance with orders and things like that are different in other cases. 

In this case, Trinidad and Tobago has the ability to decide what’s 

best for these children consistent with international law and have 

not. 

So is it going to take literally an act of Congress in an appropriations bill to get you ramped up through the escalating sanctions 

that can occur in some of these countries that the State Department has been unwilling to pursue despite—again, this a 7-yearold case. 

You can only bang your head against the wall so many times til 

you realize you got to try something else. Is that what it’s going 

to take? 

I mean, I’d like to think the State Department is going to use 

the tools in the toolbox. But, honestly, we have gone down the list. 

You know, cancelling state visits—you know, that’s not—I mean, 

I know it’s something that would get someone’s attention but said 

you don’t—you’re not sure if that’s ever even been done. 

These are serious cases and I am sure the State Department 

takes them seriously. But I am not sure you use all the tools, and, 

I mean, we have the same tools, to be honest with you. 

I mean, we can limit anything we want to do because these are 

American taxpayers. Is that what it’s going to take? 

Are you really honestly going to say look, we are going to look 

at cases like this—7-year-olds, wards of the state. We have tried 

everything with Trinidad and Tobago. Seven years gone by. 

You know, that developmental assistance that you have been getting from us, which I am sure goes a long way in your country or 

that foreign assistance or that security assistance, I guess you just 

don’t need it. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Harris, again for bringing attention to this case in this venue. 

I know that my colleagues look forward to speaking with you a 

little bit more deeply later this afternoon to go through whatever 

options might be available to Mr. Hunkovic. 

It is a long time. As we have said before, these are not just 

issues. They are people and they are their children and it’s their 

lives and we take—we take that with us every time we go into 

these meetings. 

I know that you have had conversations with our Embassy there. 

I know you’ve had conversations with our office in the Western 

Hemisphere Bureau. I know you’ve had conversations with my colleagues in the Office of Children’s Issues. 

We are all working together to try and find a way forward and 

I hope that we will find a way to help resolve this case. It has gone 

on too long. 

Mr. HARRIS. I couldn’t agree more. I thank you. All that—my 

point is, I guess, it may be time for conversations to end and, 

again, if we need to apply the tools that the State Department is 

unwilling to apply, I am more than happy to do it for Gabriel and 

Anastasia and with that, I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

26

Just a few follow-on questions and then Ms. Jayapal has some 

additional questions as well. As you know, India is the country 

with the most long-standing abduction cases in the world. 

It has for many years been unwilling to join the Hague Convention. Close to 100 American children there are denied access to 

their American parent and suffer years in India’s family court system. 

We have numerous left-behind mothers in the United States who 

suffered both domestic violence from their husbands as well as abduction of their children to India. 

Ruchika Abbi and Dr. Samina Rahman are among them. They 

continue to suffer for lack of a resolution mechanism in India. 

Earlier this year, H.R. 3512, as I mentioned in my opening comments, was introduced. It would remove countries like India from 

GSP benefits until India begins to work cooperatively to resolve the 

abductions. 

Do you think an additional bill might limit India’s H-1B visas 

until abducted U.S. children are returned would also be helpful? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for mentioning the mothers who are left-behind parents. 

When I was in India, again, part of that narrative and part of 

the effort to unravel some of the myths surrounding international 

parental child abduction is that the taking parent is always the 

mother, and as we know, there are a number of mothers who are 

the left-behind parents. 

So that was, in part, as I suggested would be a useful lesson in 

going through all of the cases one by one to start looking at what 

patterns are really there. I think what you will find is that the pattern is that people know that they have a safe haven and we have 

made that known. 

And I think the only way out of this, as we have said, is to at 

least accede to the convention. I know we have discussed this with 

respect to Japan. 

It won’t cover the pre-convention cases in terms of returns, although there would be an access issue, but in the meantime to find 

a mechanism, whether that’s a memorandum of understanding, 

whether that’s a working group. 

We put all of these things on the table. We advocated for them. 

I think there is a lot to be gained by sitting down and looking individually at these cases and seeing what more can be done than to 

force the left-behind parent, whether it’s a mother or a father, into 

the Indian court system where they are not going to see a resolution. 

So, you know, again, I hear the range of tools that you are talking about. We are—we are willing to sit down and talk with you 

about what your ideas might be. 

I don’t know if our colleague from the Indian Embassy is still 

here. He was before. I can’t see out the back of my head. But I 

hope that he has also heard a lot of these comments and will take 

that back to the Embassy today. 

Mr. SMITH. And Bindu Philips from just outside of my district 

has a very similar case. Her husband not only—and the local police 

have reported this accurately—not only did he steal, she tried to 

visit her children. 

27

It was not a good experience. We are very concerned about this 

and if India is, again, not on the list, which I believe it will be, 

there needs to be a sanctions regime. 

I can’t stress it enough. We do it to our best friends in trafficking. We can do it with our best friends when American children 

are abducted. 

Let me ask one final question. Nico Brann was abducted to 

Brazil 5 years ago by his mother, Marcelle Guimaraes, with the 

help of her parents, Carlos and Jemia. 

In February, the parents were arrested in Miami, as you know, 

and then indicted by a Federal grand jury for international parental-child abduction and conspiracy. 

They now face 8 years in prison if convicted. But Marcelle, a dual 

U.S.-Brazilian national, remains a fugitive at large in Brazil with 

Nico. 

Under the Goldman Act, the Secretary of State has the authority, 

as you know, to ask for her extradition. While Brazil’s constitution 

forbids the extradition of Brazilian nationals, Brazil could 

denaturalize and extradite her just like they did in another case 

this year involving a dual national who was indicted for allegedly 

murdering her husband in Ohio. 

Given this precedent, will the U.S. now request that Brazil 

denaturalize and extradite Marcelle Guimaraes to the United 

States to face similar criminal charges? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I haven’t had the opportunity to let you know that I’ll be traveling to Brazil in a couple of weeks and many of the issues that 

you raised about Brazil will be on our agenda. 

Of course, as you know, a request to return a child under the 

convention is separate from the filing of criminal charges against 

a parent, and criminal charges are not generally initiated in order 

to influence the outcome of the civil matter. 

Mr. SMITH. But as you know, it’s already been done toward the 

grandparents. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Correct. And we remain in contact with the Department of Justice and I would have to defer to the Office of International Affairs there to speak on extradition because they do have 

lead on extradition. 

Mr. SMITH. Could you make that request or at least an inquiry 

as to whether or not this process can be followed? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. We will certainly—we will certainly follow up 

with the Department of Justice on this particular case and the 

issue, more broadly, and get back to you, of course. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Jayapal. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just wanted to—I forgot that I wanted to raise, and perhaps the 

chairman did in his opening statements, but the statements of the 

Japan’s—Japan’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Fumio Kishida, who 

observed recently that—and this is his quote—until now, there is 

not a single example in which the United States applied these actions, and he’s talking about the Goldman Act sanctions, toward 

foreign countries. 

28

And then he went on specifically to note that we had not labeled 

Japan as noncompliant, and 3 days later the Osaka High Court 

overturned a final return order for Mr. Cook’s four children. 

And so I just wanted to reiterate that and ask you whether—how 

you read that comment, because to me that comment goes back to 

what I said in my opening statement, which is that we are not 

being taken seriously. 

Nobody thinks that we are actually going to do anything with the 

tools that have been provided, and I think that’s extremely harmful 

because I do think that it also affects what happens in these courts 

in—around these cases in these various countries. 

And so I’d be interested in how you read that comment and what 

do you see as the—as the remedy to the idea that the United 

States is not actually going to do anything about these cases. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you again, Congresswoman, and thank 

you for raising Mr. Cook’s case. I know he’s on the next panel and, 

again, in his case he did everything right. 

So, again, we have made that point to our Japanese counterparts. I don’t know the context with which the Foreign Minister 

spoke. 

I don’t know why he chose to say what he did. I am not going 

to answer on behalf of the Japanese Government. I will leave that 

to them. 

What I can say is that when we have discussed their failure on 

enforcement and the shortcomings in terms of compliance with all 

aspects of the convention, we have discussed citations. 

We have discussed the full range of tools available, and I think 

there are many people that I have met with, certainly that Ambassador Hagerty has met with, that we have met with here in Washington who do understand the severity of what we are talking 

about. 

So, again, I can’t answer for that comment specifically. I don’t 

know why that comment was made or in what context. But I can 

say that the people that I have met with have heard our message 

and, again, I thank you for this time to speak about all of this 

openly and publicly. 

I think, in my almost three decades of serving the United States 

and working as a diplomat both here in Washington and overseas, 

we are most effective when we speak with one voice and when people know that we are serious and together on the issue. 

And so I appreciate the opportunity to have this dialogue and 

hope that this will reach some of our colleagues so they understand 

the seriousness with which Members of Congress view this issue. 

Thank you. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you. 

But I think I know why he said that, because it is true that 

Japan has not been designated as noncompliant. Do you think that 

there is a high likelihood that Japan might be designated as noncompliant? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you. 

Again, as I stated earlier and I think I’ve said a couple of times, 

I have been very clear with the head of the Japanese Central Authority and with all of the people that I have met with who have 

told us all of the things that they have done as a Central Authority 

29

and as a country to be a good partner under the Hague Convention 

and also to address pre-convention cases. 

My response has been we appreciate the development of the Central Authority. We appreciate whatever they have done to be a 

good partner. 

However, when we are looking at the full measure of their performance we must take note of the fact that they cannot enforce 

the court orders, and what we have said previously—and that gets 

to this comment—is that it undermines the confidence that people 

have in their seriousness with which they approach the convention. 

And so, again, there is no mistaking what we think about that 

aspect of their performance and, hopefully, they understand where 

we are. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you, Ms. Lawrence. I am going to yield 

back. 

But I do think it also undermines our credibility on—and our seriousness. It’s not just the Japanese Government’s seriousness. It’s 

the United States’ seriousness about how we approach these cases. 

And so I recognize that yours is a very challenging position and 

a very difficult job, and but I think what you’re hearing is we 

would like to see our seriousness reinforced around these cases. 

We’d like to bring these children home, and we’d like to make 

sure that the governments that we are interacting with understand 

that we do mean that. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Congresswoman. We have many 

shared objectives. 

Mr. SMITH. One just final question. As you know, we have talked 

a lot about enforcement or the lack thereof in Japan. 

Another threshold for a country being found noncompliant is judicial decisions inconsistent with the Hague Convention. As we will 

hear from Mr. Cook next, the courts in Japan reversed the final return order in his case because they thought it would be bad for the 

children to live in an apartment in the United States. 

Do you believe this public decision by Japan is consistent with 

the Hague Convention’s exception to return Article 13-B, grave risk 

of psychological or physical harm or an intolerable situation? How 

Japan’s de novo best interest determination here affects future 

cases? I mean, it’s an awful precedent but I’d appreciate your 

thoughts and response. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think that one of the areas that we work on very carefully is 

education through seminars, through workshops, through exchanges of information, through our Hague network of judges. 

We have had many discussions with many partners about the exceptions in the convention and the use of those exceptions. Again, 

I think Mr. Cook did everything he could in the correct way, and 

so, we do look to improve always the consistency of the decisions 

over time and the application of the convention. 

That’s the purpose of the convention. And, I also would mention, 

because this case has gone on for some time, that the purpose of 

the convention is to bring a quick resolution. 

It’s to return the child to the country of habitual residence unless 

the case falls within those very specific exceptions. That’s the purpose of the convention. 

30

As you mentioned at the outset, time is not a good thing in these 

cases. This is not to our advantage for the child, for the family, for 

anybody. 

And so again, we are looking for application of the convention, 

correct implementation. We are looking for speedy results. That is 

in the best interests of all the people involved in these tragic circumstances. 

And so, I have heard your concerns, and we share your concern 

for——

Mr. SMITH. But publicly on the issue of living in an apartment, 

and the only reason he lives in an apartment is all the money he 

has spent in adjudicating this case—paying the lawyers’ fees and 

everything else. 

So he’s been drained by the process and now that’s used against 

him by a court in Japan. Do you find that outrageous? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. As I said, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cook did everything he could and——

Mr. SMITH. But it’s not a viable——

Ms. LAWRENCE. We have pointed that out to——

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Point for Japan to take, is it? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Correct. We went and talked specifically about 

this case as well. Again, we are looking for consistent implementation of the convention, which will give people confidence in the convention and that’s to everyone’s advantage. 

And, again, these should be speedy resolutions. The children 

should be returned to the case of—to the country of habitual residence, and the courts are the place to properly decide custody of 

children. It is not a unilateral action by one parent. That is not the 

way to do this. 

So thank you again for those comments and that will be helpful 

to us. 

Mr. SMITH. Just for the record, could you tell us how many cases 

were resolved last year in Japan? 

Ms. LAWRENCE. I don’t have the exact number. As I said, I only 

have a number from when they acceded to the convention. 

We, as I said, had filed 18 cases officially. 

Mr. SMITH. How many children does that——

Ms. LAWRENCE. And I don’t know the total number of children 

affected but 14 of those cases were resolved. Again, they were resolved through voluntary means, perhaps mediation. None were resolved through enforced court orders. 

Mr. SMITH. None were resolved. So, again, all the more reason 

why, in neon lights, Japan isn’t on the list. 

I remember in the journalism class, the first one I took—and I 

wish it was followed by many of our journalists today—was the 

three A’s of journalism—it’s accuracy, accuracy, accuracy. Get the 

book right. 

I mean, what we do in terms of what you do, because you do 

have discretion in terms of following the prescribed potential sanctions. Reasonable men and women have to decide what is the best 

way to get from here to there. 

By just stating the clear truth with the backdrop of the Goldman 

Act as the criteria, I don’t see how Japan can be anywhere but is 

my complaint. 

31

Thank you. I appreciate your testimony and your service. 

Ms. LAWRENCE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. I’d like to now welcome our second panel, beginning 

first with Patricia Apy, internationally well known expert, an attorney practicing international and interstate family law. 

Among many countries in which she has litigated, been an expert 

witness or served as a consultant on international family disputes 

are the United Kingdom, Brazil, the United Arab Emirates, Italy, 

Pakistan, Australia, India, Japan, South Africa, Israel, Lebanon, 

and Canada. 

She is frequently sought out by both family law attorneys and 

litigants nationwide to serve as an expert co-counsel in their own 

state courts on international matters. Notably, Ms. Apy is an attorney—was the attorney for David and Sean Goldman, successfully 

resolving the 5-year abduction case with Brazil with Sean’s return 

to the United States in 2009. 

Ms. Apy consulted very broadly with us, provided expert counsel 

while we were writing the Goldman Act and I am forever grateful 

to her for that, which passed into law and is now the subject of 

part of this implementation hearing. 

I’d also like to introduce Mr. James Cook. As the father of four 

children, two sets of twins, who were abducted and are in Japan. 

At this time, he has only been allowed one visit with his children 

and has not been allowed any access to them since August 2015. 

Mr. Cook works for Boston Scientific Corporation, a manufacturer of medical devices in Minnesota. Mr. Cook testified before 

this committee before twice during his ordeal, beginning with the—

begging, asking, appealing to the State Department to take action. 

Ms. Apy, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF MS. PATRICIA APY, INTERNATIONAL AND 

INTERSTATE FAMILY LAW ATTORNEY, PARAS, APY, AND REISS 

Ms. APY. Thank you, Chairman Smith and distinguished members of the committee. It’s a privilege to return. 

My first testimony before the subcommittee in support of the 

Goldman Act was actually in 2009. So I’ve been living with this act 

and its implementation, particularly in the context of private practice since that time. 

I would respectfully request that my written statement be included in the formal record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ms. APY. Thank you. 

I had the opportunity to listen to the prior testimony and I think 

it would be most helpful if I addressed some of the issues and the 

questions that were raised at that testimony from a practical perspective. 

The very first thing that I want to say is that the work of this 

subcommittee in—which went on for a number of years with extensive hearings with a great deal of work, created an act which has 

had an immediate impact on the prevention of child abduction. 

The report that was—that is a strong part of the act was actually 

opposed by the United States Department of State along with the 

body of the act when it was originally preferred. 

32

The opposition was that it would not be effective, that it would—

that it would be met with a response diplomatically that would not 

foster the return of children, that it was not consistent with the abduction convention. 

All of those criticisms proved to be untrue. In fact, the number 

that you’ve been given for the reduction in the amount of cases of 

child abduction is a direct result of American judges who have had 

the opportunity to review the report and to make a determination 

whether asked by individual parents for preventative measures to 

make a determination objectively based on that information as to 

whether or not there exist obstacles to recovery of children systemically in a country. This is without necessarily consideration of the 

individual characteristics of the parties. 

So, for example, if a judge is looking at a report and it indicates 

that there is a noncompliant state, the judge then knows that there 

needs to be a broader and more protective aspect of parenting and 

access protections, which is why language is so important. 

One of the things what concerns me about the report and concerns me about the testimony that we have heard today is that language has been used very loosely, and I want to point out some of 

the places so that this committee can appreciate it and consider it 

in some of the questions that have been raised in some of the legislative actions which may need to be taken. 

First of all, you keep hearing the word resolved—cases are resolved. Let me remind the committee that the—under the convention—we are talking about convention cases—there is one remedy 

that is provided with respect to an abduction and that is return. 

The Hague Convention does not address custody. It doesn’t address jurisdiction. It addresses the return of a child wrongfully removed or retained outside of the child’s habitual residence. 

With respect to the organization of rights of access, there is one 

remedy. It is that there is an identifiable opportunity for actual access between a parent and their child. 

In the reports that went along with the original identification of 

the organization of rights of access, access was supposed to be the 

ability of a child, for example, to return and visit the other country 

of the parent, whether it’s a left-behind parent or a parent in a 

case in which the parties just live in other countries. 

That’s not what you’re hearing in either the testimony or in the 

reporting. When you hear resolution, a careful follow-up question 

is how many returns have there been, and the answer is there have 

been none. 

When you’re asked how many—what are the—there was a reference to half of the cases that were filed when Japan ratified the 

convention, providing an opportunity for access. 

The careful follow-up question, and I believe I did hear some response to this, is that the access that provided is not an identifiable 

access order. 

It might have been one Skype call. They are including the definition of access the ability to send packages to a child without any 

contact whatsoever. Nothing in the convention contemplates that 

as access. 

So the first piece that has to be addressed is that the report has 

to be accurate because an American judge had to know that in fact 

33

there is no ability to obtain an access order if a child is retained 

in Japan, for example. There is no ability for a U.S. order in any 

state to be provided an opportunity for enforcement. 

The Hague Abduction Convection is a reciprocal treaty which, of 

course, means that both parties have to be signators, have to have 

provided the responsibilities under the treaty and to afford those 

responsibilities. 

It is not a situation in which you can merely assert a treaty is 

applicable whether or not it is actually—there is actually been any 

type of treaty relationship. 

I need to point out that in the written remarks that you’ve been 

provided there is reference, for example, to a number of countries 

and work on the part of the Department of State with respect to 

those issues. 

I have to caution that that information is inaccurate. In fact, Jamaica, Pakistan, and Tunisia have deposited their accessions with 

the Hague Conference but their accessions have not been accepted 

by the United States Department of State. 

So there is no treaty relationship right now that exists with respect to those countries. With respect to Fiji, I agree that we—they 

reference it as having been welcomed as a partner. But you should 

know that the accession was deposited in 1999 originally, and it’s 

taken until now. 

And again, that there could be very good reasons for the failure 

to accept the accession of a country that has indicated that they 

are filing it. 

In the prior testimony, you heard repeated reference to Japan acceding to the convention. So we are clear, Japan did not file letters 

of accession. 

Japan, once it ratified, became immediately affected. The United 

States had no oversight or—and there was no ability to accept the 

accession. 

Why that is important is that there—the idea that they would 

need some time to get up to speed, as you have heard, referenced 

that there was no way to place any conditions or to impact on the 

way the treaty was going to be applied in Japan. 

As I’ve testified in prior hearings, I was deeply concerned that 

Japan would ratify the treaty and what would follow is exactly 

what we have and that is it is in name only. 

One of the most important aspects of the report has to be its accuracy and its transparency. If a country is listed as compliant, 

then a judge sitting in Washington State is going to look at the report and believe that a parent requesting the opportunity to visit 

that country will be doing so under an effective and existing mechanism for the return of the child. 

Without accurate information and accurate language, it creates 

the impression that there is a reciprocal active relationship. Same 

with if we are talking about context of countries in which there are 

difficulties going on with their treaty partnership. 

There has to be transparency about where the difficulties are 

even if it’s a circumstance in which the State Department is reticent to list them as noncompliant. You still have to identify oh by 

the way, they are not going to enforce an order. They are not going 

34

to provide rights of access. You’re not going to be able to have a 

child returned. 

That, to me, the unapologetic identification of actual issues in 

the report has got to be—has got to be the number-one issue that 

the United States Department of State does as it addresses and 

provides the information in this report. 

The second issue that was addressed and questions were asked 

that I think is extremely important is accurately describing what 

steps are being taken when you have identified that a country is 

noncompliant, there are a number of standard phrases that are 

found in the report that are not descriptive and not helpful. 

