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

95–517PDF 2015

THE GOLDMAN ACT TO RETURN ABDUCTED

AMERICAN CHILDREN: ENSURING ACCURATE

NUMBERS AND ADMINISTRATION ACTION

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND 

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

JULY 16, 2015

Serial No. 114–89

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

MATT SALMON, Arizona 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

MO BROOKS, Alabama 

PAUL COOK, California 

RANDY K. WEBER SR., Texas 

SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania 

RON DESANTIS, Florida 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

TED S. YOHO, Florida 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

REID J. RIBBLE, Wisconsin 

DAVID A. TROTT, Michigan 

LEE M. ZELDIN, New York 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

ALAN GRAYSON, Florida 

AMI BERA, California 

ALAN S. LOWENTHAL, California 

GRACE MENG, New York 

LOIS FRANKEL, Florida 

TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii 

JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas 

ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois 

BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania

AMY PORTER, Chief of Staff THOMAS SHEEHY, Staff Director

JASON STEINBAUM, Democratic Staff Director 

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

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina 

CURT CLAWSON, Florida 

SCOTT DESJARLAIS, Tennessee 

DANIEL DONOVAN, New York 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Susan S. Jacobs, Special Advisor for Children’s Issues, Bureau 

of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State .................................................. 5

Ms. Patricia Apy, partner, Paras, Apy & Reiss, P.C. ........................................... 30

Mr. Randy Collins, managing director, Bring Abducted Children Home (father 

of child abducted to Japan) ................................................................................. 47

Ms. Kelly Rutherford, co-founder, Children’s Justice Campaign ......................... 56

Samina Rahman, M.D. (mother of child abducted to India) ................................ 59

Ms. Diane McGee (mother of children abducted to Japan) .................................. 79

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Susan S. Jacobs: Prepared statement .......................................... 8

Ms. Patricia Apy: Prepared statement ................................................................... 33

Mr. Randy Collins: Prepared statement ................................................................ 50

Samina Rahman, M.D.: Prepared statement ........................................................ 65

Ms. Diane McGee: Prepared statement ................................................................. 81

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 96

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 97

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: 

Statement of the Honorable Steny H. Hoyer, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Maryland ............................................................................. 98

Questions submitted for the record to the Honorable Susan S. Jacobs along 

with the responses ............................................................................................ 99

The Honorable Edward R. Royce, a Representative in Congress from the 

State of California, and chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs: Statement 

of Sarah Kurtz ...................................................................................................... 102

(1)

THE GOLDMAN ACT TO RETURN ABDUCTED 

AMERICAN CHILDREN: ENSURING 

ACCURATE NUMBERS AND ADMINISTRATION 

ACTION 

THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2015

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,

GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS,

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS,

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:04 a.m., in room 

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

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. Good morning, and the hearing will come to order. 

And we thank all of you, especially all of the left-behind parents 

I see in the audience—and there are many—for joining us this 

morning to discuss how the U.S. Department of State’s first annual 

report under the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act can better correspond with the 

mandate set by Congress and achieve the return of abducted American children, which is the ultimate objective of the Goldman Act. 

Every year, as we know, an estimated 1,000 American children 

are unlawfully removed from their homes by one of their parents 

and taken across international borders. As many of you know all 

too well, international parental child abduction rips children from 

their homes and families and whisks them away to a foreign land 

alienating them from the love and care of the parent and family 

left behind. 

Child abduction is child abuse, and it continues to plague families across the United States and across the world. For decades, the 

State Department has used quiet diplomacy to attempt to bring 

these children home. But we know that less than half of these children ever come home, even from countries that have signed the 

Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. 

In a hearing I held on this issue back in 2009, former Assistant 

Secretary of State Bernie Aronson called quiet diplomacy ‘‘a sophisticated form of begging.’’ Thousands of American families, still ruptured and grieving from years of unresolved abductions, confirm 

that quiet diplomacy is gravely inadequate. 

Last year, Congress unanimously passed the Goldman Act to give 

teeth to requests for return and for access. The actions required by 

2

the law escalate in severity and range from official protest through 

diplomatic channels to extradition to the suspension of development, security, or other foreign assistance. 

The Goldman Act is a law calculated to get results, as we did in 

the return of Sean Goldman from Brazil in late December 2009. 

But the new law is only as good as its implementation. The State 

Department’s first annual report that we are reviewing today is the 

first step in moving past quiet diplomacy to results. The State Department must get this report right in order to trigger the actions 

above and for the law to be an effective tool. 

Countries should be listed as worst offenders if they have high 

numbers of cases—30 percent or more—that have been pending 

over a year, or if their law enforcement, judiciary, or central authority for abduction regularly fail in their duties under the Hague 

Convention or other controlling agreements, or if the country simply fails to work with the United States to resolve cases. 

Once these countries are properly classified, the Secretary of 

State then determines which of the aforementioned sanctions the 

United States will apply to the country in order to encourage the 

timely resolution of abduction and access cases. 

While the State Department has choice on which tools to apply, 

and can waive actions for up to 180 days, the State Department 

does not have discretion over whether to report accurately to Congress on the country’s record or whether the country is objectively 

non-compliant. 

As we have seen in the human trafficking context—and I would 

note parenthetically I authored the Trafficking Victims Protection 

Act of 2000 as well as the Goldman Act—accurate accounting of a 

country’s record, especially in comparison with other countries, can 

do wonders to prod much-needed reform. Accurate reporting is also 

critical to family court judges across the country, and parents considering their child’s travel to a country where abduction or access 

problems are a risk. 

The stakes are high. Misleading or incomplete information could 

mean the loss of another American child to abduction. For example, 

a judge might look at the report table filled with zeroes in the unresolved cases category, such as is the case with Japan, and erroneously conclude that a country is not of concern, giving permission 

to an estranged spouse to travel with a child for a vacation. 

The estranged spouse then abducts the child, and the left-behind 

parent spends his or her life savings and many years trying to get 

the child returned to the United States, all of which could have 

been avoided with accurate reporting on the danger. 

I am very concerned that the first annual report contains major 

gaps and even misleading information, especially when it comes to 

countries with which we have the most intractable abduction cases. 

For example, the report indicates that India, which has consistently been in the top five destinations for abducted children, has 

19 new cases in 2014, 22 resolved cases, and no unresolved cases. 

However, we know that from the National Center for Missing and 

Exploited Children that India has 53 open cases, and that 51 have 

been pending for more than 1 year. 

While the State Department has shown willingness to work constructively on making the report better, for example, meeting last 

3

week with our staff, our June 11 hearing left many questions unanswered as to why this report failed to hold countries accountable 

for unresolved cases. 

We wrote the law with the belief that the State Department was 

formally raising these cases by name, with the foreign ministries 

of destination countries, and asked that cases still pending for 1 

year after being raised would be counted as unresolved. But these 

cases were not included in the report. 

A few parents who reported their cases to the State Department 

years ago, and who have consistently been asking the Department 

for help, were told by their case officers recently that the cases 

were formally communicated to India in May 2015. May 2015. 

Clearly, delay is denial. They thought that that was not the case. 

The Goldman Act also requires that the State Department take 

actions against countries, such as India and Japan, if they refuse 

to resolve abduction and access cases. The Goldman Act requires 

the State Department to bring negotiations with countries like 

India and Japan for a bilateral agreement to secure resolution of 

the more than 100 open cases we have pending with those two 

countries, cases that are not listed as unresolved in the report. 

The Goldman Act requires an end to the status quo, but the first 

step to change is telling the truth in the report, which is why I am 

so concerned that Japan was not listed as showing a persistent failure to work with the United States on abduction issues. Japan has 

never issued and enforced a return order for a single one of the 

hundreds of American children abducted there. It holds the world 

record on the abduction of American children never returned. And 

yet it got a pass on more than 50 known open cases, most of which 

have been pending for 5 years or more. 

Among those cases is that of Sergeant Michael Elias, who has 

not seen his children, Jade and Michael, since 2008. Michael served 

as a Marine who saw combat in Iraq. His wife, who worked in the 

Japanese Consulate, used documents fraudulently obtained, with 

the apparent complicity of the Japanese Consulate personnel, to 

kidnap their children, then aged four and two, in defiance of a 

court order telling Michael on a phone call that there was nothing 

that he could do. And she said, ‘‘My country’’—that is, Japan—‘‘will 

protect me.’’

Her country, very worried about its designation in the new report, sent a high-level delegation to the United States in March to 

meet with Ambassador Jacobs, our distinguished witness, who will 

lead off today’s hearing, and explain why Japan should be excused 

from being listed as non-compliant, despite the fact that more than 

1 year after signing the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of 

International Child Abduction Japan has ordered zero returns to 

the U.S. 

Just before the report was released in May, 2 weeks late, 

Takashi Okada, Deputy Director of the Secretariat of the Ministry 

of Foreign Affairs, told the Japanese Diet that he had been in consultation with the State Department and, ‘‘Because we strive to 

make an explanation to the U.S. side, I hope that the report contents will be based on our country’s efforts.’’

In other words, Japan understood it could get a pass potentially 

from the United States and escape the list of countries facing acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:49 Oct 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\071615\95517 SHIRL
4

tion by the U.S. for their failure to resolve abduction cases based 

on what Mr. Okada euphemistically referred as ‘‘efforts,’’ not concrete results. 

Sergeant Michael Elias’ country has utterly failed to protect him. 

He has seen zero progress, and I traveled to Japan myself with Michael’s mother. And the idea there was, as she had a very close relationship with her daughter-in-law, that at least the grandmother 

of those children might have access, and we utterly failed during 

that trip to garner any kind of access, contact, and certainly no action on returning his children. 