For example, talking about we are working with, we are talking 

with, we are trying to find practical solutions, we are working on 

educational opportunities are not responsive, very frankly, to the 

issues of the particular difficulties that you would find in the country. 

For example, if we were talking about a country where the problem is the enforcement of orders where the mutual recognition of 

orders depended upon the nature of the problem, you might want 

to seek the entry of a mirror order in that country so there are orders in both places before a child is permitted to visit. 

You might have additional passport and border restrictions that 

you would not otherwise have. There was reference in testimony to 

India. I think it’s very important that this committee understand 

that India has taken a formal position against the execution of the 

treaty. 

There is—a study was commissioned in 2009. During the time 

period of that study, which took a number of years, most lawyers 

and judges supported the India joining the convention. 

However, the Indian Government, when that issue was pressed 

and it was provided to public comment, strongly took the position 

that they believed, rightly or wrongly, that the treaty would not be 

a benefit to their citizens. 

In particular, it focused on the ability to permit, as they said, 

women to return to India without the necessity of having to respond or return children to their habitual residences. 

That’s a formal position. It’s not an educational problem at this 

point, especially given the length of time which, of course, gets us 

to the systemic problem of diplomacy. 

There is a reference in the—in the written remarks of the Special 

Advisor that is a little bit concerning and that is a reference to diplomatic efforts. 

She indicates much of the day-to-day diplomatic engagement on 

abduction matters is handled by country officers in the Office of 

Children’s Issues. 

There is no question that country officers work individual cases. 

But the Goldman Act was designed to go beyond the particular 

issue of any individual case and to broaden the concept of fighting 

child abduction by looking at diplomatic tools in an objective matter. 

The point is, as I’ve testified before, no individual parent should 

have to become, if you will, an officer of the United Stated Department of State and engaged on a state level basis in determining 

what the problems are with compliance or reciprocity. 

35

I could not hear in the testimony and I am unaware of any objective process that has been instituted by the United States Department of State with respect to any of the tools as we have called 

them addressing noncompliant countries. 

The last time I am aware of there having been any of actions like 

the tools that have been described were before this act was in place 

and that was in the case of David Goldman when, based on individual effort and effort of the chairman and effort of members of 

the Senate in addressing this issue. 

Those elements were done from the congressional side. They 

were not recommended by the United States Department of State 

and they were not supported by the United States Department of 

State. 

Nevertheless, they were incredibly effective in the return. When 

you have countries like we have had in the report since its inception that have remained on the noncompliant list, there has to be 

an objective process and you have to have, as Members of Congress, an objective report as to was a recommendation made that 

certain of these tools be employed. 

And I didn’t hear that there is even a process in place for OCI—

Office of Children’s Issues—to identify what steps they have taken 

and what the responses are so that you can not only address the 

problems with respect to your constituents but so that you can address in the committees in which you sit and the legislative determinations that you make, whether or not that is a consideration 

you have to have available. 

In my discussions with attorneys and judges throughout the 

world who address these issues, particularly in countries that have 

been identified as noncompliant, they are almost unanimously in 

support of the concept that understanding that pressure will be 

placed upon the country on a systemic basis will make a difference 

in treaty compliance and will make a difference in looking at these 

issues seriously. 

With respect to, for example, the use of memorandums of understanding, their ideal for the circumstances in which there is an 

educational issue, you can identify where are the problems. 

You can identify what actions have to be taken and what time 

frame, and until they are, you can then notify judges and lawyers 

in the United States that there does not currently exist a reciprocal 

treaty relationship. 

Again, when this was originally—when this act was originally 

addressed, the concern was that it would somehow tie the diplomatic hands of the United States Department of State. 

Well, to my knowledge, since this act was—has been enacted, 

other than a demarche, there has been no diplomatic action taken, 

no requests or any objective process employed or recommendations 

that I am aware of for the imposition of any of the tools that you’ve 

identified. 

My final point that I would like to address is the issue of border 

control, and I do note that in the—in the report that was provided 

by Ms. Lawrence, there is a reference to the Department of State 

working closely with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and referencing numbers. 

36

May I tell you that the number 200 children being enrolled in 

the program, Homeland Security’s program, which is authorized by 

ICAPRA, is woefully low. 

We have had thousands of orders for protective measures. There 

are significant difficulties in getting families onto this list. The review process that’s been employed with an extra step by the Department of State has been difficult. There has been a lack of communication back to judges as to whether or not children are on or 

off the list, creating abduction risk. 

So that number is not a positive. Two hundred is woefully low. 

It evidences that there is a lack of implementation that needs to 

be looked at, seriously. 

I’d be happy to take any of your questions or address any of the 

countries that are referenced with which I have experience that 

might be helpful. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Apy follows:]

37


29692b-1.eps

TESTIMONY 

OF 

PATRICIA E APY 

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA 

GLOBAL HEALTH, GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

HEARING 

ON 

No Abducted Child Left Behind: An Update on the Goldman Act 
38


29692b-2.eps

Chairman Hon. Christopher H. Smith (NJ) ; Ranking Member Hon. Karen Bass (CA) and 

distinguished Members of the Committee, a number of which before whom I have previously 

had the privilege of offering testimony as you continue to confront the enormous task of 

preventing International Parental Abduction: 

My name is Patricia Apy. As reflected in the information outlining my professional 

experience, much of the last three decades I have concentrated my practice primarily on 

international child custody litigation, with particular attention to cases of the wrongful removal 

and retention of children who have been removed or retained to countries which either are not 

compliant with the Treaty obligations found in the Hague Convention on International Child 

Abduction, or have not ratified the Treaty I had the privilege of working closely with those 

drafting the Sean and David Goldman International Parental Kidnapping Prevention and Return 

Act of 2014. I have, since August of 2014 worked closely with the application of the law, and 

have written and spoken extensively regarding the practical preventative measures initiated by 

the Act. I append to my remarks, "The Case for Reciprocity, Significance of the International 

Child Abduction Prevention and Recovery Act, in the Private Practice of International Family 

Law" New Jersey Lawyer October 2015, in which I provided a detailed evaluation of the legal 

and diplomatic components of the Act, and its impact upon the international practice of family 

law. 

In addition to my continuing work in litigating the retrieval of children who have been 

wrongfully removed or retained world-wide, I have served as an expert witness throughout this 

country, assisting Judges and lawyers in evaluating and implementing requests for preventative 

measures in family law cases. It is that perspective that I hope to share in my brief remarks. 
39


29692b-3.eps

Today l wish to focus on: 

• A review of how the !CAPRA, and its reporting requirements are being used throughout 

the United States. 

The importance of the reporting requirements of !CAPRA to the prevention of parental 

abduction; why accuracy and transparency are crucial , 

• Why it is essential to accurately and unapologetically identify all non-conforming states, 

identifying the obstacles to recovery of children wrongfully removed or retained there; 

• Point out the importance of identifying precisely what steps are being taken to address 

any systemic difficulties that the Office of Children's Issues is encountering with any 

particular country; 

• Advocate that the Department of State be required (as provided for in the express 

language of the Act) to identify the steps that have been taken to ameliorate identified 

obstacles to recovery and to move beyond mere demarche and use affirmative tools of 

MOUs coupled with specific diplomatic actions to influence the actions of other 

countries, particularly those identified as non-conforming. 

To illustrate the issues I am prepared to discuss Japan, which has not demonstrated treaty 

compliance, yet has not been identified as a non-confonning state. To remind the committee, l 

have, for years, been representing Michael Elias, a prior witness to this Sub-committee, in a probono capacity in response to the request of the former Commandant of the United States Marine 

Corps, General Conway. This battle wounded marine discovered his two children had been 

abducted by their mother to Japan. Mr. Elias' ex-wife worked for the Consulate of Japan in New 

York and with the help of Japanese consulate authorities in Chicago was able to obtain the 

replacement of the children's court ordered surrendered Japanese passports and abduct his 

children. The Japanese government not only failed to address the clearly criminal behavior of his 

wife, the complicity of the their consulate in Chicago but their duplicity in telling a member of 

this subcommittee, along with the grandparents of these children, that they were actively 
40


29692b-4.eps

investigating the criminal behavior, when in fact they had already determined that they had no 

intention of doing so. That information would be purposefully withheld for over a year from Mr. 

Elias. Mr. Elias, has not filed an application for assistance for the organization of rights of 

access, because there is no identified process, nor meaningful remedy in doing so. 

The current status of the resolution of existing abduction cases, despite Japan's formal 

execution of the Hague Abduction Convention, remains particularly difficult and has a sinister 

impact upon the prevention of future abductions. 

American Judges, if reading the ICAPRA report, may be led to believe that there is a 

legitimate process in place to provide the swift remedy of return of abducted children, or a 

identifiable process to organize rights of access for left behind parents. This is particularly 

important in that so many of the children, who were victims of abduction prior to Japan 

becoming a signator, were left only with the remedy of access petitions. 

Actions of OCI/ State Department Japan Desk: 

Prior to the enactment of the Treaty, parents who had pending abduction matters were 

sent, from time to time, "urgent" time-sensitive updates, repeatedly promising that the Hague 

ratification would enable them to at least secure access rights to their children. The promises 

were entirely illusory. 

Additionally, left behind parents were encouraged that despite the ratification of the 

Treaty, the Office of Children's issues would "continue to raise the question of how Japan 

intends to resolve existing cases". While correspondence referred to "bi-lateral discussions", 

such discussions are hampered by the historic position of the Department of State against the use 

of Memoranda of Understanding or other bi-lateral agreements. No concrete steps have been 
41


29692b-5.eps

taken to address Japan's deficiency in its reciprocal obligations as provided for in !CAPRA. The 

lack of inclusion of Japan as a "non-conforming" state despite the failure to secure the return of 

children under the Treaty, sends a message that the fate of these abducted children are not of 

particular concern. Notably of the approximately 40 applications by left behind parents of 

abducted children, filed for organization of rights of access under Article 21, on the first day that 

applications were received by the Department of State, I am aware of no process in place to 

address such claims under Article 21 nor am T aware of any access in those cases being provided 

through a Hague process. 

Conclusion: 

MOUs, bilateral agreements and diplomatic sanctions must be seen as part of an arsenal 

available to the Department of State to address the unique legal and cultural framework of 

international family law. American families need to have accurate and transparent information 

regarding the objective obstacles to recovery of children, for both non-conforming and 

conforming states. This body, needs to know whether certain countries remain recalcitrant in 

their reciprocal treaty obligations and address accountability in order to protect American 

Children. 

Thank you. 

Patricia E Apy 

Fellow International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers 

Paras Apy Reiss, PC 
42

STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES COOK, FATHER OF FOUR 

CHILDREN ABDUCTED IN JAPAN 

Mr. COOK. Thank you. 

Thank you, Chairman Smith and the committee members for 

this opportunity to speak about Japan, Hague compliance, and my 

experience in the process, and I request that my written statements be entered into the record. 

When I last testified it was last April before this committee, 2 

months after Osaka High Court had revoked the return order of 

January 2016. 

In May 2017, I appealed this ruling and in December 2017 Japan’s Supreme Court ruled that the Osaka High Court was correct 

and affirmed the order and closed my case. 

A few weeks ago, the Osaka High Court cancelled the previous 

enforcement orders and all penalties due to me, which grew to 

$132,000—$84,000 of which at the time when the Osaka High 

Court originally ruled and said that I had no financial means, they 

had already ordered $84,000 paid to me. 

This is how Japan executes the perfect Hague abduction. After 

over 21⁄2 years in this process, I have nothing. This process has cost 

me everything. 

Japan relitigated our Hague case as a successful ploy to avoid 

compliance with the Hague. The Hague is specific in its intended 

objective—a ruling to determine habitual residence and legal jurisdiction. That jurisdiction is the venue to evaluate a child’s best interest and custody. Japan intentionally conflates Hague jurisdictional decisions as custody decisions. 

When Article 16 of the Hague explicitly prohibits custody determinations, the Osaka High Court’s February ruling basically was 

a best interest custody hearing. For further details on this and 

other statements, please refer to my written testimony. 

Japan’s court system is corrupt and must not be respected by the 

USA. There are groups and organizations that control much of the 

family law in Japan. Federation of Lawyers of Japan, whose members include Yoko Yoshida, Yoriko Nishimura, and Takayo Amata 

is one such group. 

Yoko Yoshida, vice chairman of the Committee on Gender Equality, an organ of the Federation of Lawyers of Japan, opposes Japan’s ratification of the Hague Convention. 

Most of the attorneys who advise and help child abduction are 

communists—members of Japan’s Communist Party. See the written testimony for further details and evidence that communist attorneys control family courts and advocacy of abduction. 

A large piece of Japan’s corrupt family court system is a network 

of governmentally funded domestic violence shelters, referred to as 

Shelter Net in Japan. 

An attorney, like Yoko Yishida, will tell a woman seeking divorce 

and sole custody of her child, to report to a DV shelter. The shelter 

will receive money for this woman and child. 

It is obvious this situation is ripe for collusion between federation 

attorneys and Shelter Net member shelters. 

At the divorce hearing, applying the continuity principle, the 

judge rules the child is to remain with the abducting parent. 

43

An important point about the continuity principle—it’s illegal. 

Civil Code 766 took effect in 2012 specifically instructs judges to 

use abduction against a parent in determining custody. 

There is no—there are no consequences for judges disregarding 

the law. Judges are rogue and create legislation from the bench. 

The jurisprudence of judges even at the Japan Supreme Court in 

the Hague cases and even in Hague cases as so-called continuity 

principle whereby abductors keep children. 

We know this principle is operative based on empirical evidence 

of many rulings including my Supreme Court ruling of December 

2017. Taking a child permanently from one parent is crazy and inhuman. 

More information on this issue is within my written testimony. 

As a result, Japan’s Supreme Court’s noncompliant ruling of December 21st, 2017, on April 6th I submitted through legal counsel 

in Japan a petition for impeachment to Japan’s Diet of the following Supreme Court justices: Atsushi Yamaguchi, Masayuki 

Ikegami, Naoto Otani, who is now the chief justice of Japan’s Supreme Court and his elevation is a curious, almost quid pro quo nature with relation to when my order or decision came out; Judge 

Hiroshi Koike, whose opinion at the end of my ruling illustrates at 

least one justice has a complete disconnect with the elements and 

the intention of the Hague; and finally, Katsuyuki Kizawa. 

The 52-page impeachment petition plus supporting evidence details illegal practices by the judiciary, collusion by attorneys, and 

ties to politicians in Japan’s Diet and details the several ways that 

Japan’s Supreme Court’s decision 2017 ruling is in direct violation 

of the Hague. Such wilful malpractice must only be resolved 

through impeachment. 

This petition is available to the 26 EU member countries, Canada, and U.S. Department of State to aid in their unified efforts 

against Japan regarding international parental-child abduction. 

The original Japanese language petition is available from Kisna 

Child Parent Reunion, an NGO in Japan. 

Japan must be held accountable. Diplomacy on this issue with 

Japan has not been successful for decades. More than 400 children, 

supported by DOS statistics, have been lost to U.S. parents in this 

time. 

Children are not bargaining chips or pawns because their rights 

are non-negotiable. For reasons outlined above, including the noncompliant Japan’s Supreme Court Hague ruling, Japan’s corrupt 

judiciary, and Japan’s unrepentant abduction practices, I recommend the following actions be taken. 

One, placement of indefinite tariffs upon strategic Japanese imports until the following occur: A, revocation and invalidation of the 

Osaka High Court’s February 2017 ruling and Japan’s Supreme 

Court’s December 2017 ruling, and the immediate return of my 

four children without delay or condition; B, criminalization of parent-child abduction to Japan; C, criminalization of denial of access 

to pre-Hague abducted children; D, creation of a quick legal path 

to criminalization and prosecution and contempt of Hague return 

orders that include forcible arrest of abductor, prosecution of harboring individuals, and physical remove of children by law enforcement or the left-behind parent; E, recognition and enforcement of 

44

all previous and future U.S. court custody and return orders; and 

F, extradition of U.S. or court ordered persons by any means including arrest, physical force, and arraignment of harboring individuals. 

Suggestion number two: The Department of State to issue indefinite travel alert in caution to parents travelling to Japan with 

minor children of Japanese descent due to extreme abduction risk 

and Japan’s history of noncompliance. 

This alert can be rescinded at some point when Japan shows 2 

years with perfect Hague compliance. More recommendations are 

found in my written testimony. 

Finally, Japan has ignored demarches and similar toothless diplomatic efforts for years. Japan, at its core, is an economic nation 

that relies on asymmetric trade. That is, they sell far more than 

they buy. 

Effective strategies will use tactics that affect trade, not diplomatic talk. Tariffs, not talk. Deadlines, not debate. Progress, not 

promises. 

I ask this committee and fellow lawmakers to make laws as I’ve 

outlined above. I ask judges across the United States to heed my 

testimony when contemplating joint custody arrangements between 

U.S. and Japanese parents and, certainly, any consideration of allowed travel out of the U.S. There is no such thing as a harmless 

vacation to Japan. 

I ask President Trump to make the call, write the executive 

order, or take the action that returns my children immediately. 

When you are with P.M. Abe next week, tell him he must do it 

and he will. Please refer to my written testimony for recognition of 

groups and individuals who have helped. I am not short on gratitude but I am limited on time before this committee. 

Thank you again, Chairman Smith, and I am forever grateful for 

your years of work, the opportunity to speak, and most of all, I 

thank you for caring, which you have. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:]

45


29692c-1.eps

James Cook II 

No Abducted Child Left Behind: An Updaie the Goldman Act 

Thank you Chairman Smith and committee members for this opportunity to speak about Japan, 

Hague compliance, and my experience in the process. 

This is my third time in three years before this committee speaking about these topics. 

Following is a brief summary of my Hague case and status as of today. My case is an excellent 

example of how Japan completely fails to be Hague compliant, is systemically incapable to 

comply, and likely never to comply absent outside force after 4 years of Hague participation. 

I am James Cook, and since August 2014, I have been working to gain return of my four minor 

children abducted to Japan. In July 2014, my wife, Hitomi Arimitsu, took our four children to 

Japan to visit her family and refuses to return. Her father is Mr. Yukinori Arim itsu of Arim itsu 

Industry Co. Ltd of Osaka, Japan. Mr. Arimitsu has been harboring our children in contempt of 

Japan and U.S. court orders. 

Several civil attempts were made in fall of 2014 to spring 2015 to gain return of our children. In 

August 2015, with the assistance of Department of State (DoS), I submitted an Application for 

Return under Hague. Both USA and Japan are signatories to Hague, and Japan began 

implementation of Hague on April 1, 2014. DoS and Japan Central Authority (JCA) accepted 

my application in early August 2015. The struggle to gain our children's return from Japan 

under Hague began. 

In October 2015, Osaka Family Court (OFC) found the proper location for jurisdiction to 

determine custody was Hennepin County, Minnesota, habitual residence prior to abduction, 

and ordered return of our youngest twins, 7 years old at the time. OFC considered the opinion 

of our oldest twins, 12 years old, and used the court's discretion and denied their return. This is 

an example that children are viewed as property, not people, with this Solomon-like division. 

Both Hitomi and I appealed the OFC ruling in November 2015. Osaka High Court (OHC) 

affirmed OFC's jurisdictional determination (USA, not Japan) and ordered immediate return of 

all four children to USA (habitual residence) in a January 2016 order. Hitomi appealed this 

order to Supreme Court in Japan in February 2016 and was denied standing almost 

immediately. The order was final and enforceable at that moment. Japan's legal authority 

shifted to enforcement of order and compliance with Hague from that point. 

Hennepin County Family Court took up this matter as part of an active dissolution case and 

accepted jurisdiction in comity with OHC. Hennepin County court legally substantiated 

jurisdiction independent of OHC ruling of January 2016. Both USA and Japan are signatories 

of Hague Convention on Child Abduction. As signatories of Hague, we agree to respect and 
46


29692c-2.eps

uphold court decisions made in other signatory states. There is specific language in Hague 

addressing comity of signatory court's rulings. 

Numerous enforcement attempts have been made in Japan, using all legal means of 

enforcement, starting in February 2016 through September 2016. All attempts were 

unsuccessful. At the heart of Japan's enforcement articles for Hague is required voluntary 

compliance from abductor for enforcement. When an abductor says "no", enforcement ends. In 

contrast, if I were to go see our children in Japan without her perm iss ion, I risk arrest and 

being held for 23 days in jail BEFORE any charges need to be filed. After which, I could be 

denied entry into Japan in the future. This is just one example of systemic deterrence against 

left-behind parents attempting to have a relationship with their abducted children or effectuate 

foreign court-ordered returns. 

Hennepin County Court exercised their jurisdictional authority and ordered Hitomi Arimitsu in 

separate orders of December 2nd and December 131h, 2016 to surrender our children to me on 

December 17, 2016 at U.S. Consulate in Osaka, Japan. I was present at Consulate on 

December 17th in compliance with the order. Hitomi did not show or communicate her 

intended contempt. I left Japan for the fourth time in a year without any contact with our 

children. I have not seen our children in person since October 2014 when I travelled to Japan 

to meet them at Tokyo Disneyland. All communication ceased in late August 2015, one week 

prior to our first Hague hearing in Osaka, Japan. 