The Goldman Act is clear. All results for return that the State 

Department submitted to the Foreign Ministry and that remain 

unresolved 12 months later are to be counted against Japan and 

followed up with action. The Goldman Act has given the State Department new and powerful tools to bring Japan and other countries to the resolution table. 

The goal is not to disrupt relations but to heal the painful rifts 

caused by international child abduction. The question still remains: 

Will the State Department use the Goldman Act as required by 

law? 

I would like to yield to my good friend and colleague, Mr. 

Cicilline, for any opening comments he might have. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by 

thanking you for your leadership and for calling today’s hearing on 

the Goldman Act to Return Abducted American Children: Ensuring 

Accurate Numbers and Administration Action, to give us an opportunity to discuss the disturbing increase of child abduction cases in 

recent years and examine how the Obama administration has been 

able to implement the very important provisions of the Goldman 

Act in order to ensure that all children that call the United States 

home are able to return. 

I would also like to thank our distinguished witnesses for today’s 

hearing that includes advocates, government officials, and, most 

importantly, parents that have been personally affected by international parental abductions. 

I look forward to hearing each of your perspectives based on your 

expertise and personal experiences in this area, including your assessment of what more should be done to successfully implement 

the Goldman Act and how Congress can assist with effective implementation moving forward. 

According to the State Department, approximately 1,000 children 

are victims of international parental abduction every year. It is important to note, however, that in recent years there has been a significant increase in the number of American children being abducted. This sharp increase in abductions is a grim indicator that 

while globalization has brought innumerable benefits to us all, the 

ease of international travel has had a negative impact on the number of parental abductions that occur. 

For example, over 300 U.S. children have been abducted to 

Japan since 1994. And despite Japan’s ratification of the Hague 

Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction 

in 2014, many of these cases would not fall under the Convention 

as the ratification does not have retroactive power. 

5

I look forward to hearing how the administration is working to 

bring all abducted children back, not only from Japan but from 

other countries with high numbers of abducted U.S. children, including India and Brazil. And I am very pleased that we have witnesses that can speak to their personal experiences dealing with 

abducted children in those countries as well. 

I am proud to say that Congress has been quite active in this 

area of the law, with strong bipartisan support throughout. In December 2013, the House unanimously passed H.R. 3212, the Sean 

and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and 

Return Act. This bipartisan support shows how committed this 

body is to ensuring that children are protected and that their welfare remains a top priority. 

The Goldman Act provides a range of steps that the administration can take depending on the severity of the situation, from a petition through diplomatic channels to more serious actions like the 

withdrawal of foreign assistance or a formal request for extradition. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses representing the administration on how effective these strategies that are outlined in 

the act have been in the short period of time since its enactment. 

I will close by saying that we all have a personal stake in protecting those that are most vulnerable in our society. The welfare 

of our youngest citizens is of utmost importance, and I look forward 

to working with my colleagues here on the Hill and with the 

Obama administration to ensure that all children remain safe and 

in the custody of those that have been awarded that privilege. 

And, again, I thank our witnesses, and thank the chairman, and 

yield back. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. I would like to now introduce our distinguished witness, first witness. Ambassador Susan Jacobs currently serves as 

Special Advisor in the Office of Children’s Issues at the U.S. Department of State. Ambassador Jacobs has had a long career in the 

Foreign Service in which she has served around the world, including in Papua New Guinea, where she was Ambassador. She has 

also held a number of senior positions with the State Department 

in Washington, serving as a liaison to both Congress and Department of Homeland Security. 

Ambassador Jacobs recently traveled to Japan and to Macau for 

a Hague conference to promote resolutions of child abduction and 

access cases. 

And, Madam Ambassador, the floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SUSAN S. JACOBS, SPECIAL 

ADVISOR FOR CHILDREN’S ISSUES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador JACOBS. Chairman Smith and distinguished members of the subcommittee, thank you for inviting me to appear before you again. I am very pleased to be here. 

Nothing is more important to me than the safety, health, and 

happiness of my own children and grandchildren. So as the Secretary’s Special Advisor for Children’s Issues, I seek the same for 

all children around the world, especially those who are victims of 

international parental child abduction. 

6

To the families whose children were abducted, you have my 

heartfelt sympathy. I take your real-life stories with me when I 

meet with foreign government officials, and I raise your cases at 

the highest levels. We recognize that parents who are on active 

military service face an extra burden. 

Abduction is wrong, it is not safe for children, and it is not fair 

to the child or to the left-behind parent, yet these cases are complicated and difficult to resolve because once the parent and child 

have crossed an international border they are subject to the laws 

of another country. 

We place great importance on combating international parental 

child abduction. Our work on every case and every bilateral relationship matters, and we have the tools that work now, but we 

think with this new law they will be even more effective in the future. 

Our work matters. The prevention branch in the Office of Children’s Issues, working with colleagues at State, with law enforcement, and with NGO counterparts, through the reinvigorated process given us by the law, has stopped 360 abductions since 2011, but 

66 in the first 6 months of this year, 2 of which were prevented 

just yesterday. 