Hitomi petitioned OHC in January 2017 to modify the return order citing my dissipated financial 

assets during the preceding year and claimed I could not support children if returned. These 

types of considerations are specifically addressed in Hague as examples NOT to be 

considered and not sufficient to deny return. Nonetheless, in February 2017 OHC revoked their 

previous return order of January 2016. We received permission to appeal to Japanese 

Supreme Court (JSC) and JSC received our arguments on May 10, 2017. 

Hitomi was again ordered by Hennepin County, the only court on the planet with jurisdiction 

over our children, on March 24, 2017 to surrender our children's passports by April 7th and 

release children to me at U.S. Consulate on April 23rd. She refused to surrender passports 

that are property of U S. DoS. I was present in U.S Consulate in Osaka on April 23rd and 

Hitomi did not comply with any part of March 24th order. I left Japan, once again, unable to see 

or communicate with our children. 

On December 21, 2017, Japan's Supreme Court ruled that OHC's revocation was legal and 

affirmed Our children are no longer ordered to be returned to USA. With this decision all my 

legal avenues in Japan have ended and my Hague case is concluded. 

Two weeks ago, OHC cancelled all enforcement orders and financial penalties due me. Hitomi 

has achieved the perfect consequence-free abduction with the aid of Japan's systemic noncompliance and DoS's inaction. 

After over 2.5 years in this process I have nothing. This process has cost me everything. 

DoS Office of Children's Issues (OCI) has recommended I file a petition for access under 

Hague. If my two previous return orders were not enforceable, any order for access will be 
47


29692c-3.eps

equally unenforceable. DoS OCI has little value to any LBP of children in Japan until or unless 

the JSC ruling of December 21, 2017 is revoked or vacated. 

Japan re-litigated our Hague case as a successful ploy to avoid compliance and DoS is 

complicit in the failure. 

Japan signed The Hague under great pressure and domestic opposition. To assuage 

opponents in Japan, implementing legislation was written allowing broad interpretations of 

Hague language, counter to Hague's specific intent of narrow interpretations, and only civil 

enforcement powers, not criminal. No one will be arrested, detained, or criminally prosecuted 

for contempt of court-ordered return. Parental child abduction is NOT a crime in Japan. In fact, 

it's a court-condoned practice. 

Hitomi was allowed to file an appeal for modification of return order a year after the 2nd return 

order due to a 'change in circumstance' Her petition for modification was based upon factors 

outside of, and specifically excluded from consideration, according to language in The Hague. 

These considerations were financial, living arrangements, whether Hitomi could come live in 

USA, whether I would receive support from my estranged father, education opportunities, and 

in general, "best interest" It is clearly stated in The Hague that "best interest" considerations 

are ONLY to be decided by court of habitual residence, after return. At no time, has habitual 

residence, Minnesota, USA, been in dispute or reversed. Hitomi's appeal was on erroneous 

grounds using erroneous evidence. It was a junk lawsuit that should have been dismissed as 

such. 

Article 19 (Hague) 

A decision under this Convention concerning the return of the child shaJl not be taken 

to be a. determination on the merits of a.ny custody issue. 

OHC's acceptance of her appeal was a clear sign that Japan's judiciary is incapable to handle 

Hague cases. The three judges of Osaka High Court, 9th Civil Division; Presiding Judge Toru 

Matsuda, Judge Yoshinori Tanaka, Judge Takahiro Hiwada were ignorant of The Hague's 

most basic elements. 

OHC's February 17, 2017 revocation reasoning, and JSC reasoning, violates the language and 

intent of Hague, and therefore non-compliant, in the following ways: 

1) "Grave risk' was never supposed to include lifestyle. OHC used my depleted financial 

circumstances as an 'intolerable situation' (grave risk) to not return our children. Extensive 

Hague case law contradicts OHC's reasoning. including language in The Hague itself. The 

courts ignored over $84,000.00 Hitomi owed me, at that time, in contempt fines ordered by 

OHC. Ultimately, the amount reached over $132,000.00. The grave risk or intolerable situation 

was to Hitomi's family's fortune, not to our children' 

2) Objection of 12-year olds as valid. Our children were alienated from me for a year prior to 

this interview and unable to make an accurate opinion. 12-year-old children lack the brain 

development to make reasoned decisions and still are mostly emotion driven. They are not old 

enough to understand how the ramifications of their opinions expressed in their Hague case 
48


29692c-4.eps

will cause life-long effects on themselves and younger siblings. Extensive Hague case law 

contradicts OHC's reasoning. In essence, OHC ignored voluminous precedent to make up this 

reason. 

3) Not expeditious proceedings. The long drawn out legal and enforcement process is in 

direct violation of timeliness within the Convention. This one violation is grounds to dismiss 

OHC revocation and JSC rulings. Japan's implementation laws allow for appeals for 

modification until children are returned. In essence, the Japanese abductor can hold the child 

indefinitely to a point where temporary circumstances of LBP change to allow modification. 

4) No access to children during process. Ability to maintain relationship with my children 

was destroyed. Japan's enforcement laws require the abductor's permission to access 

child(ren). Under Hague, I am guaranteed access and Japan was non-compliant Japan is not 

capable to participate in The Hague 

5) No enforcement powers. This added to the delay and ultimately the circumstances for 

modification and revocation. At every enforcement opportunity, abductor's permission is 

required to proceed. The thief's permission is required for access to stolen lucre. Law 

enforcement's powers extend to asking the child to come with them voluntarily. Child cannot 

be physically touched or moved by law enforcement or left-behind parent (LBP). Japan lacks 

enforcement powers to participate in The Hague. 

6) Violates 'furtherance of Convention' standard. It rewards and encourages further 

abductions, not discourages. The broad reading, implementation, and ineffective enforcement 

of The Hague language violates The Hague and is prima facie evidence of non-compliance. 

Even the most foundational element of The Hague is not followed by Japan. 

DoS was provided frequent updates regarding my case progress and my legal concerns the 

non-compliant way Japan was allowing my case to progress DoS did nothing to intervene or 

protest the non-compliant path Japan was pursuing When JSC ruled and ended my case, 

DoS said they had sympathy for me and my children while saying there was nothing they could 

do. There was plenty they could have done under Goldman Act, yet they did nothing. There is 

plenty they can still do to force my children's return, as ordered twice under Hague 

proceedings in Japan. DoS is complicit with my children's continued abduction. I am left to 

wonder if there are grounds for an investigation into conspiracy with JCA to fail. 

Japan is not compliant with Hague by any objective measure. 

In the last three Goldman Act reports, Japan has avoided being designated 'non-compliant' as 

a result of significant manipulations from Japan and within DoS. It is my hope that this year's 

report will be accurate and show Japan to be 'non-compliant'. 

Please do not be fooled by informational misdirection and shading of Japan's record from DoS. 

To this day, there has yet to be one U S child returned to a U S. parent as a result of Japan's 

enforcement of Hague Children that have been returned (3) to U S. parents are the result of 

negotiated settlements, parental death, and factors outside of Japan's Hague laws. Over 50% 

of all children returned (4) have been to one Japanese parent living in Oregon. U.S. parents do 

not get their children back if the Japanese parent refuses to return. The irony of my case, with 

4 
49


29692c-5.eps

4 U.S children, is that it would make Japan compliant, no question. A recent ruling in JSC 

regarding the 'extreme illegality' of habeas corpus contempt - "extreme illegality" is the legal 

standard in Japan, not just illegal - has given a Japanese parent residing in USA a chance at 

another Hague return. This would be 5 of 8 children returned to USA under Hague to 

Japanese parents. To rephrase in metrics used by DoS, nearly 2/3rds of returned children have 

been from Japanese parents in Japan to Japanese parents living in USA The Hague appears 

to be an international extension of Japanese family law. I guess The Hague is working well 

enough for Japan, but not for American children. 

DoS has allowed the errant Japan Supreme Court ruling of December 21, 2017 to stand, 

unchallenged, and as such, has provided a legal basis for all future return failures of U.S. 

children to U S parents. OCI has little value with respect to Japan abductions until or unless 

DoS will object to JSC ruling and demand our children's return. No U S. child can ever be 

made to return from Japan with December 21, 2017 order being allowed to stand. Unless, of 

course, the parent in USA is Japanese. 

This article describes the legal errors of the JSC ruling with links to several references: 

http: I Icon'! ictofi aws. net/2 01 8/i apanese-su prem e-cou rt -renders -decision-on -haq ue-abduction -

cqnvE)ntion/ 

Colin PA Jones has written several times about my case: 

b.ttp_~:liiJY\f\/_V\I.lap'l.rillOJJ3§.._<::QJR[c_o.mmi..IOll:)i[20_1_ZL1.2/'l..'W1i.~l.lel5/Hl.QSln$::.~1.1Qle_rn_e-'"c_g_IJrt-hanm>.:r2?.2: 

map- parental-ch lid-abductions/#. Wki8t TT8!BM 

A well-written article by Brian Prager on is blog dedicated to his son who was abducted to 

Japan in 2010. b1tilll:lifPITLJi1Jov.cgmlr:_(J<:lg_::_f_Q[c[LJi-tJo_y[ 

Japan's court system is corrupt and must not be respected by U.S.A. 

A common assumption many make about most advanced countries is that our legal systems 

operate the same and adhere to similar legal standards. It is recognized that certain legal 

specialties must be compensated differently than others. For example, family law attorneys in 

USA are forbidden to receive compensation linked to success of a case, whereas, personal 

injury (tort) attorneys receive compensation linked to success. In Japan, family law attorneys 

are paid 'success fees' AND can receive a percentage of settlements and monthly 

maintenance payments. The incentive to manipulate and complicate the process is obvious. 

A large piece of the family court (divorce) system is the $1 billion budget for domestic violence 

shelters in Japan. A billion dollar enterprise cannot exist without robust systems and supports. 

Family law system in Japan has all of those elements. Following is an example of a domestic 

divorce process with background. 

Tomoko wants to divorce her husband Niro and take the child with her, and away from him. Tomokoi, like 

most Japanese mothers, believe children are her unique property since they are her primary responsibility. 

Wondering what to do, she searches internet and finds numerous blogs that provide her step-by-step 

instructions how to proceed successfully. These blogs appear to be written by sympathetic individuals, but are 

actually an extension of organizations that exist to bring in new supply for this billion-dollar enterprise. 
50


29692c-6.eps

Tomoko'sfirst step is tofind a proper lawyer (bengoshi) that specializes in this type of case. One of the blogs 

directs Tomoko to a group like Federation of Lawyers of Japan whose members include: Yoko Yoshida. Yoriko 

;y;~bimura,g11d TJJ.ktE:i-!!_KaJJJf!M, 

Yoko Yoshida is the \'ice Chairperson of the "Committee on Gender Equality," an organ of the 

Federation of Lawyers of Japan. As described in "News from the Federation of Lawyers of Japan/ News 

from Gender Equality" she opposes Japan's ratification of the Hague Convention. The websites below 

explain that mo_.\'t_of_thg_qtJiJmeys_w}lQ_qi}_!Ji~g_an<Ll1f/p_fhili}___qhduc;!iQ.nqr:e_r;_o_m_mzmjsJ'i_(_lfll!1f1b_ers_oJ_ 

Lapfl1'1_QJJ'Il11JIJY1L5_tl'_arty), 

It is true to say that because their activities are only taken up by the party's homepage or Red Flag($ 

fJJl), which is Communist Party. 

(These articles are in Japanese and can be translated well enough via Coogle Translate) 

About Takayo Kamala and her communist activities: 

About Yoko Yoshida and her communist activities 

hltp_;_f/1l!lflll:·\iC-J}_.!J_t_j[!!_"q_!m,h_p_tl]/_qjAJJ/J..P£i_:_QQ-:J3i~PJ3Q{JJJQ_d._j_):f_L}lJf!Jl 

About Nikkei article 

About Yoriko Nishimura and her communist activities 

fJ_tjp;//_jJ:,.Q_:I~hi_k~wuJ[!ig~tlPGi?_lll?_QCi_~Q::i(i_5_45~,htwl 

Tomoko's second step, according to these types of organizations, involves reporting a DY claim to police and 

checking herself and child into a governmentally funded DV shelter in her area. This network of DV shelters 

(ShelterNet) receive payments from the government based upon number of individuals served, so Miki 

represents a revenue source to the shelter operator. Tomoko has officially entered the billion-dollar enterprise 

as an input, and she's already making the enterprise money. At the shelter, her case will be examined to 

determine the amount of money that can be made off of her. In the meantime, Tomoko will be provided a place 

to stay and a minimal amount of monthly money, approximately $ r,ooo.oo. Niro comes home to an empty 

house and must learn to live alone, in silence. 

If her attorney determines Tomoko has money and decides to take her case, Tomoko (and 'her' child) will enter 

into a process that takes months before it will come to a hearing. Shige continues to live in silence this whole 

time and at some point will receive notice of Tomoko's intention to divorce and take child. Niro will seek out an 

attorney that may or may not be complicit with the enterprise and his eventual loss. Niro only represents the 

revenue source for the enterprise and has no value beyond that. 
51


29692c-7.eps

Once there is a hearing, the judge will be looking for evidence supporting his predetermined decision (Tomoko 

gets sole custody of child and Niro must pay to see the child I-2 hours per month). Japan does not have legal 

joint custody, only sole custody. In essence, legally sanctioned abduction. The key piece of evidence the judge 

seeks is where and with whom the child is currently living. Using the long-held legal tradition of "continuity 

principle'; judge decides to order the child to remain with whomever abducted and currently possesses the child. 

"Continuity Principle" describes the rationale 'to avoid further trauma to the child it's best to leave the child' 

with the parent that took the child many months ago. Although common, this practice is specifically 

FORBIDDEN in Japanese legal Code 766, passed in 2012. Judges still use this rationale couched in other 

language to continue the same old ways, wo% opposed to codified law. It's expected that criminals break the 

law, but it's hard to believe judges take the lead in unlawfulness! 

Videos of)apanese Diet sessions (English subtitles) Diet member Matsunami questioning Minister of 

Justice Kaneda and discussing 766, continuity principle, and my case: 

February 2017 

Japanese Diet member Matsunami asking former Minister of Justice Kaneda about interpretation of 

article 766. There were several long, evasive responses by Minister Kaneda. This is extremely 

revealing. Finally, when pressed to respond "yes or no" in English, he admitted reluctantly that yes, 

he agreed with the interpretation and intent of the revision of]66, which is against the abduction of 

children. (13:17- 17:26 min English subtitles) 

t"!nJ?~:J}Y:!WYY_:_y_q_yt~_'R_~--~Q~DlWA1~-~_(v_:::_!_;:<Q~_I5:_1~_!?~ 

March2017 

Diet member Matsunami asking Minister of Justice Kaneda and others questions about the 

international problem of the Hague implementation in Japan. (English subtitles.) 

h!tpJ,i~fu~~~Y:QY1JJQ~!_cQWb~n~hLY=L'lo_uK-.:-1s1B_k 

April2017 

This commentary in the Diet April 2017 by former Diet member Matsunami about asking former 

Minister of)ustice Kaneda about the interpretation of766 and mentioning my name in the process is 

quite revealing. He insists that it is important to agree on the interpretation and purpose of the 

revision of 766 in order to build mutual trust with other countries. He also asks about the continuity 

principle. (starting at 9:34- 15:45 min English subtitles) 

11tlfls:ffvvww._yo_utu_be.comh\latch?~=-ZAll_u_ty7w]Jq·1 

Tomoko, unsurprisingly, 'wins' the right to keep their child away from its' father indefinitely. Although the 

court may have ordered Niro access, usually supervised in a court space or meeting room for I-2 hours per 

month that he must pay the court for use of their room, Japanese law has no consequences for Tomoko to be in 

contempt of this meager requirement. 

With that, Niro's child loses a parent, indefinitely. If Niro continues to pay his monthly support, from which 

Tomoko's attorney gets a percentage, Niro may be allowed to see his child. Typically, the child is alienated 

enough in the intervening time that the child learns to hate and 'erase' the other parent. 

It's a myth that alienated children will seek out their other parent later on. This myth is perpetuated by other 

people to quell the sickening feeling that arises upon hearing and briefly imagining themselves in the same 

situation. For many of these children, the loss of the other parent is absolute. 
52


29692c-8.eps

How can all of this happen? 

1. Communist Party affiliated lawyers and judges control the legal system There is 

evidence of collusion between these communist lawyers and judges. 

2. ShelterNet has a financial incentive to recruit customers. Fertile grounds for corruption 

with an incentive to collude with lawyers and judges. 

3. Judiciary practicing outdated law without consequence. No oversight. 

4. Parental child abduction is not a crime in Japan, and therefore, enforcement is 

ineffectual. 

5. Current system perpetuated by 1) - 3). 

Japan must be held accountable. 

Diplomacy on this issue with Japan has not been successful for decades. Hundreds of children 

have been lost to U S. parents in this time. Children are not bargaining chips or pawns 

because their rights are non-negotiable. Japan's movement on this issue has only come as the 

result of coordinated, extreme pressure. Parental child abduction to Japan affects nearly every 

country, so coordinated, international efforts must be pursued. U.S. DoS holds a powerful 

position in the world and must lead these coalitions and efforts For reasons outlined above, 

including the illegal JSC Hague ruling, Japan's corrupt judiciary, and Japan's unrepentant 

abduction practices, I recommend the following actions be taken: 

1. Placement of indefinite tariffs upon strategic Japanese imports until the following occur: 

a. Revocation and invalidation of OHC's February 2017 and JSC's December 2017 

rulings as non-compliant. 

Immediate return of my four children without delay or condition. No further 

court actions; it's been nearly 3 years already. 

ii. Reinstatement of all enforcement fines and penalties due me. (approx. 

$132,000.00) 

b. Criminalization of parental child abduction to Japan. 

c. Criminalization of denial of access to pre-Hague abducted children. 

d. Creation of a quick legal path to criminalization and prosecution of contempt of 

Hague return orders that include forcible arrest of abductor, harboring individuals, 

and physical removal of children by law enforcement or LBP. 

e. Recognition & enforcement of all previous and future U S. court custody and 

return orders. 

f. Extradition of U.S. court-ordered persons by any means including arrest, physical 

force, and arraignment of harboring individuals. 

g. Payment of all U.S. court-ordered contempt penalties by Japanese government 

directly to LBP within 30 days of order. 

2. U.S legislation or addendum of Goldman Act that: 

a. makes U S DoS responsible for payment of all costs, fines, and penalties 

awarded to U.S citizens during the course of Hague proceedings. DoS can 

arrange to collect the penalties from signatory countries after U.S citizen has 

been paid. The costs of prosecuting Hague cases is onerous for citizens, and 

DoS needs to have 'skin in the game'. 

b. allows U S. LBP to sue DoS for failure to act or utilize Goldman Act tools in 
53


29692c-9.eps

pursuit of an abducted child's return. 

c. Allows DoS review and challenge of all non-return Hague decisions with use of 

full Goldman Act tools in the event agreement is not reached within 90 days from 

challenge. 

3. DoS to issue indefinite travel alert and caution to parents traveling to Japan with minor 

children of Japanese descent due to extreme abduction risk and Japan's history of noncompliance. This alert can be rescinded at some point when Japan shows two years of 

perfect Hague compliance. 

4. DoS must endorse the U.S. parent's consent for a Japanese passport issuance to a 

minor child. This endorsement remains the property of DoS and can be rescinded at 

any point to invalidate dual citizenship of a minor child, at which point, minor child then 

becomes only a U S. citizen for purposes of treaties, jurisdiction, and abduction. 

5. For countries outside of USA that have been affected, such as Canada and EU, I 

recommend adoption of similar legislation and economic policies. The more unified our 

efforts, the greater our impact for quick, permanent change for all. 

Japan has ignored demarches and similar toothless efforts for years. Japan, at its core, is an 

economic nation that relies on asymmetric trade. Effective strategies will use tactics that affect 

trade, not diplomatic talk. Additionally, Japan enjoys a mythical regard by many in the world. 

Dedicated efforts to disabuse the world of this mythology and inform regarding the reality of 

Japan will move this issue further along. 

How many advanced societies are aware of Japan's archaic family laws? We must educate 

the world how the rights of parents and children are disregarded in Japan. 

How many of these societies are aware of rampant racism within Japan and nearly 

pathological nationalism? Our bi-racial children are outcasts in Japan and considered 'less 

than' by society. In all matters, Japan is primary and facts, rights, and reality are secondary. 

Japan's exceptionalism must not be condoned. 

How many are aware of the significant humanitarian effort imbalance between Japan and the 

rest of the world? Japan is a significant net 'taker' from other countries of the world while 

pushing a facade of contribution. The rareness of these contributions makes them stand out. 

In closing, the last four years, nearly equal to Japan's Hague participation, have been a form of 

misery only a few can understand. I have spent everything I have, lost my children, and been 

abandoned by my government. 

I ask this committee and fellow lawmakers in the Legislative branch to make laws as I have 

outlined above. 

I ask the Judicial branch to heed my testimony when contemplating joint custody 

arrangements between U.S. and Japanese parents, and certainly any considerations of 

allowed travel out of USA. There is no such thing as a harmless vacation to Japan. 
54


29692c-10.eps

I ask the Executive branch, and specifically President Trump, to make the call, write the 

Executive Order, or take the action that returns my children immediately. 

Mr. President, when you meet with PM Abe next week, demand my children back. There is 

nothing to study. There is nothing complex - both common put-offs from Japanese. My 

children were taken, ordered returned twice, and through Japan's unwillingness to honor 

their Hague commitments, held in Japan until a legal reason could be crafted to justify 

them staying. 

There are several organizations working and supporting left-behind parents to reunite with their 

children. These organizations include: iSland Parents, BACHome, and Kizuna Child-Parent 

Reunion in Japan. Various unaffiliated individuals have helped behind the scenes in both USA 

and Japan. I am grateful for these organizations who work on the issue and on my behalf. I am 

grateful to the various Mr. and Ms. X's that help from the shadows. The risks to their 

livelihoods in Japan are great, yet they help. ':IF:% [<::@\~juT l. \ :3'; 9. 

As a final comment, I was recently contacted by a father now living in japan, but not with his wife 

and children. His wife abandoned their home and life in USA in january of this year and took their 

children to japan. When he asked his wife why she did this suddenly, her reply referenced my case 

and JSC's December 21 2017 ruling, when she said, 'because I knew I could keep them in Japan 

forever now.' 

Thank you again Chairman Smith, and I am forever grateful for your years of work, these 

opportunities to speak, and most of all, I thank you for caring when few have. 

10 
55

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Cook, and I think your point about 

upcoming meetings with Mr. Abe is an excellent opportunity for the 

President to raise these issues. 

In previous meetings, we have given detailed memos to the 

White House in the hopes that he would raise it in a way that was 

significant and detailed. 

We’ll do it again, so thank you, and your testimony, I can assure 

you, will be clear and hopefully as well as a summary of it that we 

will convey to he and others within the administration. 

These are great opportunities. As a matter of fact, when in a previous meeting, obviously, there’s always been concerns about abductions from Japan to Pyongyang to North Korea and the President has spoken out, as I have and so many others have, for years. 

Congressman Honda had a resolution years ago on that and I 

was the Republican co-sponsor on it, believing that too is an egregious violation. 

Well, Japan itself needs to be held to account as well. So we did 

ask that he raise it with Abe. We will do it again, and I appreciate 

that. 

If I could, Ms. Apy, if you could, when a judge is dealing with 

a case before him or her, do they read the report to get a sense of 

what that country’s potential risks are? Do they often contact, for 

example, the State Department or the Office of Children’s Issues 

to get a further delineation of how good or bad? 

Because a report is always dated except for the first few weeks 

when it comes out and even then they might want to get an update 

if there’s been any turn of events. How does that actually work? 

Ms. APY. Of course, as you mentioned, the report is retrospective 

in that it tells us about the numbers for the prior year, which is 

why the classifications of noncompliance versus compliance are so 

important because it means you don’t have to deconstruct what’s 

happening yesterday. 

In most family court cases, of course, a judge doesn’t do independent fact finding. The information is presented to the court subject to the rules of evidence, which is why the report is so important. 

Because it’s been generated by the United States Department of 

State, it can be taken—judicial notice can be taken of the content 

of the report and it can be used then by the court in assessing risk, 

which places the burden on someone who is—who is arguing that 

the classification of the Department of State should not be accepted. It places the burden on that person to come forward. 

So, for example, in a circumstance like Japan that we’ve been 

discussing, because Japan has heretofore not been listed as noncompliant, it places the burden on the parent who wishes to provide protections against travel in bringing—in hiring an expert and 

having that expert come and testify specifically to the very issues 

that you have heard testimony on today and I’ve served in that capacity. 

So the problem with that is, of course, it’s an expensive process. 

It involves having to find an expert and to present that information 

to the court and, of course, the court is looking at a report issued 

by the Department of State saying that, in the case of Japan, as 

56

we’ve been discussing, they’re compliant. So it’s extremely problematic. 

The court doesn’t get—it wouldn’t have the opportunity, as I 

said, to get updates, but the counsel can and in fact if they’re on—

if on the State Department Web site and on other identifiable State 

Department sources of information their updated data, that would 

be something that the attorneys could reference and would look at 

and when, in fact, we do. 

Mr. SMITH. If I could just ask you on the necessity and efficacy 

of MOUs, which I know you have spoken to many times. We included it in the Goldman Act. 

I know prior to Japan’s accession to the Hague the view from the 

State Department, not only for the Goldman Act itself because the 

official position was against, until it was reversed later by John 

Kerry. 

I didn’t get any sense today that the department is any closer to 

pursuing an MOU with Japan or anyone else. What is this reluctance to find a durable predictable means to resolve cases? Is it the 

effort that it——

Ms. APY. The Department of State took a position early on that 

they would not support any memorandums of understanding related to child abduction on the theory that by setting up MOUs 

that they would somehow dilute the pressure upon countries to become signatories to the Hague abduction convention. 

What it misses, unfortunately, is the opportunity to use an MOU 

to address specific problems and to provide diplomatic solutions. 

So, for example, if you’re talking about a convention signatory 

like Brazil, you could use an MOU to identify the areas that there 

are problems and then set objective goals while at the same time 

saying, A, you’re noncompliant, and B, until the following things 

happen we are going to announce and make it clear that there is 

no reciprocal relationship, which means, for example, that American children would not be returned unless the treaty process was 

back in place. 

That’s an example. The advantage of doing MOUs in non-Hague 

countries can be seen by—if we look at Pakistan, who has filed 

their accession, I am looking forward. Hopefully, the accession will 

be very soon accepted. 

Pakistan is one of the very only Sharif-based systems that’s a 

common law system. We have high court judges prepared to apply 

the treaty and part of the reason they’re prepared is there’s been 

a memorandum of understanding between Pakistan and the United 

Kingdom that has been working for a number of years, establishing 

the legal culture that allows now the treaty to become part of a 

normalized concept of the law there. 

That’s an example when an MOU, especially when we have religious-based legal systems, can be used to bridge the culture so that 

we don’t run into a problem where a country—the accession is accepted and there’s nothing in place. 

You have no underlying law. You have no underlying process. 

But you have on paper a reciprocal treaty agreement. I can only 

assume that the reason that MOUs haven’t been used, now that 

you have got the numbers and the report that provides for them, 

57

is that there’s just not been the diplomatic will to do the hard work 

to do that. 

And I—and, frankly, it’s a, from my perspective at least, I know 

that member of the bench and bar in the United States, members 

of organizations like the International Academy of Family Lawyers 

and the American Bar Association have been willing to work with 

the State Department as private practitioners providing technical 

assistance in drafting MOUs, in providing model orders, in doing 

things that would, if you will, advance the ball. 

Again, it’s nowhere on the radar screen because there is no process employed for moving beyond a demarche. There’s just—I don’t 

see how the—the whole point of considering MOUs was to provide 

objective information so that we were not talking about speculative 

subjective reviews of countries. 

We had objective information so that if we were talking to our 

friends we could say, look, I am sorry—you know, we have a valued 

relationship with you but the following numbers need to be addressed and here’s how. 

I just don’t see that there’s been the diplomatic will or the political will to do that on the executive side and I—since I’ve been 

doing this for a very long time I am hopeful. 

Again, the work of this committee cannot be overstated in that 

when you look at those—the reduction and the preventative numbers it’s only because of the work of this committee and it’s made 

a huge impact on American families. 

Mr. SMITH. Suzanne Lawrence did talk about redoubling our efforts. We worked tirelessly both in the U.S. and in our Embassies. 

It seems to me that working tirelessly and redoubling our efforts—since we are at the threshold now where MOUs are—should 

be a given as a remedy to—as a means to a remedy of these cases. 

So we’ll redouble our efforts to try to get them to do it because 

I think it’s just missing by a mile. You know, nice conversations, 

diplomatic meetings are all fine. But they should not be a substitute for a durable mechanism that could employed with predictability and, hopefully, with success. 

Just a couple final questions and I deeply appreciate both—the 

subcommittee deeply appreciates both of your testimonies. It helps 

us to know what to do next and how to go forward, and I thank 

you for that. 

Ms. Apy, if you could maybe speak to countries that you have 

found to be more Hague compliant. Do you find that it’s a problem 

worldwide that everyone seems to have serious problems or are 

there countries that you have found that really seem to be on the 

ball and really want to do the right thing? 

And, again, if you could, Mr. Cook, I said it to Ms. Lawrence. 

You, obviously, said it in your testimony. But the whole idea that 

seems to be missing—people say what about Japan—oh, we’ve 

brought some people back. 

Well, as you have pointed out, when the abductor says no, enforcement ends. That is absolutely absurd to think that the veto 

power is vested in the abductor—the person who has committed 

this egregious action. 

So perhaps you might want to speak to that again because I 

think the Japanese Government needs to know that we find this 

58

outrageous. You know, you cannot convey that kind of veto power 

to someone who has committed such a terrible act. 

Ms. APY. I would just reference, on countries that are particularly successful, keep in mind, of course, that the Hague abduction 

convention was executed in 1980. The United States ratified it in 

1988. 

So for 8 years, a number of countries had already begun the 

process and begun the—the body of case law began to be established. And so you have, frankly, leadership in that regard. The 

United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Sweden, Canada would be 

places that have continued to apply the convention. 

I would note one common element to their success, however, and 

that is that in virtually all of those countries where the success 

rates are extremely high, left-behind parents are provided support 

in having legal representatives to assist them in having their children returned. 

In—for example, in the United—in cases for Sweden, if a child 

is removed from Sweden to somewhere else in the world, the Swedish Government assists in underwriting the costs of the return and 

repatriation of those children. 

The result is that their numbers are far higher in the return of 

children. The same in the United Kingdom. There are—there are 

particular judges that have been denominated as Hague judges. 

Legal aid is provided for left-behind parents who are specialists in 

the issue of the Hague abduction convention. 

Of course, the United States took a reservation to that portion 

of the treaty that provided for assistance in legal services for the 

return of abducted children. 

So members of the family bar throughout the United States, 

those of us who do this work volunteer our time as pro bono lawyers, like the Elias case, keeping in mind that the average length 

of time for these cases—for treaty cases run between 18 months 

and 2 years from beginning to end if they’re successful. 

For nontreaty cases and treaties in countries that are noncompliant and nonreciprocal the average is closer to 5 years. That’s a long 

time to have to pay a lawyer. It’s a long time to have to do travel 

and repatriation and expenses, and the crippling impact of those 

resources cannot be overstated. 

In the Goldman case, there were over $1⁄4 million of expenses 

in—direct expenses that Mr. Goldman had to find and borrow and 

do whatever he could in order to accomplish the repatriation of this 

child and it would not have been enough but for the assistance of 

the Congress of the United States in taking direct diplomatic action. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. COOK. I resemble that comment. [Laughter.] 

I recognize that situation of having—of spending everything you 

have and it’s still not enough. In fact, one of the recommendations 

I had is that the respective governments who sign the treaties are 

the ones that foot the bills for the two—their respective citizens for 

this so that way—like I wrote—it’d be important for the—for the 

State Department to have skin in the game. 

59

If they had to pay off—if they had to pay left-behind parents, 

which was myself, all of the awarded penalties as a result of this, 

they might have a little bit different view on doing this. 

But with respect to the—your question or talking about permission to enforce in Japan, the—it is accurate to say that you need 

the consent, which is a little different than permission—consent of 

the abductor to have access to the left-behind—to have the—to the 

stolen children. 

It’s also you need to have the consent of the abductor or those 

that are found guilty of abducting to comply with the order because 

in Japan there is no contempt, or there is contempt—there are no 

consequences for contempt. 

So even though my children were ordered twice returned, my 

wife, he told me, was able to be in contempt for no consequence. 

Meanwhile, she accrued, as I said in one instance, $132,000 of per 

diem fines and enforcement fines that after the court had done its 

magic and flipped this order and revoked it they then also just—

like I said, 2 weeks ago took away any of the—the contempt fines. 

So I am absolutely left with nothing, and this isn’t just about me. 

This is—this is how Japan operates absent some external effort. 

And a little thing I wrote in here is when—you know, we asked 

numbers of—Ms. Lawrence about the returns of children. We keep 

pretty close tabs on each other, everybody in this community, okay, 

and the numbers that I am told is that there have been now seven 

total children returned to the United States. 

Of those seven, three of them were U.S. children returned to U.S. 

parents, none of which were done the result of Japanese enforcement powers because they don’t have any. One was the death of 

the taking parent—the father in Japan—and so the child was reunited with the mother at the funeral. 

The—another one was—well, I can’t use the words here—it was 

a mess of how that she reneged at the last second and chased the 

man out of the country. There’s a third, and then we have the case 

of four children—four children returned—Japanese children returned to a Japanese mother living in Oregon. 

Now we have another case that was just decided with four of the 

five Supreme Court justices that were in my case—just miraculously understood that alienated children’s opinions many not—

should not be taken seriously and being in contempt of a court 

order is a crime. 

So they’re going to allow the possibility of this child to be returned to the left-behind parent in the United States, who is also 

a Japanese citizen. 

So by using the State Department’s own metrics, five of the eight 

children returned under the Hague will be from one Japanese parent in Japan to a Japanese parent living in the United States. 

The Hague is not working for U.S. children. It’s just an extension 

of the Japanese family law system, and our State Department does 

nothing about it. 

And I have dealt with Japan for over 30 years and there is—we, 

as people in the cause, trying to get our children back, have to battle through our State Department over into another land, and I believe there are forces within the State Department that are going 

to prevent or, I should say, are going to give a pass to Japan alVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:04 May 15, 2018 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\041118\29692 SHIRL
60

most permanently with the exception of someone like President 

Trump or maybe the future Secretary of State stepping in and saying, ‘‘We are done.’’

Anybody that—anybody that—you know, we cannot allow Japan 

to continue to be noncompliant. These are children. I don’t care 

what deals were done, what agreements were made, whatever—

whoever. They were sold out for whatever donations to whatever 

foundations. 

We need to get these kids back and it has to change, and whoever is left from that mind set needs to be blown out of the State 

Department so we have people that actually follow the rule of law 

and follow, particularly, the Goldman Act because these are—this 

is the only way we are going to get kids back is to exert some sort 

of force upon Japan, some economic pain, because at the end of the 

day they’re an economic country. 

They’re excellent at the diplomatic rope-a-dope. They’ll listen to 

you and they’ll make promises all day long and, oh, they seem sincere. They’re not. But they have to experience some pain. 

Mr. SMITH. Just one final question before I go to Ms. Jayapal. 

India has been noncompliant, pursuant to the Goldman Act and on 

the reports since 2014. No penalty whatsoever. 

It seems to me this needs to be the year of getting the report accurate with regards to countries like Japan and also a year of significant sanctions. What are your thoughts on that? 

Again, a regimen that goes without—you know, it’s all on paper 

and nobody does anything with it. It has a perverse outcome of 

countries saying it’s a paper tiger and this law was meant to be 

a game changer. 

Ms. APY. Well, and this is a good example of needing to look at 

the country that we are talking about and identifying what the 

problem is to find a diplomatic remedy that matches it. 

In India, as I’ve mentioned, the significant portion of the judiciary and the lawyers, particularly in this area, support joining the 

Hague, support taking those steps and there have been constant 

bar reports in support. 

The government has pushed back for political reasons and has 

indicated they will not do so. So——

Mr. SMITH. Does that have anything—if you don’t mind me interrupting—to the fact that so many of those who are left behind are 

mothers—are women? Because we’ve had testifying here a number 

of women who have had their children abducted to India. 

Ms. APY. The push back came—was led by the Ministry of 

Women and Children that indicated that they did not think that 

the treaty provided adequate protections and—for women and that 

they did not want the return to—which was, again, considering the 

limitations of protection of women in India under Indian law was 

sort of interesting to me. 

But the real—but looking—focussing on the issue of India, we 

have a tremendous diaspora of Indian—Americans—those of Indian 

descent in this country. There’s regularly going back and forth and 

in a—actually covers the entire subcontinent. 

That’s something where, for example, as you mentioned earlier, 

consideration of those issues in sanctions, whether it’s dealing with 

visa issues, dealing with the circumstances under which someone 

61

can easily go back and forth in circumstances in which we have a 

country that’s going to—that’s creating an environment where 

there is no ability to enforce U.S. orders—where there is an ongoing problem—where we do want to find a way to encourage them 

that—to look at what their own judiciary and judges are saying 

needs to happen in their country. That might be one of the ways 

to creatively look at it. 

I would also say that this would lend itself to an MOU, identifying that we are going—we need to see these changes in this period of time. If you don’t do that, then we are going to look at the 

circumstances under which we place our citizens at risk in going 

back and forth and under what circumstances. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am actually one of 

those Indians—people of Indian descent and actually proud to be 

the first Indian-American woman here in the U.S. House of Representatives, and so I am looking forward to just understanding 

more about the situation with India. I think I know quite a bit 

about the treaty piece of it but in terms of this specific issue. 

I just wanted to go back to what you said about other countries 

being more successful in negotiating for the return of some of these 

abducted children. 

Have you found that countries have had success with the very 

countries that we are having the most challenges with? For example, have other countries been successful at negotiating real resolutions with Japan? 

Ms. APY. My experience with Japan is that the rest of the countries that deal directly with Japan have the same problems we do. 

I’ve had a number of meetings with a consul general from 

other—representing other countries having these kind of conversations, all of which, I think, would be led by and encouraged by joint 

activity in diplomatic activity whether it’s a joint MOU and signing 

on to a joint MOU, looking at identifying the problems and treaty 

reciprocity together, which is why it’s so disheartening when you 

don’t see the United States Department of State signing on with 

or joining in joint activity. 

So I would say my experiences even with countries in the Pacific 

Rim—and there are challenges there throughout the Asia—but we 

have those—we have those issues. But we’ve got the real leverage——

Ms. JAYAPAL. Yes. 

Ms. APY [continuing]. Is the issue. We have status of forces 

agreements that we regularly negotiate. We are talking about a 

disproportionate number of our military members involved. 

We have the ability to take leadership in that area where we 

haven’t. So in that context I would say everyone’s sort of in the 

same boat but we have the best leverage to be able to address it. 

With respect to some of the other parts of the world and particularly India and Pakistan, I will tell you that the U.K. has had a 

significantly better opportunity of negotiating and working through 

some of these cases than we have and they’ve been willing to, in 

some of these countries, enter into bilateral agreements that they 

work very hard in making sure work. 

62

And of course, as I mentioned, they—the government in that case 

provides a lot of skilled leadership in assisting those cases both on 

an individual negotiated basis as well as in assisting in litigation. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. So you mentioned in your earlier testimony just 

sort of ways that we should clarify the language, in particular, the 

categories within the report. 

What other—and Mr. Cook, thank you for your—for your testimony. I just—I just listen to you and it—I can’t—I don’t have any 

words to express how this must feel for you and for other families. 

I’ve sat with Mr. Morehouse and it’s heart-breaking. So thank 

you for being here in spite of that. 

Just in terms of the specific recommendations of what we might 

push for, we can—you know, we can make amendments to the legislation. 

We could work on those pieces. But just in terms of immediate 

actions that if you had the magic wand and you were in control of 

the State Department tomorrow, Ms. Apy, what would——

Ms. APY. I will take a pass on that. [Laughter.] 

Ms. JAYAPAL. What would—maybe just this portion of it. 

Ms. APY. Right. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. What would you—what would you recommend that 

Congress do to push for those actions that you think would be most 

effective? 

Ms. APY. Well, first of all, I believe that there are adequate tools 

in this—in this act as it’s written. I do not believe that it needs 

to be amended. 

I think that the problem is that there has not——

Ms. JAYAPAL. You don’t—you don’t think that the report language should be clarified or——

Ms. APY. I think that the—I think that the act absolutely provides what should go in the report. I believe that the United States 

Department of State has to be—has to actually comply with the 

law as it’s written and I don’t believe that they have enthusiastically been doing that in the sense that they need to be, as I said, 

unapologetic and they need to be objective. 

The language is already there. I would add, however, that I think 

that there needs to be an identified process for the circumstances 

under which they must move the diplomatic remedies that are provided in the act from a—the lowest levels. 

When you have a country—I don’t know whether it’s the objective test of a country has been on in a noncompliance role for a 

year or 2 years that at that point certain things have to be done. 

But I have to reiterate by saying a careful reading of the existing 

law provides the test for a noncompliant country. They’re just not 

applying it. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Right. 

Ms. APY. And the existing law provides the circumstances under 

which you have to move to diplomatic sanctions and they’re not 

being done. 

So at some point, the mechanism is to come back and say, as was 

alluded to, do we have to then look at whether or not the State Department is accurately applying it and if they’re not, put additional 

steps in that force them to do that, which seems—we have 

enough—the issues here are urgent. 

63

Time is not a neutral for these families, and the idea that there 

would be push back when you have given the State Department objective ladder that they can climb is extraordinarily frustrating. 

Pushing back at the 90-day report, for example—they have a 90-

day report process. 