So this is very good news. We already have reports in addition 

that 202 children have been returned from various countries to the 

United States under the provisions of either the Convention or nonConvention. Through the Hague Convention on International Parental Child Abduction, one of the most important tools that we 

have, we have partnerships with 73 countries, and we are seeking 

to increase the number of Convention partners every day. 

But even as we celebrate these successes, we still have work to 

do to return children from Convention and non-Convention countries. The 2015 annual report was the first under the new law. We 

compiled it under a compressed timeline and devoted significant effort to make sure that we included everything required in the law. 

We fully understand that this report did not meet all expectations. We have received valuable feedback from this subcommittee, 

from others in Congress, from parents, and from NGOs about areas 

that need to be clarified with additional data. As Pope Francis said, 

‘‘Criticism must be received, it must be studied, and dialogue must 

follow.’’

The 2015 annual report provides important opportunities to us. 

Our diplomatic missions overseas have delivered demarches to 

every country that was listed as non-complying as soon as the report was issued. We underscore our ongoing engagement through 

my trips to India, Japan, the Philippines, and Central America, as 

well as through multilateral meetings. We have informed governments of the potential repercussions if they are designated as 

showing patterns of non-compliance and followed up with 

demarches. 

Let me talk about Japan for just a moment. I know that you and 

many parents are frustrated with the data that was furnished in 

the report on the Japanese cases. We will be posting supplemental 

data on our Web site with additional context that I hope will fill 

many of the gaps that you have identified. 

7

As of July 1, the Office of Children’s Issues, as the Central Authority, has cases involving 109 children to Japan. These cases include parents who are seeking the return of their children, as well 

as access, and in some cases both. But I think that we all agree 

that one case is one case too many. 

And I know that you and others remain concerned that Japan 

was not cited as demonstrating a pattern of non-compliance in the 

report. But let me underscore: This report is not silent on Japan. 

The report acknowledges that the pre-Convention cases have languished for years, with little or no action, and we highlight this 

worrying lack of progress. 

But as a Convention partner, Japan is fulfilling its treaty obligations. Japanese courts have ordered the return of abducted children 

to the United States. Japan has appointed two Hague network 

judges and has consolidated courts to hear return and access cases. 

But, still, the treatment of the pre-Convention cases is problematic, 

and we did raise every case with the Japanese on my recent visit. 

And we have told them, and they understand, that the status quo 

is not acceptable or sustainable. 

With the support of Ambassador Kennedy and the leadership of 

the Department’s East Asia and Pacific Affairs Bureau, we will 

continue to work together to resolve the pre-Convention cases. 

We also appreciate the great interest shown by this committee, 

and by the Congress as a whole, and I believe that we will make 

more progress on abductions with Japan through sustained, 

proactive, rigorous engagement. In this diplomatic engagement, we 

have found that it is effective with all countries, not just Japan, 

and not just with countries that are demonstrating patterns of noncompliance. We analyze every country and every case to decide 

what appropriate actions need to be taken. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, we do the work on 

IPCA together. It matters, and it works. Left-behind parents and 

their supporters do not have a choice to be involved in this issue. 

Their involvement is imposed on them by the reckless acts of others. 

We in the Office of Children’s Issues have voluntarily chosen to 

make this heartbreaking issue our professional calling. Numbers 

and reports may detail our efforts or reflect our proficiency, but 

they cannot show the heart that we bring to this important work 

on behalf of children and families, and I am honored every day to 

lead this team. 

We are committed to fully and successfully implementing the 

law, and we are confident that the tools in the law will be even 

more effective in the future. Your support remains a key element 

to our success in improving the effectiveness of IPCA prevention, 

maintaining IPCA as a priority in our relationships with other 

countries, and pressing for viable resolutions in all cases. 

Thank you very much, and I will be pleased to take your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Jacobs follows:]

8


95517a-1.eps
9


95517a-2.eps
10


95517a-3.eps
11


95517a-4.eps
12


95517a-5.eps
13


95517a-6.eps
14

Mr. SMITH. Ambassador Jacobs, thank you very much for your 

testimony and for being with us today, and your staff and top leadership just several weeks ago on this very issue. 

I have a couple of questions, beginning first with the supplemental data which you mentioned. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. Is that data likely to change the designation of Japan 

from its current status of being non-compliant? 

Ambassador JACOBS. No, it won’t, because we were judging 

Japan on its performance as a Convention country. But in the report you will notice it is the only country in which we gave a detailed narrative, so that we could capture the lack of progress in 

the pre-Convention cases. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, with total respect to you, and to your office, 

which I have a great deal of respect for——

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. The report, on page 17, says that there 

are zero unresolved cases. 

Ambassador JACOBS. That will be corrected, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. But, you know, remember, the language of the Goldman Act made it very clear that the calendar year is what needed 

to be reviewed, whether or not—and, again, even under the Hague, 

as far as I know, and you can correct this if you have new information, nobody still has been returned to the United States from 

Japan pursuant to the Hague Convention. 