When the report first comes in and comments are made, they 

should come back with direct response as they’re required to do 

under the act as to what steps they’ve taken in individual country 

cases. They’re just not doing it. 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Thank you. I have nothing else. 

Mr. SMITH. Will the gentlelady yield? 

Ms. JAYAPAL. Yes, I would. 

Mr. SMITH. And on that point, that’s why we have had so many 

hearings, not only to hear from left-behind parents and experts like 

Patricia Apy but also to try to hold them to account, to say listen 

to both spirit and letter of the law and just follow it, which is why, 

again, this year we are having this hearing before the report is 

issued. 

We will have another afterwards and then probably another one 

after that in this calendar year just to keep the pressure on our 

own people just to do the right thing. 

And but thank you. It was a great question. 

Ms. APY. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. And I thank you both for your testimony and for your 

leadership and, Mr. Cook, know that our prayers and hopes are 

with you and other left-behind parents. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(65)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

66

f


29692n.eps

SUBCOMMITTEE HEARING NOTICE 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

WASHINGTON, DC 20515-6128 

Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International 

Organizations 

Christopher H. Smith (R-NJ), Chairman 

April4, 2018 

TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

You are respectfully requested to attend an OPEN hearing of the Committee on Foreign 

Affairs to be held by Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and 

International Organizations in Room 2200 of the Rayburn House Office Building (and available 

live on the Committee website at http"//www.forcignAtrairs.house.gov): 

DATE: 

TIME: 

SUBJECT: 

WITNESSES: 

Wednesday, April II, 2018 

2:00p.m. 

No Abducted Child Left Behind An Update on the Goldman Act 

Panel! 

Ms. Suzanne Lawrence 

Special Advisor for Children's Issues 

Office of Children's Issues 

Bureau of Consular Affairs 

U.S. Department of State 

Panel IT 

Ms. Patricia Apy 

International and Interstate Family Law Attorney 

Paras, Apy, and Reiss 

Mr. James Cook 

Father of Four Children Abducted in Japan 

By Direction of the Chairman 

spe('Ja/ 

regard to 

mav be 
67

f


29692m.eps

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

MlNUTES OF SUBCOMMT~TEE ON Aft/en, (.'folmfHralfh, GloblllHIIImlllRigflfs,tmdlJiten~atiww/OrKaJihalfom llEAlUNG 

Day Wed11esday Date. ____ 41_1_1_11_8 ___ Room __ ___c2~2~0~0 __ _ 

Starting Time 2:17pm ~:IHling Time 4:29pm 

Recesses[ .... J L__to __ ) L__to __ ) L__to __ ) L__to __ ) L__to _ ) ( __ to_) 

Presiding Mcmber(s) 

Chairman Smith 

Check all o[thefol/owing that apply: 

O[Jen Session 0 

Rxecutlve ~sed) Session 0 

Tclcyiscd D 

TITLE OF HEARING: 

Electmnically Recordw..ftaped) D 

Stenographic Record W 

No Abdacted Child T.eft Belllud: Au Update 1111 the Goldmau Act 

SUJlCOMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: 

Rep. Garrell 

NON-SUBCOMMITTF.R MEMBERS PRESENT: (Mark with an *if they m·e not members ~(fit!/ committee.) 

Rep. Hffrris*, Rep. Jayupat• 

HEARING WITNESSES: Same as meetlrog notice attached? Yes EJ No 0 

(If "no", please list below and include title, agency, department, O>' organization.) 

STATEMENTS FOR THE RF.CORD: (List any statements submi!ledfor the record.) 

-Smitlr: The Ca.1·e for Reciprocity, by Pall'icia Apy 

-Smith: Dr: Samina Rahman Submi.~.\·ionfiJr the Record 

TIMB SCHEDULED TO HI<:CONVENE ___ _ 

01' 

TIMB ADJOURNED ____ _ /!/}~// SJ;bc~mittee St Associate 
68

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


29692d-1.eps
69


29692d-2.eps

long-held formal position of the Depa<tment of State in -refusing to consider 

alternate d.lplom-atlc and legal met:hanisms to press for lntematlo:OJJ compll~ 

ancc with <!ldsting treaty obligation> Or to 

explore hi .. Jate-rJ:~l m mult1 .. )att.'tiil agree~ 

ment~ with c1,mntrles who were not 

treaty s!gnatols, and whose legal systems 

alld historic approach to international 

pan;•ntal iibductlun made them unlikely 

partlcip•nts in a reciprocal tretrty scheme. 

diplomatic tooo in addre,ing cases in recommended by The rlague Special 

which there ate' provfn obstacles 1:o the Con:nniS&lo:ns were do~umcntat!on of , 

Detween Dec 2009 and Aug. 2014, 

ll•• 1initce<l Stat"' H<>u<< of :Representatives and the United States S~nate held 

no fewer than six <llffen'lll hearl:rljjs. 

Til.ese -were C'Onfiuclr,-:d in commJtteli!"S 

and rul:>oommlttees, befQretlleTomLantos Human Rights Commission, and 

rewvery of chlldren. Thitd, it begins the 

process ot esta~llshing bordet controls 

llll.d -protocols to insure that judicial 

restraints on the removal uf dliklren 

from the Ulllted Sl~tes may be legally 

and practically lmpletne:nted, 

TI1e act is structured with attention 

to these three primary areas. Title l 

addresses action& t.o !Je taken by the 

Departmont of State, prlmarliy In Its role 

as <entral authmity, by enhancing Its 

abillly to comply with the dulles already 

assigned to it by the c.ltisting n:quitcmmlts o( lhe H•gu• Allductlon Treaty.' 

11tle ll outlines mandatory and dlscretlonaty diplomatic steP" to be taken 

requ~sted by the Wmnen's Cau:L.'U:S, wlwre objective evidence de1non~trates 

ad(ltesxin.g the Hague Abrlur:tion Con~ titht.-,; that ~ tr~aty stgnator ts not meet:" 

ventlon and ICARA'• appl!catlon both ing its obligations under the treaty, or 

outside and within the United St1!~ wh'll't an aherllll(e prot<><:ot f<:~r addres!r 

futhnony w~s :s-Ofidte~'l n~:1t o.tlly fron1 irlg eh,~d abduction nrust he tu~goUMed 

the Untted Stat~ Dopartment of State apart~frorn part\dpauon ih the Hague 

Office nf Children's lssues, but from Alldu<'!lon Convention.' Tille lU begins 

tnt~tnatioual f•nilly law Pl<l<titloners, ihe flr>t step towaxJ effeci:lye Lordet: 

law ptofr:.>Ss9rs and acadi.mlcs aml sub" ecmttol fot the pxaventi_on .of intarna~ 

jcct mattdr ad)I{ICIIt<s, incln<llng repre- tlonal chi!ct abdneUoo> from the U:aited 

sentatlves from various countries, non- Stall", with the· goal o! msuring that all 

govemmental orgalllzatlons (!-!GOS) and children trave!Un~· fmm the United 

alfocted parent>. Or!~lrially !ntradu<ed States are authorized to do so.' 

by congressman Christoph<>r Stnlth of 

New Jer>ey In 2009, six dliTerent versions Tile lmportanc~ of th~ !CAPRA 

of wbat would .Ventua!JY be titled the lleportmg Requirements to the 

Sean and .David Goldman.lnternatlonal Judlcia!Ass~ssment of ftisk of 

Parental Kidnapping Pr~vention .An8 

R<fulrl:t Act of 20 !4 were authored, 

)llllrl\od np and negotiated, and on Aug. 

8, 2014, exeC!Jted by th• pre>! dent of the 

United States a~ 22 U.S.C. §9111 eJ·.seq. 

lhe United Slate> lJepa<ttnent of State 

voctferously opposed them all. 

The at.:t repre5enh:i three .,reas of fe:d~ 

eral FA<.:tinu now focused on the pr-even~ 

tlon ol cblld abquetton. First, it ptov.tct¢s 

ootument~Uon and nccountabillly 

rogatdlng tl><. admln!strntlon, prosec.ution and t"'oiullon of dlplomat!CIIlly 

rej)Otlcd abdn<:tion case$. Se<x>nd, lt pro--

Abdu~tion 

'festtmony elicited at the hearings 

repeatc/lly demonstrated thai the earliest observations made by the Hague 

Conferen<;e on PJ:lvate · Intmuati(>nal. 

Law, inCluded ill its compilatiort o~ :rooollitl\endat,~u.ni lor cqnt!nued goo<!. 

practice ln deall~~;ivith thedvli aspaili 

ol lntematkmak ~hlld abdneti,on, 

:t<@a!n~d&lllent, "Pre:ventlng abdrtctio!l 

ll' • key ail,rt or the 1980. i:;on•entlon, 

and it Is wldely odmowledg•d th•l jt l• 

better to prevent un allduction than to. 

have to ~eek ·the child's )'!tum aftm· 

vh:le$ ob~ective crtteda. fox the use o£ Abdm;:~on/~ Among those meas:ures. 

48 Ntw JER3tY MwrnR 1 Octobet uns 

tile 1~qutrement Lo- q}Jtai;l r;r maintain 

separate travel dOl-'U\ne,$tation for the 

minor chlld; the establl.shcq express 

consent of both pi!tent,< J,elore i>&ulng 

travel documentation fM minor chilft 

drenj assessing and takitig- into account the 

potetttlaJ t·isk ofwron.t{ul removal or retf!'fl~ 

tion of a mi•or child."' 

Amotl!l the dilllcu!ties dtscw;sed in 

years of congressional btlefings and 

b<a,lngs, particula.-ly by lamUy Jaw 

practitioners and parents, was the inhe:r·· 

cnt challenge it) successfully .se<:u:rlng 

Jl:',a:~mtable preveuta.Uv~ 'l'esttalnts on 

intematlonal travel of thetr children.~~ 

'They shared the complexity and 

expense of p-r-QVid:ing aceuraie aud 

•dmtsslble tn(ormat\on to tlte judges 

who were cllm:ged wlth fashioning par--

enting and lnlernational acc<'S< ru:rangeruents when parents t::ould not agree. 

Judges comideting the imj)Osltlon of 

pre-ventative mca<ur<s and .-.straints 

w,;re tuJ.lv<eJsally aM natur~ny reluctant 

to itn_pose restri$l.nt:;: where no obJection--

able behavior bad as yet occurred. Futtlter, toCl!t!ng illld qua!!1'ying <l!Jlerts 

with spedallr.ed l<tWwledge not only In 

foreign law but ln the actlorts of a foreign govemmcnt or its governmental 

emll1es In It~ complla:r\ce with the 

Hague Ah<luctl<ln Cooventlou facto.,., 

'17M oft<¢ tl!\illeng!llg or lnipOSSibJe. 

ln ti:relr $llmli>at work on· child abductlO!I, suwmarlzed In the juf/ge.! ®ide to 

'RI:;k ]!actors ~t CMid AbdUction, Lloda 

tili<lner ll.lld Jauelc Johnston ex_plalned 

that. ·~··~'i!.JE the risk or ·wwvat <>.r 

tettllltlotttil:a child ''"lliired, inadditl<>tl 

to tll~ inPMdilal cililtact<>itsti<:s of th• 

paxents and ·(hell: actloils, an. cil<joctive 

as""*'ffieilt Df t'he lnstlMJonal obstacles 

t<> r~~rlnl!, _that clilld.. Obstacl€s to 

rucovery .1-efer t0 tho degroe to whkh 

there ai:elegal,procedural, j)Olity or practl<;Jil. bartler1! clo locatin!!> rucoverlng or 

ruttlm:\lli !\ ·clllld to the event of an 

•lxl\I<~Q1J, rr tho Obstade' apj,ear to be 
70


29692d-3.eps

<>tremely dlffl<'ult to overco.nw, then the 

Uk~?llhood of the chd-d ~':'Vet being 

retumcd may be r~ote. 1f the case 

appcurs to involve a fuw :minor obstacles! 

then the lil<ellho<-,d of tl1e chJld being 

recovered promp~y would be relatively 

good: The fumlly O>Urt judge mould con-

:::ider tlw.t, in cas~s in wh!i;h the obstacles 

to • prompt recovery wou!U be diff!<:ult 

to overtom-el the need for p:reventatlve 

was enacted, nol as an origtnal part of 

the original treaty implementing !eg!slaUon for the Hague Abductlon Convention, but @S part ~f the Forelgn Relations 

Authorlzallori Act, Fhiral Y.;-at~"' 1998/ttHi 

1999, and also "' part of the Forel.gn 

Affairs Refotm and. Restructuring Act of 

199~ and the 01nnlb~s Coru;olldated 

and Emergency Suppl~ental Appmptiat!Ons Act of 1999. 

Dept>!tment of Stntc to •void rpplyln.g 

the munl.ker of non-compliant to offending countries, cvcnrln,: cirGumstances 

where it was clear the oMuc.les to r-emv~ 

e.ry wel"e vh:tnany tottl1. {Note: .If thtf 

ob!tacleS to recovl!ry ol alx!ucted children, as .referenced eat·!la·, aie virtually 

total, then by defi!Jitluu · ll1e cmmtJy 

cannot be treaty compllai!t.) Unless a 

country )Ia<) demon~tmted ddiciencics 

measur('!S is more acute-')- warranting the Under the prlot reporting requJ.te.. ln all three d:f the areas of perfi.lrru.anc:e 

use o1 more restrkttve methods," ments, the Offke of Children's rssues) (central authority compH.ance1 1ud!cial 

The b'eaty is silent with regard to telylng upon tl1e Hogue Conf<'rmlce perimnwnce1 and Jaw Mfol.1:ement perenforcement of its provisions 01' as.1ess- Guid& t.() Good Pmctlce, subjedlve1y iotma:ncc) thqeport woutd indkat~ that 

me:nt of the t:nuf':nt :;;tatus of compU~ assessed ttrrt>e ~.ru~as of perfurrn'i:l..U(:e ln '!he countty displayed merely upatt~t:ns 

ance among treaty partnen. Further, n.o categorizing a country asnon·compliant ofnon~compliance!' Fmther, thereporL~ 

formal recordkceplng component is or dernonstratbn.g patterns of non-com- did not hlghUght quailtative statl!tical 

contained wtthlll the stru~lure of the pliance. HtltoilcaUy, many of lhe reports dat~ that would permit independent 

tseaty', nor has one been IOutinely ur had been received Mth.luke\V.artnertthu~ tevl.~ or reliably document the current 

voluntl!tily t>ken on by the Hague Con- siaSlll by fumlly )awyets, who remained number of cases, how old they mre, or 

fer me c." Tl;e or)glnal requirement of hopeful of the eventoill ahUJly to rely thelT dispqSi.tlon. There wa! no policy of 

tho Ulllt<'d State;; P<p•ttmeut of Slate I:<> upou the !Ufotllli\UOJl in illeir inlerna- Identify.lng," .. f•.Jr ru<!mbel'S of CO!llJ"'-"S, 

ptovidejnfmmaUon to Gongress rega:rd- tional _practices. Pr&ctltioners JX!:r-cetved abductions that had takea place into or 

lng the $latus oi the abdu<tion treaty there ms a tendency on tile port of the out of their constituency. There was no 
71


29692d-4.eps

fmmal ~:ngnhton of the Uttk bem,een Repbtt 1 Jlinicc jacobs, then assistant secw 

milltary service and an over-represent•· retary of state for consul~r affairs, wri:rte: 

lion of JnlernaUonal chU<I abduci.ion "C.ompltance I> a challenge for many 

cast!S. Of t:<mrst::1 the report was limited countries. Cbnsequently1 continu~d eval~ 

to information regarding cOllntrles that \>ation of Treaty impkmantatjon in part· 

were signators .of the Hague Abductlol1 11er rom1IJies and the tl!tlted Stai~s Is 

Tl:eaty, and pr~wideil. lUtle information vital for its SUC(.~s."u "lhe mode!. till the 

"'gardlng repmted abductions or diplomatic and reporting req~irements 

requestc~ ~ssist1111<:e fnvolvlng non- now cQ<!lfied as p_'lt\ of.lCAPM W.s the 

t rraty signator.•. Uu!i.ed States' .Traftkklng V!ctlms Ptotecln the past, the Hague Conference tlo:tt Act 0( 2000 (TVPA) and Its >'llbsehas studiously guar<!ed !to neutrality hy quent amendments." Tbc -use qf 'I'\IPA 

av"Oldb1g engagement ill auy publk neg· wM not accidental. The goal of the 

auve critique of ::;ignatnry c01J.Iltrtes reporting req~b:em·cn~ ft?ttn:d ~ lVPA 

(partlcularly Where it could be viewed as have l:>ecn artkulated M, "seeking to 

punitive) In lavor o( e<lucaUonal and .increase global awarenes> <Jf !he human 

teclmlcal supJ>Oit to encourage treaty l!afflr.ltlng phffiUlllet\on by >lwd<lll'ig 

Implementation. While ttme may be new light on "?arlotis l'acat~ :<Jf the prilb• 

nothing wron~ With thls perspectit>e lem andlttghllght!ngshared·andlndmdwhen 1t results1 

in nrl- untotended loss -of ual effrnts of the luternattopal a.mlmunJ .. · 

hansp11re1H..7 qr is umeservt:-dly t."Choed cy.andUM.mcouragefor~~g~ep_ts 

!n the diplomacy of treaty signators to take e!fective actio-n agillnst <ffi lo.nns 

Wlti'Jout S<;rotlny, it ta!l!ead to a reluc· of tra[llcl<lng In Ile1S(>us."" 

tanr:e to unlllnchlngly review and 'Publl- Whil~ originally the subject of Slmilitr 

cally .warn about tru! actio)ll o_( states- s~ept!Clsm by the J)epartment Qf State, 

party (lncludlog tbe United States· of which xaised numw"'-"' objections in 

Amvdca),, Pt.ll'ther, Jt ~.Jl(.'Outag&.~ a. .false 1~99 tn the fftmnd~llr ~anppw~r. ·and 

sense of ··;,m!ort on the part of the diplomatic burdens inhere"t in the 

world's family court judges, -who col)ld reporth)g funtllon, a decade or TVPA 

assume a countryth•t ldentllfc> itself as "-"''d<>Jnonsl!:at;>d that the Tiaifid<lng In 

a s.igi.·n,h.li) Without more~ at:ts witlt ret..';f..- P.t"''St.)ru; (TIP) ~epo:rt ha$ had a :remark~ 

procltyrogaxdtllilthehnplementatlortQt ablo impact upon the reoo)!l1ition and· 

the tl't!aty. To kpply ·the Gl<dner-John- ,_ amelioration of llfJfic~h•g ln person:l,-

ston .rt&k facwi m•ttlx, such nlts.lulor• lmth ·doru<S!!taDy .,,J .!nt<ll:uauunal!Y. 

matjon could )eave. the hnpress!on of Widely admowle~~. as the world's. 

few existing o~stacte1 to ri;c(lvtty ol a mbt\ compre):)cnsJ~e ·lilld iliflucntll\l 

<:lllld, in the abs"''"' <Jf C9ll<<ete <Usdo- l1-1S~cSSll!fllt. of g1Dl)a) ant\.traftlcklng 

sure of the number, tlt'C\unstanc.,., and effortS, the reportls a J:)o)<n!OO!n.owe ... 

treatment o! active abduction cMes," fu! advoc;acy and campaign:lrtg tool for 

Witho~t the netessary ol:/je<;i:lve sbitlstl· anU·s1avezy gtoups worJUo.g· ootll' ·;n.. 

c-ul ~lSSCSSJ.uent uf the stat-e of tec)ptoc!ty~ cuunt.ty and int"e.fl'!aUonaJty. Since ~001,_ 

attorneys draft international access th<> report has be<ll'l, the princtpal dip!P.. 

arrmgcmcnts unaw'l);e of the potential mali~ toolofthe fm!ted States to engagi 

luabll!ty io roirieve a ~hlld fton! a jnds· foreign government• on the -lmte of traf. 

dictlorr, ai)q Without oon~tderlng or licking ~tid sla]'er.y wltlilU thlli.t awn 

Juctu;Jtng aqd!Upnal scntrity to lns!n~ bolde!)\ (.Ising a fhiee,U~r i;'iW!n, tb~ 

lnwnationa! enforcement in thein>W· 1J.S, Stat. Department ranl\s how eour!--

rlmoni<lllltlgatlon. trios. ~ complying With the 'TVPA. It 

In her lntroduetory oorrespo-ndOnce O!fert a detailed onal)'SIS of credible ev>-

accom_panying the 2010 Compllan<c dcn<.e of people trat!lclting and ;[avery 

111thln ead:l-cOUl\tty, any countm:.tr.aflicl<lng efforts ]>elng undeitakCJ.l i!lld a 

setl<S of suggt'Stiottsft!';[ow the :<Jtu;. 

tion oould an.<l Should fli•p~, "It is a 

hlunt instrument to force·' throogh 

changt' and a strong platfom> in dell•<'<· 

lng credible information that looks at 

solk:l evidence In an objective Ught With 

the weight of .whatis sWl the most pow· 

~..ct\>1 nati<m on ~arlit behmd u .. As an 

advooacy tool you don't get mUCh bettzr 

tha.n that.''" 

The motlvatton fm: the <>ilanges made 

to pteV!ous repo1'tillg requirements once 

adde-d to lCARA att designed with pte· 

dwly lite $a!lle purpose as the TIP 

Rep.;tt. .JCAPJJ:A l$ designed to enhance 

and strmgthen :the Information to be 

~ubmit\11d to (;Ql'lgl"~" llY ~ngpro· 

P,ur.;t\un of mme tha:n gf!l1eralizerl and 

gubject!ve summatt<JS, and by e:xpar;dlng 

repo1'tillg·-""J1llr-Cl'lle!1!s to·]lfovid~·iniorm•tlon abo!JiabdnctJons.w M1l·h't!aty 

jurlsdlctJons. In oddltlon w repor!!ng 

on a:ny C!>onttJ•s b_,. whJd:l fuete are 

peoillng abducf:lons, regardless .uf thdr 

treaty stio:tUS, th~ 1leW.te<j111:t•ri:i€nts wlU 

l""':"'lli• the tools .for judgw, ln a&lit!on 

to lawmakers, fo av;ii\Jaic components 

ol !he practtcal o1ntactes l'aclns fliose 

atlempti~ to ree<);>er theft abduCted 

¢hlldten .. ·For the legts!ato;s and cl!plo· 

rnats¥ i:hls information ·can be u~ed to 

forr.n ancl t"'ml:ununicat:e a mnclusto:n, 

regardingwtt!!ther t!Wehru:be.cn a 'gov. 

enii!l~taUalhne' whim, tlle. eV!<lence so 

demonstrates, ~nd N .contemplate 

dip!<JJ;)latlt ot M~!s~'uv., actio~ it aPJll:O· 

priate. )'<>rille l11tis4 aiforney; atbitratr>t, 

or medlatw .tli!s Information can he 

nsed to objl'<:tl\tely ass•" the systl!m:tc 

obs:tactes to: tec<>very of a child, apm 

from -i\IlY oonto.ted allegations rel!J>(d, 

In~ ihelndlvldual family dynamics and 

to be lilformed by .tllls ~bjei;!ive, non• 

casc-spe<ltie'_iilfotttmti~i\ Jli con_llidetlng 

l'he nece.<Sity or prudence ln recommending tbt lfi\lJO.IitlQrt ttlJ?lCVCJ.llOtiV'>-

mellliUt<lll· or llnhanced enfo:rl'ement 

methari.ism~:"' 
72


29692d-5.eps

Reading the First ICAPRA Report gresstonal imposition ·o£ the modified Sion and exclusion of cases, based upon 

On May 13, 2015, the Office of Chll· reporting nlquiremcnw and a delennl· the department'' re•cJlng of th~ legisla· 

dren1

s Issues tcleased its fll'St lCAPRA 

repl)rt~ admateclly for a trw1eat-ed 

reporting period" [:n testimony soliCited 

before the House Foreign Affairs Su!r 

committee ~')tl Ardca, Gl-obal Health and 

Human Rights, on July 16, 2015, Ambas· 

sador Susan Jacob:l1 spc-da1 advisor for 

chlld1"en's l&SUe:i al U1e Un1ted Statei 

Dcpartm~nt CJf Stah!, toru:eded1 llt her 

remarks regarding the fust compliance 

report Issued pursuant to !CAPRA, that 

there are a nmulJoer {)f ~rtkne:s.se.~. m 

The author believes l:b"'e dlfficult\es 

at best may simply reflect Ute State 

Department's lnabJli'ty to .so quickly 

<OmJ!IY within the statutory tlme!rame 

in a way that reasonnbty art;lcu1ates the 

lnfonnatlon required by the law In a 

useable. tonn .. At :worst1 the author 

belieVes, it copld be read -ftS <;:Vidcn~a· of 

an institu~ional res~ntment tq Ute <:91'~ 

nation t~) tender ttJr. repott of limited tim:~, and· not as ·a les~lt 1

qf ~~pedtlc 

valu•. ln either tas., tho aut!itit f•ols a li1struct1ons in the Jwi'l to/' do so, 

co01pat)SOn betwe-en tb-c qtialiry;· scbpe 

and compt<:henstveneS. of the 300·plus· 

pal!" annual '111' R"!X>tt and the reoently 

released 41-pagc JCAPI1\ report <lemonstrates • failure to appreciate tile need 

for and pot€n!.lal tnU!tnatiottal .impact 

0! tM report reqoiWl by tl;e leg!slallon. 

This first !CAPRA report actually 

wucns, 11Tite r:Me nu.mbers provided in 

Table 2 do not net:essaillV MWct the 

rot~! amount of cMes per coUntry or 

area, reported to the USCA, Rath<IL' the 

statisth;;s. p~p"V\ded reflect the .ntuulJei',of 

abduction or a~ cases that met the 

speclfic<laia requii;emontl! otthel~w. a~ 

ouUlrled in the header .uf <:ategoxtes in 

"11\ble .2 in CY 7JJ14."" A curso:cy review 

by the author appcm t9 i1)dlcate iin 

nlmost arbitraey a:nd suhjec)!ve Juclu. 

Non·Hogue Treaty Casc$ 

lly w•y of e:<J~lllple, ,If one lool:s at a 

non-treaty eountry >uch al :the llnlted 

Arab Eltlirates (lJAE), tlte r<poxt, ln 1'4ble 

2r lndlc.ates the number uf umt;soli'ffld 

cases is wo. A check of the Append)• u, 

which in !Oble 6 purports to llst allunre. 

wlVed cases, otfer,lllO.I\stlJJg for tho UAE. 

This would crune as ·a shock to 

Chtistop!ter Datlm. whose diiughter 

GabrleJle .was al,Jdu<ted by- her :mother 

wtth. !he il&\istanoe m .her matemal 

grandp(il;ents on J)ilg, 4, 2(!!9.lt Wl:lUld 

also be a surpthe to Ci:mgresswomau 

lois (11:anke1 and Senator .Bill Nelson, 

from South Florida,. wllo havo Men 

WQ:rl~ ·w;itL !lie Pepartn\ent ol State 

and Dcpa<t:tncrtt. of Justice ln imlsUng 
73


29692d-6.eps

on h<r return. "Her abductiOn occurred ing it• status within different sections country wilh which !hey have, hol<l bl· 

ln violation of exp1'e:>::. cmJt>rs·prohlhiting of the repott. While seemingly 

tbe rnuU1er from removing the child ac~nowledglng U>nt Japan has conti!t· 

from the United State.<, and pllldng tred its historic patterns ol recalcitrance 

reshictions on p;:.~ssport l~5uanc_t>~Ncitb.m· in the teinm of abducted children or 

par~nt is a citizen of the UAE, As a r-esttltl otganizatlon of rights of actcss1 Jap.nn 

the United States attorney for the South- was not identified as exhlbitir>g patem Distdct of .Jilorida ~ought and h .. >rns of rwn~complian:ce. 

ohtt~lned ttlruinal jndirtments again,'it Within hours o"f the Hague AbducM 

both the abdt1d:ing mother and her tlon Com~en~iOl). ~ccomjng effective 

accompllcc parents for international betw"'n the government of the UnJI€d 

tbild al:xlw:t.i.on pursuant tQ the TnlPma- ~tates and ]ap1Ul in April 20141 the par~ 

tinnal l'a:rental Kldn1!pplng l'reventlon ents of children who l!ad been abducted 

and Crime Act." bahrn has identiiled his from the United States (some of whom 

daughter as having been abmK\00, aod have be<!n prevented from ~ee!ng thelt 

srmght the as;l,tanco' of tht• Office of chHdren lot years), lilcd their appllcaChll<lren'slS>"Ue> in seca:ring her repatri· lions fQr the organization uf rights o! 

ationj as well as -frequent reque.~ts for atcess pm-smmt to Article 21 of the 

dlvlomallc help in securing infom.atlon lrMtf. J eft-behind parents had already 

TI'gardtng her locatino and her llcaltn. been told the t.teaty would not be 

Comrnunlcation from the dep;!llmenf rotroactiwly applicable to their alxluc• 

<.Dnflum. Ull;! case ~.as been lb:e S'llhfeclo,f tlon dalrm1 and w-er~ strOilgly e:nLYJUr· 

<ll&(lt<slon WHh VAE authot!tles by aged '?~ the Japiirlese Central Authoriiy 

Jato])s. Dahm's congj'esstonal represent•- to re.lfnquish any pre-,atlt'J.ca\ion aW~ctivc, Lo!s Frankel, aud her olli<;e bave Uon cta!mS<>noq<~ests looelmn oftJJ.elr 

beeuaggrf!!lvely Involved With tile mat· children to tbeUnitedStates.~ Theehart 

ter, compelling T<l,'lllar diplomatic and oJ pending cases ln the !CAPRA xeport 

Jaw enforcement updates. Dahm's case con!Jrms t..he 40 c:ase5 l\1"('-Te b~·ought 1 and 

appears to fall into !be category of cases indicate' only 29 were subrrJtted t<• the 

the State Department !las remoVed from Japanese Central Authority, and that the 

tl1eir reporting'!'Cquiretn.ents." ]lljiahese Ccill!al Authority Jm takeu no 

The report le•ves the reade< to guess st•ps to <llhmlt the reque.m for ><, ... , to 

at which t~ses the department ~onsld- Oltl)er jud!d.al or a<Jrn!nistritljve !>()dies. 

ered to be outsi<le of the 'd~ta requir~- Nwerthdess, !be report indi<:ato! 

ments of the law/1 or did ne-t "necess~n:· there are zero um;esolv-etl case$, desp-Ite 

.Uy'' reflect the total number of cases. the: fu;;._t that ali vf May 30, 2015 1 there 

R<igMding the ldenllflcatlon of toun· appears to have been no access aecomttles ·demons:trattng a· ~~'pattern of non~ pl'ishedr pursuaP.t to the conv~.ntion~ fm 

compliance," andJrnpllcatingdlplomat- any of tl1e "!'l'Ucanl,, Th~ report does 

ic temedles, Ule author bell~~es the not produt-e a;uy -cvtdMcc of cffoi:l:s to 

>clecuve choices roade io reflecting the negotiate a mern.oran\la of 'm4ttstlmd1lalwe ll1l<l number of pemllng ubduc· lns, or other altern<~te protocol to deal 

rton cases has a direct ·beating un the With the pro-rati(lfa):!on rnses, The docuass-essment of wheth~t a -country is ad~ menta~on does QOt iP,en'tify service 

Jng ln upc:rslstetJt failure~,; members or form-er .s-ervice members 

Ha!{iJt T"'aty Case.< 

Japan is singled out to the teport, 

bttt only as a di_ploma1ic success $tory, 

with tonti'adktury hJfo.nnatiou regardM 

(d€S!rli~ the faet that at lMBt two known 

cases ,..,_,. .among the 1"~-ratification 

ill..,), In identifying it• xcoommend~­

tlom t~ improve <•solutino ol """''· the 

depath~errt does not ldentlfy Japan as a 

lateral meetings, as expressly contemplated by the legislation1

to ?pcouruge gov-

-l'1'Hnlf't1tal officJ_als to colnpJy wllh thelr 

obligations under the treaty, Ot·10 inten·· 

sJty tilelr engagement with the )opanesc 

central Authority for 1>pda1es m prompt 

~se procimlng.:» Howevett.its dU;cuQ>lon 

of Japan references the department's 

efforts as It "conlll)ues to cncoumge the 

.government of Japrul to remove obstades 

that par-ents: ~till fac..-e :ln. gaining access to 

or return of their chlld!cn." The para· 

g1aph dm~s with the sta.ternent that 

('alr.nust: aU of th€'-&e Non~Convention 

cas~ wma.ined un-re~o1v-ed, 11 

!t is u;1dear what the U-t.va1tnu~nt 

means by non.convention cases h1 this 

conl<xt, in thatwhi!el:he pre-ratiftatlon 

abductiQ!l ""'"' would be so consldcrNl, 

a new access- case would be & (~nwntion 

case. Finally1 .a teview ofth~ reasons for 

delay in submission w uutl'lorlty found 

ln Table S identifies each o1Jhe ~9 listed 

~Cc.es$ cases as suffering fl<)rn a <!flay. 

Notabl)'J· the department indicates that 

1n nine of the crues ~"'the case was not 

.s.ubmllti;!Q·tt) a judh.·lal or a<lndiifshatlve 

authotity •thile tbe parents .Pm&ue mediation.'' However, il delay actually rcle13 

to the mediation program advanced by 

the]apaM~C Central Authority In 2013, 

!t has produoed no recognizable sucte$$. 

ln;c;mueh a.~ thE:re has beer1 no success~ 

ful acUlS! applicatimt or abduction appl!· 

catl011.; nox any. significant movement 

on pre·existlng cases, ill< llllt.ttor sees no 

via\llc explanation regarding how Japan 

Js kept fwrn. hein~ ldenlllled objectively 

aS' d<rnonstmtlng patterns of niln-corn· 

pliance. 

Tiw putml!1a1 <llfflculty for eflectlve 

uSf df the 1eport ln its current lorm ls 

thai an attorney or judge u<teroptiog to 

ptospectlvety determ~ne whether Japan 

poses sys~emk obstacle$ to .rec,wery, 

would be lllisguidfd ;n reading or 

attempllog to evaluate the re~ort. ln 

.far.i1 cr.nmst'l im ~parent utgiug tra~1 to 

·Japan could (ant\ likely wlli aq,'Ue) that 
74


29692d-7.eps

Japan should be considered entirely substantl~< i:ustocty i;~ues, Including mechalllsms for working cases .. 

treaty-compliant, and their reciprocal don1estlc violence concerns. ln outlln· lC!\l'RA was n~ drafttg to supplant 

obligations under the tn:aty positively ing a recommended process Jo1~ and the o.r·wea.kcn ICARA, orthe_.avpl.icatiou of 

mot l>ased Hpon this report, as a matt"' components of, a valid abduction pre-. the Hagcle AbducuoJ 1i~ty 0.0 a global 

ollaw. ventlon order, the UGA!'t\ enumerates a basts. Nothing in the text of tl;te legislaAt the hearing conducted In July, number ol apeclf!c n1eawrcs a court may tiqn limlls the l!ague C<mfer~nce In lis 

j-acobs indicated that a revised 1'eport onler. The t1CAf.'A r~fetences trave1 .c.ur.mnt tole~ -or lts relttvam::r~ The· Hague 

would be prepared retlectlng more acru- restrictions and the State Departnlent's Contlre,tce. wlll pre,.;mobly cnntlnuo 

rately the number and status of prndlng G'hild ·Passport !ssuanc~ Alert Program, with lti efforts fot lnternoiional judicial 

!nternal:!onal child abdur.tlon rases/c- and includes nit~ria for e:x.pirationr educatitnl and sharing of goml_pra1;:tlc~ 

modillcMlon or t•voeatlon oi orders. and communicating .international legal 

Working Toward a National Registly Currently enacted in 14 states, the developments. 

for Custody Orders Preventing Travel author llcll"'es J"'.lng the· UGAPA as a 1CAPRA rul\culata .mng:msioual 

from tbe United St~t<i$ beginning template that has been draft- !rrtenlton that an indMdnaJ M!H,ebJnd 

One of what the author views M the ed and ampU!ied by subje(:\ matter p(lrilut~ndthct<.legi!lrepiesentativeswm 

most irnmoctinte[y promising portions of experts can only render a m11lotm or<ier no.loll&<'1 be fureeit ~() il.llgate 'S]IS!emlc' 

lf'AIPRA, and <ertolnly tbe one that .ea>ier rouse, and \h..r<>forenmre llkely maladlesluthe lliplou!lltk>elationshtps 

would directly impact fanilly law attot- to become a regular and ac<mpred .pte- between that country and tho United 

neys and judges, is fuund In the emend· ventaUw method. SUll, it wool<! be ~ilrtes. Qn<:eJt Is .delermlneit, uslr!g:objecment to thel!omeland Sectni(y Act. The , 'he1t>M kit lnte.motioual -~~~·i I>rii<'tl• tlve. «ltei!a, that there Is a lrte>ch In the 

new l<gl>latlon req\!lres tho establt!h- tloners both in the United States and xedprotalt<ll!t!IJ!1Slllpw1thatreatypartm~t ot a tee!eral progmn through tho abroad liJ relilaiil tngi>gect tl),fuiigh t!i~lt *"'' !ii the¢ ·i,j a ~·l!l!~ g9 .. mm~tal 

collllllt.sioner of United Slll.tes Qlstom prolr.ss!orull a.~oclatlons" in renderi!lg J•flure to addre~ intewaUomil parent• I 

atld Bvrder Pmteci:ion, in CQlildinatlM the prwss lniemati®ally ~ser.fri<n~ljf, @b<;luctfun, thebrudet;lct action SbiftS to 

wlth the Devartment of JW<l!t~, federal the~tall>.J)epartmenU<>u1!llMt'he~ipiolaw enforcement, and 1)le Stat<! Depart- The Promise of ICA~RA fl!r malic tools available. !:oidenttly.m4 am_. 

ment, iO p.revent dJildrcn from being family lawyers llor•le the .problems. Jf,and Wltet1 they 

remo~ed from the Unlt•d Stam tn vlo- In addition to the, reportilJ'J}"·and cannot,.thepmldentolt!ie\Jnlle.<!Siate> 

Jation ot a vatld COurt otd~r. Title Jll d;p1olillltlc !unctions mentioned uhove, ha<. an escalatJqg arsenal of llltMuted 

begins this process by eslabllshing a and !:he steps towat<l l;lord~;J: control, 4lplumatic l'E!SQUtces..Thlil>egirl> Mth 1:>!· 

working group. comprised of the m<jor [CAPRA offers real,thrieasst$!<mcet<l.le(t.. lateral and nillltHatm:al dl!CllS>lom au<l 

stak.elloldets, including consultation behind parepts and thelt eoun~l. Now, ag:leemei)tsto<le'l'elop alleinate prQtocol 

with repr~s~tatlv~.s llom the Pepm- u~> longer exper!entlng .thclr t)illd's .fpr the re.SPiu!ion of inleinJ!!lOO)ll dtlld 

meut of Defer"• and the ~BI. abduction as relegafilu to a d<lln.,.tic.dts- abduction, pattlt'tllaily whet" reU$10nl 

In fornmlatlng the program, It Is po"' pule, Jlt!gctnts are M$tl!<!d 9! at least ooe a!)d ci[hmiliy based !ej!ill systems make 

slhlea federal unifonn order preventing senior ofliolalin each and every diplo: ·the fututellkelihoOd of partlc\pation in 

1nternat!m1al travel can be drafted tl1at malle ond consular m.ts~.on aln:nad "~"" ' tne ,Alxluctton !lo!!Y<'.ntion remote. »ut 

prov!d.s an admlJtlstm!lve mechalll= dlllly ""ign~d to assist patent; who need. the author bell~~ .. II a~u. utea<lS !<lent!-

for Ule ~uation of clfi:dtve Otdets. lu to. coordmal:!! !<>gal elfutt1·<tbroad ot limy fying and disclosl~ the rliff!Oulties wttll 

!O(>ldng at the components of-~ mean- attempt to. S<)(! lllflll chlldren, llmb;lssl.S tti!IIIY' p>t~lners, >C fiQlllly iawYeP all' not 

lnjilul au<l valid <n<ler, ·the· worlil<)S' and. consu1at•.s at• w monitor develo.{" lulred into the beilef tba< the trmly is 

group """<i not tl!l_nvl!Ilt th• WheeL lt Ill,<mt> in th .. e cases, and. c~un!cate -~er!y WP1ldng Jtt a p!aoo it does ll<it. 

Cll!l tefur to the Vnlfonn CWld Abduc- aCC\Imte lnfonnatlon hack to the Ul!ited i\Uyscilous <lltlque ol the yrorkiug of the 

tion Pre= !ion Act (UCAPA), "-prornul- States Department ofSta~ Office of Chli• Abductlo1; Convl!lltlon wUI, und!l\!bted· 

gat<lll by (he Natfon;U Conferenet1 of dron~ Issues 11nd tl\e litigants. Jll:lr each !~; :l!so. !ndude • crtt!cal anai}"'S of the 

CODlmlS>!onerson VnllonnStnteLawin txnmtryin W~ t!Jor~ arofii{eot more treatntentoftteaty~Withlnthe\Jn!tc 

2006, 1'hc UCAPA ha;manl2ts the Unl- atHY¢ cases ·of lnlernatlooal ahduct!.,u, l>ct Stai:!!S,. 

form Clllld C'JlStn<iy Jm!S<:Ilction and th:ete.mll$1 bc a written stl:a"'$1<: plan .to 

Bnlorcement /let" wlth ;; host .of othe:i enK•se With fhe appropriate ft>reign Piotlida Ji.AfJY h<J,~ }Jefn .~t.fellow IJflhe 

slllte and fc't!eral Jaws and 11 myriad of e<:i,UlliDpjlrt and provklc .Jl~dic;ta]Jie /!fterrurtliir>~l /Mrdemy of Marrlmonlal 
75

f


29692d-8.eps

Lawyers since 1998. Jn April 2015, shu 

received the American Bar Association's 

Nai1murl Gfa.t)roof$ Advocacy-Award recog .. 

nlzlng h<r body of leg!s1ative W<>rk anti 

adw.1cac-r:. including having served as one of 

th• prlnclp«l author.• of tire IC.APRA. This 

artlr.le i1tclude.~ hlftJrma:tlor~ t:ornpUerl 111 

suppmt of remarks made nt the 1AM1 

the. 1.1\ML Hague: Symposium. New 'totk~ 

\ndit"att:tl the f·laguf! C,oME:ri1ln:j: (k:rtJS 

rtot have access to 'l.tn.lfotm or «lrrent 

statirtics from siguatoJ: co-unttlcs :pwv,ld· 

lng a _re~t ot l'el~:!VIll.l.t ba5is for: the 

a$;Se&sment of lntemab'mlal redt;Jroctty. 