But the over 50 cases—and we had a—as you might recall, a representative from the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children, at this witness table just several weeks ago, who confirmed what we knew by our own numbers, that there, again, are 

over 50 unresolved cases, many of which are 5 years or more. 

Captain Paul Toland, for example, you know, a distinguished 

member of our Armed Forces, you know, had his daughter abducted when he was deployed to Yokohama, defending not only the 

United States but also Japan as part of a force agreement that 

makes us very, very close allies. And his wife has passed, and yet 

he still has had neither access nor a return of his daughter, who 

is now a very young teenager, and it has been a dozen years for 

him. 

That case alone, but then when multiplied by one case after another, including witnesses we will hear from today, I don’t know 

how—and I say this with total respect—I don’t know how Japan is 

not on the non-compliant list. And added to that, because—again, 

the Goldman Act said to look back 1 calendar year. 

And added to that is the issue of a protocol which you reference 

in your testimony, which I have been pushing for at least 6 years. 

When I was in Japan I said a Hague ratification without a concurrent protocol or MOU, whatever we might want to call it, a bilateral agreement with Japan to resolve these existing cases, is like 

a double tragedy for the families. The door gets slammed in their 

face, because everything from Hague on is from that day a ratification forward, and they are thrown under the bus a second time and 

abandoned a second time. 

15

The pushback has been profound for years. No bilateral agreement. I am hoping that will be revisited as well, and we will get 

a bilateral agreement that will lead to returns and not rhetoric. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Let me assure you, sir, that we are not 

throwing the parents and the children and the pre-Convention 

cases under the bus. Everything is on the table with Japan. We 

had, for me, the highest level meeting that I have had there, and 

we stressed that the status quo on the pre-Convention cases is not 

acceptable, and that we need to find a way to resolve these cases. 

There was—and let me——

Mr. SMITH. But, again——

Ambassador JACOBS [continuing]. Also mention we didn’t give 

Japan a pass. We made a determination that we were going to 

judge Japan on—first, let me explain about the unresolved cases. 

We did the best we could, looking at the definitions in the law. I 

know that it was not satisfactory from all the comments that we 

have gotten, so we have gone back to capture the universe of the 

cases that exist in every country like Japan and like India. 

So that information will be posted within a week on our Web 

site, travel.state.gov, and we will be sure and send you the information in advance. 

Mr. SMITH. But——

Ambassador JACOBS. This report was the first effort to comply 

with the law. We understand that it was not satisfactory to many 

people, and we want to do a better job, present the best report that 

we can in the future. And if that means putting in more narrative 

and explaining things better or differently, that is our goal. 

We want your feedback. And if you—when you get this new information, and you still believe there are gaps, then you need to 

tell us, so that we can continue to talk about it and try to get you 

the kind of report that will be helpful and satisfactory and capture 

the entirety of the abduction issue and these cases. But we are not 

giving up on any means of reaching the kinds of conclusions that 

the parents want. 

Mr. SMITH. I would respectfully submit that the future is now for 

these parents. Waiting——

Ambassador JACOBS. I don’t disagree. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Another year to do a report—Japan—it 

is inexplicable how Japan is not on the list. Now, whether or not 

the U.S. Government imposes a sanction of any kind is left to the 

discretion of the Department, and what works is left to the chief 

executive. 

But getting the report right, I mean, after the last hearing I 

called it a whitewash, which I do believe it is. I mean, you go to 

the report and look on page 17, unresolved cases——

Ambassador JACOBS. Look at the narrative. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Abduction, it is down to zero. 

Ambassador JACOBS. But look at the narrative. 

Mr. SMITH. I read the narrative. But it is contradictory to the 

table that supposedly tells the whole story. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I understand that, and so you are going to 

get new data that will reflect all the cases, the entirety of the cases 

in Japan. 

16

Mr. SMITH. I understand that. Now, will the new data that 

comes——

Ambassador JACOBS. And Convention. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. To Congress’ way then lead to a new 

designation of pattern of non-compliance? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I don’t know. It probably will not, but that 

doesn’t mean that they are getting a pass. Can I tell you how upset 

they were with that report? It really got their attention——

Mr. SMITH. But there is still nobody——

Ambassador JACOBS [continuing]. Like nothing else has. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. No children coming home. 

Ambassador JACOBS. The combination of the law and the report 

really brought home to the Japanese Government that something 

needs to be done. And we are working on that, and nothing is off 

the table, including an MOU. 

Mr. SMITH. I hear you say, again, Madam Secretary—Madam 

Ambassador, that——

Ambassador JACOBS. I like the promotion. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. After I pushed for 3 years to get the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which had real and does have real sanctions—

and we are late on that report, too, frankly. It is supposed to be 

June 1, I would note parenthetically, and a lot of us think it has 

to do with Malaysia. That is a whole other issue; it has to do with 

the TPP and a press conference that will be held this afternoon in 

a bipartisan way with Rosa DeLauro and others. 