See ~fsG CaWJn M. Uannon1 The .Hague Omvenrlcm ~Jn CiVil A~!)'-'Ct$ Of lutr..rn~t.­

tlonnl Child Ahdueti<m, 1'ho N«d for 

Mecl"!.~t.11s.fil:J to Address l:Jon-Cpmph~ 

'""'· 31 BC Third World L.J. 1Z~, !ol (2011). 

Hague Sympos-ium, Quebet, Ccmadt1, em 1.3, 

"""' 9, 20.15. 

ln "he.t memonu1dum Re Sciln llnd David 

G()ldfONihrh:moJ.tio:nal Child Abduct1m1 

!'.NI>NOTES 

1. "NOI\" tl'lliUf~'ll&l tO 2Z- O,S.C §9001 !;( 

Stq, 

Z. Hague Confurence on :rrtvate lnt:erna .. lionaJ Law. FJnal Ace of the JA(b S!'.mlqn, 

(l<t. 26, 19SO. Si F,d.l<<i!. 10498 (1980). 

J. Mah:;en v. Mt?ilS#11 71.~ ¥. supp. H)b;!t 

(1J.Wyo.1989). 

4. MC:ZJ) Y. Bhmrgam. &.s.S r.. Snpp, s~ 

(lW~NY. 1994). 

5. 2Z U.S.C. §§91 U-9114. 

6. 2.2 u.s.c. !}§9121·9125. 

'J. Sc~ctKm lll amends 6 U.S.C. §23-1 r.ts.eq. 

'lh~ C?CJ'etary1 through-the oo:tl'Ull.lMf9n~ 

¢1' nt u.s,_ CW!toms and nordl:'r l'ratt:!o- tion (refett~d_l'O in ihl~ s&:ti"lin ~s CBP), 

tn cootdtnati,on "W~th tb(! secretary of ·s~ij.\ft, the attorney gt;~J.t~ra1, ~n:d. 

the ctlrlld\lt -of the 11tdera1 Bnreau .ot 

Jnvc-$tigatlon, shall !;Stablish a ptQgtam th~t 1) $E'eki m pre-renL a diUd (~s 

·<iefin?d in 18 u.s.c. §1204(b)(1)). !rom 

.. dep1utin,g from the tenttory :of the Unil-

·t>,d Stat~ H a patent or lega.l"t'\«mllil:o (If 

such <:h.Ud: 1) pteSents a <:ourt <>tdet 

from a crturt of t'Olnpei'ejtt futrsdic~on 

jHOhtb111ng the remf;Wal Q/: . .ro:f;h elUid 

from the United States to a CllP oftk:et ln sn:l'O.d.ent lin:m to pr~wnt -IDd.l. depirr~ 

tLtte'JOl the dttra110:n of suf'Jl-cou.tt: .ortfut, 

itnd 2) 1ewt•$ other cx!stln_g -authm:i· ttc:s and processes to address th~ wrong .. ftd removal and return ot a child, 

8, Hague Contermu "Guide tO: Good Prac- ticr:c." 

9, '~Summa.ry: Pron\-tive MtiUllres- Creirttd.g: 

·a l,(-'..gal tl.u~lromnrot wbtth ret:h.Jt'CS the 

risk of abdtlction/ 11 tart mi·P:reventat:lve 

MeaSilteS; 

10. M!r;K!rmqn v MacKimwn, )91 N.J, W (Zll01). 

't.L Unda Glr.dhtt, ·llh.D.-, md J?~-llet" Jqlin~ 

ston l'h.tJ,, "]udg.s Guldc 10 Rlskfuct:<>ts 

of Chnq. Ah..l:ur:~·lon/ pn~~f'!.fJt~ q:r~ 

March :«>, l9!).;1 at th~ .:ZZnd ."f\.'ational 

Conf!'!fWt<! a:n Juvep:if-ejustke Natiolial Cound1 .of Juvtm.ilP. 'and Family .Court 

J•.Wb~ aud the National. District Attor- neys Assoctatlon. 

12 In May 2014, Se<retary General 

Chrl~tophe :Sernll5Cdn!, m atk\ri;'~">Si{lg 

Prevt'ntf('ltJ' an(i Return Act Of 2014 

(ICAl'A), prep"ed lo' the lntematlonal 

~uy Qf M~t~kmmil'll tawrers, Ash.-· 

iey Thntli~o.11l of Laura Duk & &sooct~ 

aws, Hou&ton1 'l'tx-¥} tevJtmd the J,JJVS 

~odf:on.r;ofUlE:newJegl~lation. Tndoh':lg 

so ;;:be recoUnts h'tate: l)epartment te:.:tl·_ 

mon:v ~f.fuft:d tJ:t Amba~ador $uSa11 

Jacobs bcl:ore t:he Selll'l-re Fcreigo Affairs 

Cortu.nltt!!'.e. st~mmnrt:t.ing: tJ:t~ . State Department's. oppos\Uon to JCMiM .!;IS 

S()lneh&w urlti~l'l"hi.lling' tl'li.~ Worlt ~f t]i~ 

Hague COnfer¢n~ ~11d. "'l:ht~amil~?; tile 

cffi01cy of ~ Cortven.Uou,~' llo~, 

in th~ 35 yw1..r.<;: since the .. etulctme.tn· or 

~h(d::t~ty~ t;he aU.Utor b_eli~s ~H~:_s-~Er 

Confetence. h<l$. nQt seemed ·wfUing -tQ 

'"""I lt<lood<l!>blp Jn provldlllg n>utral Ml<S.fm<nl alld pubUtatlon of t!mily 

i!ml Itk:\l.l;mt 1it"dflstk.s ~V'<\).Ua:ting ~\lf. s~.a .. 

tu:l: of rtruiproctty. Tile United .statt~ 

P~attn:Lel)t "i Stitt~'$ 4t~en:co. to t.t:w. l:!i\&ue Conleretw• "' ~ uooy 1<> whlrn tht Vatted States shrmld I!Wntlriu~ to 

~egat~ lUi sovercl.gn aUttlo;rity'n b not supported ln tile atemi. .o"f lnii:t':!UltJNtal 

f:mdi.y l~w ptttctitionet:S ba'Nng-to JJim ... 

tllj and advotare le:;al prol•ct!Oilll bmd 

ltpr..'ln obrtadt.:~· t6 te-CUvezy. 

14, Se' Bey Uncle Sam! Mayhe it'll tff.IW 10 

stop condoning child abductions: to 

Mexlcor 4-Ili.Oioi::tt~ P, N~wt:re;r~y Wd~, 

42 Gc. J. tnrl & l)ompcl> ~17, 240 {2013), 

!.~. 22 v.s.c. §111)1. 

16, Introductory r-emarks, l?utp~et -'the. 2009 ~afficltlng l11 Pf.r!tQUS (TIPl RqlQ.t~ 

Rli'pm:t and stibiil!qil!mt_'Q.p~at~ R'?dlabl~ 

at '!'I'Wwmt<.g~v/llftip. 

!7. Stev. Trent llnvltoom<rotlll.Ju•U« f""'" 

OOtion; How N00 1

$ me us~ng the 'ltd£. f.it:'kil~ tn l?~r$_t;\n':: .Rt>_Fdtt, Anni~ Ke-J)yi 

Tlw VUt1~im11. 21 Jum,~, ZOl:t• 

lS. '!ltlc ~ !001\A, !lepMtment ot Smte 

Aet!on<, llep~I'lmg Reqltlremtntjv 

ActJQ!ls ·1n ll!'ii>Onse to VnrelolY«< 

G- Adlont ln.~Qn>Ol<> 0<!1'~ 

11at1on or 1\ltte~u of ~onc.omp:Uanre, 22 u.s.c:, 11§9111·9114. 

19, 1be repott ln.dl<:ates t!R>.t tbe .tep<lrtmg 

period u.n.det t,hE;:srut~ was from ~ug. 

2014 to tlfi'~ Z.OU, w.ffh ·fiit>-ne .reports 

retl-ecttog a calimda:r ye;it. 

2(). http://fOrclgn~ff.airs.horr.s.e.gqyJhear· 

~ngtsul>~oromitttc-he-a.dng"g.Qldma,n~ 

af:t·t-Gtum~abducted-amerl~lm-thUiire.n~ 

emutlng-!l.ceunrte-numbers. 

Z1. S~Oon 3.2, CounU:les and At~fls W.lth 

~~~~r t{o~Ot~~~f% ~b~cfion Ca~s 

22. 18 u.s.c:. §1204. " 

23. 11tt department bas indePendently 

detel'm.l'qt!d tl:Jat.,.,.mt.lS.t· non.C.onventlan 

cn5« do not meet JCAP1i •. Ns definltion of 

an U.l~resolved abductt(u\ ea:sl!. '~ Thelt 

ptlqiDSt!.hll application of thr.: deilnttions 

10 exclude vlttually all •ru«ng non- tteaty· ibt:h:~ctlon <:ases from reporUng, unles~ ~here is- a t.eqttastmatfu tb a non~ 

exlstmt ·ctnttal llUfuOrltyl rs neither a 

f<tif,.!LQl' aet:tlxa,te.reaillng of Ule lang~lage 

a nO futc:nt of the :natute. The: acrotnj)a' 

nytrtg s~t('ment1 "W!l.Cfl Pil1~1:s U:\t! the 

legal sY!>te:m of'a non-Convention rountty, !hey '"' likely J?>fticl~atlng !n fue proteedJng f<u custody of the th!.ld1 

wlllch may rtot UWJ.llWUht-: retutn oi the 

child 10 l'l!• Un!red Stilt<~. !lllhec ·thm 

lJ.Qbmif.!:lrJ,{, ~~ :~Jppl{~~n tor r~turn. ~,( 

tbe .f.hitd tot determinatton to the judi· tli.al o~ mhninistta.thle au~ttty. -'Ihercio.re., i}re De:partment does :bot mnsid:er a: custody; pxocnedir.g ·to b~ . .,n. uure. solved a'!xlu.dkm cas~ irt a; non~to.nven~ 

twn <iluntrji, Ml<i<< lh•r• I.S •M a '"'' mat ceque$t fur. tehrf'r4~ l-s patt1C~lnlly 

un!l<lpJ:i1!. Jl a pl\lt1ll l!os 1<\en.ti.fl,il 

th(!]r (:hUd-:asJtavl.ng be~l abdttcred, afld 

as a i'eSult pPen&i a lZ\IM! "-ith the Offire 

of chrtd""'-'' lssu<>. .then io ternove Ul~Jr caSe i1'0n1 the di.tta,, betru.J,"Se tb~ 

are f¢KW to tHe ll t:t~$h>dy tomp!umt ns the ¢nty: po~IQle way to perf'fct the. 

remm cnt~:Wr- chUa, ls: Ut.l~trppor~l\UJe. 

M-' lnd~ed, ~ ~~..ulll~ "lil.'l.,'t\~$ U:lt!tll~tion 

progr•m• hlldh<ettofl<r<dlr!Pe<. Ztlla, 

i'JI"!ty t\) par~nt.~ vi a.W.t~.J;f*'- t:hlldr~r~ 

who wer• 'I')Ulng to ronn,lly ol)andon 

thmr aboud.lon~ cl~~' 

2& Id. 

25. 11lbie 3 )\ero~atlon> to ln\J'TO'I" llesohHiml of Ca'>t:!f Jfi_ COuntdiffl:. or 

,.., wftb Ill•• m Mote l!eitlding AOOUc· tion Cll<e:<dmlngccV ZOl4rlit 2() .. 

27~ Uniform Child Abdllcfloo l'nWentlon 

A{.:t (S.talutrn'f '!t'-X~ .(::0Iru'M.iits~ 'UI"i>-Offt .. 

cb~ .Not~tirui~) -:Ll~da EJro.d~ ro.~ 

llqJQ>tei. ~l Pant I.:Q. Z3 (W7). 

2A. llnlfOIIll Chlld C!Il19dY l~'lsdl<;t!pn qnd 

lln.fOre~men.t}u;:t. iippt~"9~ 19971 ~n"q,.. 

«tm rul slfi<<t<lX«P'tl"' wh"e pend· 

tng. ww~uutlo~mlmv.cam.mtsstott,(:Offi, 

:19, lri.ter11~tlona1 .Adlde.t,ny cif ~ftht!otUal 

Lawyor il"l!t'll Wor~ing Group~ lui . ..-.,•· 

ttonn~ LaW and PtticedUte ~ittee of 

the -~~nuy liw ~iion or th<!· ABA 

>hou!d: pr<WlM ttdm!M "'iS"""' tt> the wot;kitfg gt:OJJp in addles!!lilg best 

IH~die.e:s #). ~il\.l!Jsh ~Udily oi ..:trdetos. 
76

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


29692e-1.eps
77


29692e-2.eps

which he uses to contact me regularly. If they had only looked at the call log on that phone they would 

have discovered that was a lie. But it's likely that embassy officials were willing to turn a blind eye 

because then they would be justified in doing nothing to return my 6 year old traumatized son to his 

mother. 

The next welfare check I requested from the DoS was refused by my husband, and so it never 

happened, which is the most dangerous reason to NOT conduct a welfare check! 

My son was put on tl1e Children's Passport Issuance Alert Program (CPIAP) by the DoS. and I was 

hopeful that when my 6 year old son would turn 10. the renewal of his expired passport would give me 

some leverage with his father, but apart from starting to allow fully monitored on and off contact on 

WhatsApp 6 months before renewal time, it has not yielded any other results. 

I found it very odd that in my deep despair when I askecl my OCI case officer to connect me with other 

parents in my situation, they refused saying it was a privacy issue. I responded that I was completely 

Okay to waive my own privacy. They again refused, which I found deliberately unhelpful. Eventually, 

through various sources I have now become part of a large coalition of parent advocates under the 

umbrella of the iStand Parent Network. But it is still a mystery to me how the DoS can put up the names 

of several indian lawyers on its website with the disclaimer that they cannot really vouch for any of 

them, yet they don't list the names of the iSland Parent Network and 1ndiv1duai parents like me. At least 

we don't cr1arge money and generally give better advice on IPCA than most lawyers on that list. 

My interactions with the FBI have been positive in some ways and frustrating in others. I was lucky to 

have landed an FBI agent who has successfully brought back some abducted children from countries 

like Saudi Arabia and Tunisia, but he was unable to convince the federal prosecutor to press criminal 

charges against my son's paternal aunt Arshi Khan and her husband Dr. Samad Khan, despite 

obtaining the evidence through grand jury subpoenas that proved that the one-way Delta airline plane 

tickets from Atlanta to Dubai that were used to fly my son out of the country were purchased by them! 

My FBI agent asked the federal prosecutor to press charges against Arshi Khan and Dr. Samad Khan 

for aiding and abetting in my son's abduction, and the prosecutor is sa1d to have responded "The sister 

and her husband wil! only say that they bought the tickets but never knew thai her brother was planning 

an abduction". I insisted that Arshi and Dr. Khan have never answered my hundreds of phone calls after 

my son's abduction - is that how innocent people behave? And why is the burden of proof on me? Let 

the family members who purchased my son's ONE-way international plane tickets in the month of April 

when there were no scl1ool holidays ongoing, have to prove that they had only "pure" intentions. If in 

2013, Arshi and Dr. Khan has been charged for aiding and abetting in my son's international abduction, 

I have no doubt in my mind that my son would l1ave been returned to the US within months, and my 

husband would have been forced to sit down with me to work out some sort of shared parenting plan, 

instead of my being carved out aimost completely from my son's life for the last 5 years 

The day my husband flew with my son to Dubai instead of returning to New York as planned, he ca!led 

me from the airport for a few seconds and told me to speak to my son who he said was refusing to get 

on the plane ... he handed his phone to my son who was sobbing harder than I had ever heard him, my 

poor angel Abdallah, and I told him not to cry and to get on the plane and come back to New York 

where I was waiting for him, and my son tried to say some thing to me though his sobs, but rny 

husband quickly grabbed the phone back from him and told me he had to hang up or they would miss 

the flight 

My heart still screams in fury and unbearable pain when I remember the details of that call. My son tried 

to tell me he was being abducted and I had no clue. But the reality is that even if I had known, there is 
78


29692e-3.eps

nothing I could have done to restrict my son's travel without a custody order. which I did not have at the 

time as I was married to my husband. Unlike at the Canadian or South African airports where a parent 

must produce a notarized letter of consent from the non-travelling parent to be allowed to exit those 

countries. Unlike in India, where a foreign national cannot leave India after a 6 month stay without an 

·'exit permit" provided by the Foreigner's Registration Office (FRRO). Unlike in the UK where a 

concerned parent can ask the police to place a "Port Alert" on children at risk of abduction Without a 

custody order. 

Through my own case and those of several other parents across the US, in the last 5 years I have 

learnt about the utter failure United States government in preventing new abductions and in bringing 

back the 10s of 1000s of already abducted children since the 1980s. Congress has been holding 

hearings of IPCA since the 1980s and there were cases of American children abducted to India even 

then. Yet India and the US still have no bilateral treaty or MOU in place to address this still growing 

crime. 

I learnt that although what happened to my son is federal crime in the United States since the 1990s 

under 18 USC 1204, there have been only a handful of prosecutions. 

Prosecutorial discretion has been abused in other IPCA cases besides mine- most consequentially in 

the case of Dl1armesh Ved, whose wife Sejal Ved was restricted from travel outside the US by the 

Kansas family court by confiscation of her US passport because she was believed to be fligr1t nsk after 

the police had to be called to the house when Sejal held a knife to their middle daughter's throat and 

threatened to kill her 1f she was not allowed to take all 3 kids to lnd1a to live with her parents. Dharmesh 

Ved was given sole custody by the Kansas family court of all 3 of their daughters. She however 

obtained a fraudulent Indian passport from corrupt Indian consulate officials in Houston, which she 

used to flee the US with t11e youngest daughter Kiara to seek refuge in Mumbai where her family has 

political connections. Dharmesh spent about half a million dollars on litigation & appeals in both the US 

and India, and 5 years later, JUSt 2 weeks before he was almost certain to win a decision in his favor at 

the Supreme Court of India, his 6 year old daughter died under highly suspicious circumstances of 

aplrazolam ingestion {a medication for anxiety and panic attacks) according to the Mumbai Lilavati 

hospital rned1cal reports. But an "autopsy report" issued by the Mumbai police over 6 months after her 

death states she died of pneumonia I Prior to Kiara's death, the Kansas DA's office had several times 

refused to extradite the US citizen mother Sejal for passport fraud arguing that it would be a waste of 

their resources: Dharmesh knowing that his daughter was in imminent danger with her mentally 

unstable mother even offered to pay all costs for extradition, believing that may be the only way to bring 

the child back safely to the US to his lawful sole custody. And now little Kiara is dead, her father and 2 

older sisters are traumatized. and they still have no answers as to who was responsible for her 

suspicious death. 

I learnt that many US family court judges are still ignorant of IPCA and the Goldman Act which is US 

law since 2014 and should therefore be common knowledge to all US lawyers and JUdges who bother 

to update their knowledge as we physicians have to annually in order to maintain our license to 

practice. An American mother in Arizona will be held in contempt of court if she prevents her children 

from travelling this summer to India, which DoS has labelled "non-compliant" with respect to IPCA 

since 2014. 

I learnt that the Indian Judiciary even at the highest level of Chief Justice is corrupt. Our American 

children are literally being held hostage as "golden geese" by greedy lawyers and judges for 5 to 7 

years due to the heavily backlogged courts where 30 million cases are currently pending- of which 90% 

have been pending for over 1 year and 50% have been pending for over 5 years. IPCA is a booming 

COTTAGE INDUSTRY industry in lnd1a with both the left behind and abducting parents spending 
79


29692e-4.eps

anywhere from $60,000 to 500.000$ on litigation 111 2 countries for 5-7 years, and with no almost no 

access the whole time' 

A Delhi Supreme Court Judge issued the following order in the case of Roshni, the abducted daughter 

of Ruchika Abbi who in 2015 had testified before this t10norable Committee. Ruchika had to move to 

India for 1.5 years to get her daughter back, almost losing her JOb in the US, being reduced to near 

poverty. Roshni's custody was first awarded to Ruchika by the Supreme Court of India, but when her 

husband disobeyed that order by abducting Rcshni during a Supreme Court ordered visitation on Indian 

soil, the Supreme Court instead of penalizing !l1e now twice abducting father for contempt of court 

ordered the poor child to remain in her captor's custody! The judge even acknowledged signs of 

parental alienation: " .. We hope, trust and expect from the appellant (Ruchika) and respondent no. 

2 (twice abducting father) to cooperate with each other for the sake of their minor child's welfare 

and taking advantage of temporary custody of the child not to influence her innocent mind by 

tutoring her and create hatred against others for their personal interest - a fact, which we 

unfortunately noticed while interacting with the child on two occasions. Indeed, we feel that 

such attempt on their part and especially, respondent no.2 may do more harm to the child in 

longrun." 

For a Supreme Court Judge to recognize parental alienation of a 7 year old girl by her twice abducting 

father and still order her to remain with her father is the most cruel type of child abuse. It is no better 

than if a Judge were forcing a 12 year old rape victim to marry her rapist, thus legitimizing the rape, 

exonerating the rapist, and sentencing the victim to a lifetime of continued horrific abuse. 

Only in India are women and children still treated as second and third class citizens. Indian courts & 

government officials have shown clear disdain for women like me & Ruchika because we have hard 

earned careers in the US and have the courage to stand up to the abuse from our husbands and inlaws and to stand up for our rights as wives and mothers. 

The Indian Ministry of Women and Child Development (MWCD) has shown only heartlessness towards 

women like myself whose abusive husbands are trying very hard to erase us from our children's lives 

MWCD officials almost never respond to our many emails. They refused repeatedly to grant us left 

behind parents an audience on February 3'" 2017 at a stakeholder meeting about IPCA, instead 

deliberately misdirecting us to "tweet" our concerns, while abducting mothers, their lawyers and antiHague lobbyists were invited to the meeting chaired by Minister Maneka Gandhi! 

The Supreme Court of India and MWCD support IPCA as an abducting mother's rightful defense 

against alleged domestic violence (DV). The same Supreme Court of India and MVVCD have forced us 

American based left-behind mothers into grave financial difficulties by giving us multiple court dates in 

India which we are forbidden to attend via video conference, courts dates which keep getting 

postponed month after month leading to multiple fruitless trips in a year to India, and by issuing 

outrageous, misogynistic court orders that forbid us, the biological mother and the custodial parent by 

US law, to have our children with us for overnight stays, by preventing our children from vacationing 

with us in the US or even within India. Bindu Philips, after 8 years apart from her abducted twin boys, 

finally go! 1 week court ordered visitation, during which her ex-husband supervised l1er and the boys, 

even staying in the same hotel and making the kids go back into his room with him instead of staying 

w1th Bindu. 

In December 2015. over a year after the US DoS had labelled India as '·non-compliant" according to the 

definitions in the Goldman Act, the DoS sent an application to the Government of India requesting the 

return of over 90 abducted American children, including my son. India has been stalling for the last 2.5 

years on their official response, and the DoS's only answer to Congress has been "We are meeting with 

4 
80


29692e-5.eps

the Indian government repeatedly and raising our concerns and educating them about tile need for 

accession to The Hague" which does not answer the question at all, because India's accession to the 

Hague Convention on International Child Abduction will not lead to returns of the existing 90 +cases! 

Seeing !hat the DoS by its own choice is basically nothing more than the "Department of Status Quo", 

in 20H we left behind parents took into our own hands to reach out to the spec1al Punjab and Haryana 

Committee designated by the MWCD in early 2017 to weigh the pros and cons of India acceding to the 

Hague Convention. This committee 1s headed by Punjab and Haryana High Court Justice Rajest1 

Binda!. (Ms Suzanne Lawrence has referred to it as the Haryana Committee) .. 

On September 16th 2017, about 17 Left behind parents from the US, UK and Australia managed to get 

the Haryana Committee officials to agree to a video conference, attended by the following committee 

members-Justice Rajesh Binda! Committee chairman, Justice Garg Committee Panel member, Justice 

Anita Chaudry, Committee panel member, Ms. Meenaxee RaJ Committee coordinator, Ms. Astha 

Saxena, Joint Secretary of the Ministry of Women and Ct1ild Development and Ms. Uma Shekar, Joint 

Secretary Ministry of External Affairs. 

The Haryana committee heard our heart breaking stories over video conference. At least half of us 

were mothers who i1ave been victims of DV apart from having our children abducted to India by our 

husbands. None of us women are paid alimony. Most of us have had money, wedding jewelry, dig;tal 

cameras, laptops, passports and other travel documents stoien from us by our husbands. Some of us 

have been given ex parte divorces. All of us stayed in our abusive marriages for the sake of our 

children and because we fell we had no escape. All of us have been deprived of almost any meaningful 

contact with our children. Each and every committee member had disinterested. skeptical expressions 

on their faces as they heard us out and watched some of cry. They said nothing except "Thank you, we 

don't have the time to listen to everything today, please send us your stories via email." No 

acknowledgement of our pain. We sent ema;ls to all the members of the Haryana Committee, but we 

only received acknowledgement from the committee coordinator that our emails were received, but no 

offer of assistance or even sympathy. 

Later we discovered certain facts that made us believe that the Haryana Committee is compromised by 

a conflict of interest. A l1and!ul of wealthy abducting mothers who are US citizens of Indian origin, their 

lawyers and the anti-Hague lobby, have been meeting for several months at committee chairman 

Justice Bindal's home. Conflict of interest would explain why India after being labeled "non-compliant" 

by the US created a draft bill of The Hague in June 2016, formed the Haryana committee to discuss 

India's accession to The Hague in early 2017, spoke with us left behind parents in September 2017, 

and still has not budged from its anginal position, which remains that India's accession to The Hague 

will be disastrous to the safety of Indian women. This is a lie. 1/3 of all left behind parents are mothers 

and the Hague if correctly implemented would protect us, and more importantly protect our children. 

One of the most vocal opponents of India's accession to The Hague is ex- Additional Solicitor General 

(ASG) of India, Indira Jaisingh. She has made it her personal mission to lobby tile Indian government to 

prevent abducted American children from being returned. Here too there is conflict of interest as she 

actually takes on IPCA cases herself. In 2016 she was charged by the Ministry of Home Affairs for 

soliciting over a 100 million rupees in foreign funds for her NGO "Lawyers Collective" in the name of 

creating AIDS awareness in India and advocating lor women·s rights (which included basically writing 

bills that if enacted will make it easier for women to sue their husbands for large sums of alimony). 

when in reality those foreign funds were used to finance the campaigns of various ministers who have 

helped keep her in powerful government positions over the years. Jaisingh's NGO license was 

subsequently suspended and then cancelled by the Ministry of Home Affairs in December 2016, 

however in 2017 she was g;ving opinions in the major Indian newspapers claiming that India must not 
81


29692e-6.eps

sign the Hague because Indian women will suffer great harm. Minister Maneka Gandhi has been 

inexplicably partial to her opinion. 

Indira Jaisingh, Suranya Aiyer and Malavika Rajkotia are high profile Indian lavvyers who advertise 

themselves as "women rights" advocates, but when we left behind moms approached them for their 

help, they turned us away rudely and even aggressively, when they realized we are not about extorting 

money from our husbands, but only wanted our children to have both loving parents in their lives. 

There is a left behind mother from San Jose CA named Nidhi Sharma. Her son Daksh was abducted at 

the tender age of 4 years old by his father not once but twice- first from India to the US, and then after 

N1dhi followed them to the US, a second abduction, this t1me from the US to India. Nidhi had already 

filed criminal charges in India against her husband and in-laws in 2015 tor the first outbound child 

abduction and though their passports were impounded they were never arrested She has had 

absoiutely no contact with Oaksh tor almost 3 years since the first abduction. in November 2017, 

Daksh's father tragically committed suicide in India. Nidr1i traveiled to India and spent almost 3 months 

there from December 2017 to February 2018. trying to get her son back using every legal cl1annel 

available. 

She spent several long days commuting 8 hours either way from her small home town to the Punjab 

and Haryana High Court. (The Haryana Committee is aware of her case). Nidhi was able to see Oaksh 

only once in the 3 months as a result of a writ of habeus corpus petition. Daksh however is totally 

brainwashed and even scared of her- he was tutored by his paternal grandparents to announce to the 

judge - "She used to beat my father, and she twisted my thumb when I was small, and nobody taught 

me to say all these things". Meanwhile her late ex- husband's parents started shouting in the court that 

Nidhi's 200+ emails to her husband begging for access to her son were ultimately responsible for their 

son's suicide, whereas they already knew that their son had a history of failed suic1dal attempts in the 

past due to untreated psychological problems. 

Despite the obvious parental alienation/brain washing of Daksh, tl1e response of both the Punjab and 

Haryana High Court and Lower Court judges has been to order him to remain with his brainwashing 

elderly grandparents, and for Nidhi to attempt to "mediate" with her ex- in laws. 

Nidhi's lawyer has now informed her that her in laws l1ave petitioned for the legal guardianship of her 

son. As with the disastrous case of Ruchika Abbi. at the end of years of litigation, the judge will ask the 

abducted child who they want to live with, and as in most cases wt1ere the child is so young and so 

petrified of or brainwashed by their abductors, Daksh will probably say he w1shes to remain with his 

abducting grandparents. 

And that is how the Indian judiciary washes their hands off the responsibility to do what is right by 

America's abducted children. They very eagerly usurp jurisdiction over American children the second 

they land on Indian soil, using fancy legal terms like "parens palria" in the wrong context, but they 

refuse to protect our children's human right to l1ave access to both their parents. Why doesn't India 

apply "parens pa!ria" to the existing 400,000 street children of India who are forced into the multimillion 

dollar child trafficking industry? These same judges & lawyers drive by these street children everyday 

on their way to & from court. Why only American, British, Dutcll citizen children? To fail to recognize the 

financial motivation & conflict of interest behind India's policy to LEGALLY retain abducted American 

children is to deliberately turn a blind eye to the abuse of our innocent children as "Golden Geese" 

The anti-Hague iobby in India paints a false narrative that the taking parent is aiways an Indian woman 

fleeing the domestic violence she suffered in the US, an uneducated, only Hindi speaking, beaten up 

woman who cannot dial 911 Yet when she lands in India she is capable of immediately retaining high 

profile lawyers and filing multiple simultaneous petitions for dO'Nry harassment, domestic violence, 
82


29692e-7.eps

alimony and child custody. In reality the anti Hague lobby including Indira Jaisngh and the Minister of 

WCD Maneka Gandhi do nothing to help the true DV victim women and children in India. 

Maneka Gandhi has publicly shown more sympathy for street dogs than to women like me. 

From my own experience as a DV victim in India in 2016, I learnt that Indian law enforcement does 

NOTHING to assist and protect abused women and children. India is a country that turns child 

abduction and domestic violence cases into civil cases and then looks the other way while we women 

and children are left to fend for ourselves in the courts. In the US the police come to the victim's rescue 

within minutes of a phone call to 911 and the abuser gets arrested and jailed. However, when I VIsited 

India in November 2016 for my son's 10th birthday, my husband physically assaulted me in front of his 

extended family and our son. My husband'S kind hearted relatives rushed to protect me and my 

parents. I returned to my hotel some miles away with my parents with a bad concussion that would last 

10 days and with my clothes torn and with the fear of more violent attacks against me and also possibly 

even rny son. I called the Women's police station to help me, and they told me they will first need 

"investigate" before they are able to press any charges against my r1usband, which would take at least 

2 weeks if not longer, and that if he is charged for domestic violence, he would be arrested and jailed 

for 24 hours and then get out on baiL At NO time would I receive either pol1ce protection or a court 

protection order. I also called the national Child Helpline to tel! them my son was in danger of being 

physically abused by his violent father, and they told me that even if I were to obtain an Indian court 

custody order, Child Helpline staff are not permitted to remove a child away from a violent parent 

After I was assaulted, I emailed Minister Maneka Gandhi and the Ministry of External Affairs about my 

assault along with a graphic picture of me in my torn clothes 14 months later, I got an email response 

stating that they will not open a case! 

Mothers like myself, Ruchika Abbi, Bindu Philips, Swati Binayki and Farheen Khalii have not only had 

their children abducted and illegally retained in India by our abusive husbands, but Indian judges have 

"ordered" that they only get few hours visitation a year, a few minutes Skype calls on weekends, 

absolutely no overnight stays and no travel to the USI 

The Mumbai High Court recently issued a shocking decision in April 2018. Shehzad Hemmani is an 

Indian citizen and Nadia Rashid is a dual Dutch & Pakistani citizen. In September 2016, at only 1 year 

and 5 months old, lnsiya was abducted by her father Hernmani's hired henchmen from the Netherlands 

to India. 4 of 5 kidnappers were later arrested in the Netherlands, however the father Hemmani remains 

in India protected by the Mumbai courts where the Interpol diffusion notice against Hemmani was 

cancelled and an official extradition request from the Netherlands government was denied. In 2017 the 

Dutch Foreign Minister himself spoke with India's Minister of External Affairs Sushma SwaraJ and was 

flatly told "A father cannot be accused of abducting his own child" & to trust the Indian judicial system to 

deliver justice to lnsiya. The Mumbai Family Court in January 2018 finally ordered lnsiya's return to her 

mother in the Netherlands, however, Hemmani appealed to the Mumbai High Court, which has ordered 

that lnsiya, now 4 years old and with no contact with her mother for the last 2.5 years, remain in India 

with her abducting father! The judge has given the following twisted reasoning- 'The child has gained 

roots in India, the child is not conversant in the Dutch language and would feel completely uprooted if 

transferred to Netl?erlands and is made to live in an atmosphere where the child is left only to tl?e 

mother. whereas in India, the child is in company of the grandparents with lot of love and affection 

being showered on the child The issue as to in what manner lnsiya was brought to India, is of no 

significance. As India is not yet signatory of the Hague convention, the Court in that country to which 

the child has been brought must consider the welfare of the child,. Though tha Comity of Courts is a 

principle of lntamational acceptance, it would not partake the guiding principle in the custody matters 

being the welfare of the child to be of paramount importance .. .in view of her bonding with the father 

and his family and with the country for the last 18 months, would cause tremendous mental and 
83

f


29692e-8.eps

psychological harm to the child, v;ho is at tile age of receiving love and affection and reciprocating 

the same." 

The judge condones the abduction of the child by the father, and states that to return her to her 

own mother will be cruel! 

We frustrated left behind parents recently took it to ourselves to try to speak directly with Ambassador 

Juster, wt1o was asked by US Congress at the time of his nomination if he would address the 1ssue of 

India's and IPCA. He answered 'Yes" and went on to state that he would like to speak to parents 

directly to hear our stories, but due to some reason or another, Mr. Juster never accepted our collective 

request to meet him in Washington DC before he left for India, and now according to embassy officials, 

Mr. Juster is unable to find the time to speak to us over the phone but is willing to meet with us if some 

of us parents are willing to fly over to Dell1i. We spoke instead to Mr. Hageman and Ms. Pam Kazi on 

conference call and all they could talk about is their "educational efforts". There was no mention of 

Goldman Act implementation by either Mr.Hogeman or Ms.Kazi until it was my turn to speak and I 

respectfully asked them if they have ever heard of the Goldman Act, and they acknowledged they 

"know the Goldman Act very weil" and when I asked- "Well so are you going to use any of the tools 1n 

the Goldman Act against India since India has been labelled non compliant since 2014?" And they 

replied 'We have been meeting with the Ministry of External Affairs and of Women & Child 

Development and we are educating them" and we were then asked to end the conversation since we 

had run out of the allotted time. 

India ratiFied the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) in 1992 and 15 years 

later in 2007 create the Ministry of Women and Child Development with the sole purpose to be the 

nodal ministry to implement the UNCRC, and 26 years after ratification of the UNCRC, India has st1ll 

not implemented the following articles: 

Articles 11, 35-The State's responsibility to take measures, including the conclusion 

of bilateral & multilateral agreements, to combat child abduction and the non-retum of children 

abroad. 

Articles 3, 5, 7, B, 9, 10-The child's right to maintain regular access to both parents, and to be 

cared for by both parents. 

Articles 7, 8- The child's right to preserve his or her own identity. 

Why do Mr.Hogeman, Ms. Kaz1 and the OCI in general fail to see that India wili treat the Hague with the 

same level of disrespect as it has been treating tile UNCRC for decades. 

The only solution with non-compliant countries like India where the legal system profits from I PCA is to 

start using the many tools defined in the Goldman Act. 

I am deeply grateful for the continued commitment of the House Foreign Relations Subcommittee and 

especially of Chairman Chris Smith to deliver justice to abducted American children like rny son. 

Sincerely, 

Sam ina A Rahman. MD 

Mother of Abdallah S. Khan 

Chandler, AZ 85226 

8 
84


29692f-1.eps

Question 1: 

Questions for the Record Submitted to 

Special Advisor for Children's Issues Suzanne Lawrence by 

Representative Chris Smith 

House Foreign Affairs Committee 

April 11, 2018 

How many cases were resolved with Japan in 2017? Were any of those cases resolved by the 

child attaining the age of 16? 

Tn 2017, four Convention abduction cases with Japan were resolved with the child returning to 

the United States pursuant to a voluntary arrangement between the parents as a result of the 

Convention process. Six Convention access cases with Japan were resolved in 2017. One of 

these was resolved pursuant to a voluntary arrangement for return between the parents as a result 

of the Convention process. Two cases were withdrawn by the requesting parent. Tn two cases 

the left-behind parent could not be located. In one case the child or left-behind parent is 

deceased. Tn addition, five access cases were closed because the child was no longer under 16 

years of age. When a child attains the age of 16, the Office of Children's Issues will close the 

child's case, but the case is not considered "resolved'' per the Goldman Act. 

In 2017, seven pre-Convention abduction cases with Japan, where the left-behind parent did not 

file for access under the Convention, were resolved. One of these was resolved with the child 

returning to the United States pursuant to a voluntary arrangement between the parents. Another 

was resolved with a voluntary access arrangement between the parents. In five cases, the leftbehind parent could not be located. Tn addition, one case was closed because the child was no 

longer under 16 years of age. 

Question 2: 

Per the Goldman Act Sec. 202, have any bilateral, working or official state visits been delayed or 

canceled as a direct response to a country's failure to resolve abduction cases? 

The Department has not delayed or canceled any bilateral working groups or other official visits 

in response to a failure to resolve abduction cases. We evaluate how pragmatic and productive a 

particular action will be on a country by country basis. We work closely with stakeholder offices 

in the Department, our interagency partners, and our missions overseas to carefully consider the 

use of each tool outlined in the Goldman Act. Tn our overseas missions, we work specifically 

with our ambassadors, who are the President's personal representatives in a country. For 

additional information about actions the Department has taken, please to refer to our 2016 and 

2017 Action Report on International Parental Child Abduction. The 2018 Action Report will be 

available later this year. 
85


29692f-2.eps

Question 3: 

The Goldman Act does not include a country's Hague Convention status in the definition of an 

"unresolved case" When a country has open both pre- and post- Hague cases, why does the 

State Department include only post-Hague cases as "unresolved cases" in its count for purposes 

of determining whether a country has 30% or more "unresolved cases"? 

The Goldman Act defines countries as either a "Convention Country" or a "Non-Convention" 

country for purposes of determining a "pattern of noncompliance" under the Act, based on 

whether the Convention has entered into force with respect the United States. For a Convention 

country, the term "pattern of noncompliance" means the persistent failure of a Convention 

country to implement and abide by the Convention. Therefore, a threshold inquiry is whether a 

child who has been abducted or retained is subject to the Convention's provisions. Only if the 

child falls within the scope of the Convention will the administrative and judicial mechanisms of 

the Convention apply. Because the return remedy of the Convention does not apply to cases 

where a child was wrongfully removed or retained prior to the Convention entering into force 

between the United States and the other Contracting State, pre-Convention cases have no bearing 

on whether a country is implementing the Convention's provisions regarding applications for 

return. Nevertheless, the Department reports on efforts to seek resolution of pre-Convention 

cases, pursuant to the requirements in the Goldman Act, found at 22 USC 9111(b)(9). The 

Department also assists parents with pre-Convention cases with filing access cases under the 

Convention. 

Question 4: 

How many children were involved in the cases of child abduction opened by the Department of 

State in 2017? How many cases were opened in 2017? How many cases were resolved in 2017° 

How many children were involved in cases that were resolved in 2017? 

Tn 2017, 345 cases of child abduction, involving 496 children, were opened by the Department of 

State. 

Department records show that the average abduction case is open for 13 months. As a result, the 

most recent year for which we can evaluate the resolution of cases is 2015. By December 31, 

2017, 42 percent of children who were reported abducted in 2015 had returned to the United 

States. Of the abduction cases opened in 2015, 62 percent had resolved either judicially or 

voluntarily, another 26 percent resolved for other reasons or had been closed administratively, 

and lastly 12 percent remained open at the end of2017. 

Question 5: 

How many children were returned to the United States in 2017? 
86

Æ


29692f-3.eps

In 2017,215 abducted or wrongfully retained children returned to the United States. The 

majority, 160, returned from Convention countries, while 55 children returned from countries 

adhering to no protocols with respect to child abduction, as defined in the Act.