But that said, we tried to make sure that the report was absolutely sacred in terms of its data. Israel was put on Tier 3. South 

Korea, two allies with whom we are as close as it gets, and Israel 

had a huge trafficking problem, as did South Korea. South Korea, 

when they were on the sanctions list and were at risk of losing security aid, went overtime to pass a large number of important reform laws, as did Israel. 

Israel cracked down, particularly in Tel Aviv, on the brothels 

where a lot of women were being exploited and cruelly mistreated 

as trafficked women, and all of a sudden—and I remember meeting 

with the Ambassador. He came in with a compliance—the possibility of the sanctions really, once the report is done right, sharpens the mind. And they can be angry all they want about anything 

that is in the report, but if there is no possibility of a sanctions regime, like a sword of Damocles hanging over their head, they will 

not respond. 

And, again, nobody has come back. And what we are asking for 

is just complete and total honesty. You know, the Bush and certainly the Obama administration, Luis CdeBaca, who was the Ambassador-at-Large for trafficking, they made sure the report was 

right. There are always a couple of exceptions. But, frankly, they 

really made sure the report was right. Again, putting Israel and 

South Korea on there was proof positive. 

Japan has to be on that list, or else a year from now we are 

going to have the same—we will have four more hearings between 

now and then. We will hear from parents who are heartbroken. 

Paul Toland will tell his case, others will tell their case, and we 

will still have kids that are being held, and the Japanese GovernVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:49 Oct 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\071615\95517 SHIRL
17

ment, you know, will be non-compliant. It has got to be non-compliant. 

Ambassador JACOBS. But let me say that even if Japan is not 

listed as non-compliant doesn’t mean that we are not pushing them 

to do what they need to do. 

Mr. SMITH. But they got away with it this year. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Well, I——

Mr. SMITH. They did get away with it. 

Ambassador JACOBS [continuing]. I would disagree with you. But 

next year is next year. The report is a snapshot in time, and it 

doesn’t mean that we forget about what we are doing from writing 

one report to the next report. And I don’t—we are not prejudging 

any country. We are not trying to give any country a pass. We are 

working to do the best job that we can, and we will continue to 

push for the resolution. 

Mr. SMITH. Madam Ambassador, when you testified on May 9, 

2013—and I did raise this with your staff when they were here several weeks ago—you had said that we need to reach an agreement 

with Japan—and we are talking about a bilateral agreement, and 

hopefully that is done immediately. I mean, what can be the hold 

up? 

But you also said—and it was very disturbing because it was like 

the harbinger of what we are dealing with right now—‘‘That the return of these children is important,’’ you said—and I am glad you 

said that—‘‘but I don’t think we are going to sanction Japan or 

threaten them with sanctions because I think that would be detrimental to our bilateral relationship.’’

Ambassador JACOBS. Okay. 

Mr. SMITH. The bilateral relationship should be built on a twoway street, reciprocity, and these are American children abducted 

and left-behind American parents. 

Ambassador JACOBS. But what this report gives us instead are 

options for actions that we can take that I think are distinguishable from sanctions which have to be agreed to by the entire government. It isn’t the Office of Children’s Issues that decides on 

sanctioning a country. 

Mr. SMITH. True. 

Ambassador JACOBS. It has to be—can I just finish, please? It 

has to be decided by the Department of State and then through the 

interagency process. But that doesn’t mean that there aren’t actions that you give us in the report that we can take, such as a 

demarche or an official statement or a public condemnation. 

Mr. SMITH. Have they been demarched? 

Ambassador JACOBS. These are—yes, they have been demarched. 

Mr. SMITH. And what is their response? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Their response was, ‘‘Please give us some 

time to work this out.’’ Look, you asked what the response was. 

That is the response. 

Mr. SMITH. I know. 

Ambassador JACOBS. But we have put other options on the table, 

and we raised——

Mr. SMITH. The reason for this——

Ambassador JACOBS [continuing]. We raised——

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Follow-up hearing——

18

Ambassador JACOBS [continuing]. We raised an MOU with them. 

We raised the idea of an MOU. 

Mr. SMITH. And what did they say? 

Ambassador JACOBS. We need two people to negotiate on that. 

They haven’t agreed to it yet, and we will continue to raise it. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Who raised it, you? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I did. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. And they said no, or——

Ambassador JACOBS. No. They did not say no. They said, ‘‘It is 

something that we will consider.’’ I hope that doesn’t mean no, because we will continue to raise it. 

Mr. SMITH. One of the points that Patricia Apy makes, which is 

a leading expert and was David Goldman’s lead attorney, that I 

think is very compelling—and she underscores the impact that the 

report has on judges when they are ascertaining whether or not a 

child should travel with one parent to a place like Japan. They will 

look at this report. And if I were a judge sitting here with robes, 

I would say, ‘‘Japan, zero unresolved cases.’’

Ambassador JACOBS. That is going to be——

Mr. SMITH. ‘‘Everything is fine. You can go.’’

Ambassador JACOBS. Sir, we are revising that. They will get new 

information. And let me tell you, you know what the Japanese told 

us? That there have been fewer abductions to Japan since the law 

went into effect. 

Mr. SMITH. That is good. 

Ambassador JACOBS. So I think that that is a positive. 

Mr. SMITH. Can you tell us why it was—on page 17 you did put 

zero in? 

Ambassador JACOBS. We put in zero because we defined the law 

as a request for a return that was pending over 12 months, and 

there were very few direct requests for return to the proper judicial 

or administrative authority made by the parents. In most of the 

cases, parents have asked for access or custody, and the law that 

you wrote defines it as a return. 

Now, after receiving the criticism, we understand that we needed 

to include a greater universe of cases, and so the new data that you 

will get reflects all the cases that we know of in a country, whether 

it is pre-Convention or post-Convention. 

Mr. SMITH. You know, the legislative history of the law—and it 

took 5 years to be enacted, multiple hearings, floor debates, bipartisanship in a great way in a town where that has been less than 

evidenced in recent years, both House and Senate couldn’t have 

been clearer, especially with the left-behind parents from Japan, 

that they all asked for the return of their children. 

They were encouraged, many of them, to go to an access mode, 

because they had not seen their children, but they are still pending 

on their return request. I couldn’t have made that clearer. Every 

hearing I have had somebody left behind, a father or mother, from 

Japan testify. Just from that record alone would meet the non-compliant record of having made those requests. 

And I know your office knew about it. We have been to your office. We have met with them. We even had a rally and a march 

on the office once, and I joined them for that. During the David 

Goldman case it was filled with left-behind parents from Japan, 

19

Americans whose children were abducted to Japan. Please don’t 

say that they have not gone through the proper channels of seeking 

access. 

One of the reasons why we put in language on DOD was that 

Captain Toland got bad advice from his JAG as to how to deal with 

it in Japan and which further hurt his case in reclaiming his 

daughter from the grandmother who wouldn’t even allow a phone 

call. 

So, again, I would hope and I would respectfully ask, they need 

to be redesignated. There is nothing in the law that precludes you 

from, based on the evidence, and an admittance today, that you got 

it wrong by making zero unresolved cases, to now say that they do 

fit the criteria. They are a country that is non-compliant. And I do 

believe that will make the MOU work or there will be more ready 

to do that. Waiting a year is an eternity for these left-behind parents. An eternity. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I understand that, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Cicilline. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you, and thank you, Ambassador. I just 

want to be where Chairman Smith just left off. Would you describe 

for me the process by which you make the determination of a noncompliant country? I take it from the report there are 22. There 

must be a standard that you follow or that the legislation establishes for what you conclude to be a non-compliant country, or patterns of non-compliance. 

Ambassador JACOBS. We look at whether or not there is a central 

authority or a designated administrative authority that works on 

abduction cases. We look at judicial compliance, and we look at law 

enforcement compliance. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But in addition to the structure that is in place, 

you also look at——

Ambassador JACOBS. We look at——

Mr. CICILLINE [continuing]. The activities of——

Ambassador JACOBS. We look at——

Mr. CICILLINE [continuing]. The abduction activities. 

Ambassador JACOBS [continuing]. What happens. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Okay. 

Ambassador JACOBS. If we have a case and nothing ever happens, we send it to the central authority, they don’t act on it, that 

is one thing. If they act on it, and they send it law enforcement 

but nothing happens with law enforcement, that is another black 

mark. 

If it does go from the central authority to the location of the 

child, and when the case goes to court, if there are long delays in 

the judicial process, or if the judges never order a return in certain 

countries, that would be judicial non-compliance. We follow each 

case. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And so then you are able to make a determination 

about the countries that are the most serious violators, that have 

the greatest both child abduction activities and then failure to respond to abduction demands for return. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes. 

20

Mr. CICILLINE. And is that the list of the 22 that you have identified? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes. Those three criteria are the criteria 

that we used to determine if countries were non-compliant. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And within that designation, do you do anything 

additionally to determine, of those 22, who is the worst violator, 

which country? Are they ranked in any way? 

Ambassador JACOBS. They are not ranked. They are all violators. 

Mr. CICILLINE. But do you have an assessment of who the kind 

of worst offenders are among that list? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And who are they? 

Ambassador JACOBS. They would be Brazil, India, Japan. Those 

are the worst offenders. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Well, Japan is not on the list. 

Ambassador JACOBS. But Japan pre-Hague. Pre-Hague. India we 

never get any cooperation. We do get cooperation from the Japanese. We don’t get the returns, and I know that is what we want. 

But they do cooperate with us. In India, we get nothing. But now 

we are. 

Since the law passed, there is a lot more activity in India working toward joining the Convention and implementing it. The discussions that we had were incredibly positive. Our Ambassador there, 

Richard Verma, is energized. He will be having a meeting in the 

next week or so with a number of ministers, as well as Ambassadors or High Commissioners from the United Kingdom and Canada, and Supreme Court Justices in India, to work on Hague compliance, because they get it and the law really was an impetus for 

them to get moving. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Do we need to, in your judgment, need to modify 

any language in the existing statute, or is it simply a determination of the Department if in fact the intention is to get as much 

information and to be sure that the activities, using Japan as an 

example, be fully reflected, because you can both indicate the gravity of the problem, the pre-Convention challenges, and also the 

progress that you say is being made post-Convention. 

But is there any impediment to you including that in the report, 

or is it necessary for us to modify the language of the existing statute? 

Ambassador JACOBS. There is no impediment to us doing the 

things that you suggest, and we will do them. We were working 

under a very compressed timeframe with a complicated piece of legislation, trying to identify every bit of data that was required. And 

we recognize that there are gaps, and we want to correct them, and 

we can do a different kind of report that has more like the previous 

reports that had a lot of narrative. We can do narrative on the biggest offenders, and really identify in each case what the issues are. 

We are very happy to do that. 

I mean, I think we have the same goal. We want these kids to 

come home. I mean, that is our goal, it is your goal, and we just 

need to do this together. I mean, I don’t see that we are at odds 

in this. 

Mr. CICILLINE. No, no, no. I think you are right that the—I think 

at least the experience that I have seen in the human rights area 

21

is the more this information is shared and becomes widely known, 

the greater likelihood that countries will take action to respond so 

they are no longer on the list. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And I would say just as a personal observation, 

to be the parent of a child who has been abducted to Japan, and 

look at a report that has a zero in it, is personally probably incredibly painful. 

Ambassador JACOBS. And I understand that, and we are going to 

fix it. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. The next thing I would just to ask 

you, with respect to the designation of the recommendations in 

terms of activity, the recommendations to improve resolution of 

cases, and they are A through F, one of them that you mentioned 

is bilateral meetings. 

And I think you mentioned specifically that that was happening 

in Japan, but it looks like that was not actually indicated. In 

Japan, it says A, B, and C. I don’t know if that is just——

Ambassador JACOBS. I don’t remember what the——

Mr. CICILLINE. But, I mean——

Ambassador JACOBS. Tell me what those are. Let me tell you 

what we have done in Japan. Maybe that would be more helpful. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Well, no, I am happy to, but just so you know 

what I am speaking about. You have a Table 3——

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes. 

Mr. CICILLINE [continuing]. Which says Recommendations to Improve Resolution of Cases in Countries, and there are A through 

F as keys to what recommendations. And then you have a list of 

countries——

Ambassador JACOBS. Right. 

Mr. CICILLINE [continuing]. In which you designate what your 

recommendations are. And as it relates specifically to Japan, it is 

A, B, and C. D is where it says Department officials hold bilateral 

meetings with government officials. So it would seem to me that D 

is——

Ambassador JACOBS. Okay. So we did it anyhow. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Okay. Well, no, I mean, I think it is important 

that——

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes. No. We should put it——

Mr. CICILLINE. Okay. 

Ambassador JACOBS. We will fix that, too. Absolutely. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Okay. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes. Because I was just there. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Okay. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I was just there, and we spent a whole day 

in meetings talking about this. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Great. 

Ambassador JACOBS. And talking about it at the Fourth of July 

party. 

Mr. CICILLINE. No. And I think it is helpful to—I know you are 

doing——

Ambassador JACOBS. You are right. 

Mr. CICILLINE [continuing]. An enormous amount of work, and it 

is important that that be shared, so people——

22

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes. 

Mr. CICILLINE [continuing]. Have confidence that that is——

Ambassador JACOBS. We do that. I mean, we do—believe me, we 

do everything that we can. And maybe we need to make more public statements, and that is something that we will seriously consider. 

Mr. CICILLINE. I would urge you to do that. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I think there is nothing wrong with public 

statements saying we need more cooperation. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And, Madam Ambassador, just now to turn to another country. According to the Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children, there are 53 open cases of a U.S. child abduction in 

India, including 26 that have been pending for more than 5 years. 

In the wake of obviously the Goldman Act, it has been indicated 

that the U.S. is conducting bilateral discussions on child abduction 

cases. But the progress and content of them have not been shared 

with parents or with members of this committee. I am just wondering whether you can talk a little bit about what is happening 

in India, generally, what the——

Ambassador JACOBS. Absolutely. 

Mr. CICILLINE [continuing]. Direction of those conversations are 

and——

Ambassador JACOBS. I was just there in May. We had meetings 

with ministers and with the first secretaries of the ministries. They 

have domestic legislation that is now circulating in the cabinet for 

India to accede to the Hague Convention, which I think will be 

very helpful. 

In addition, Indian courts have now ordered returns of children. 

Not to the United States, but they did order returns to India. We 

have a very close relationship with two of the Justices, and they 

have offered to facilitate meetings, to be champions for this legislation, and we have the same commitment from the ministries. 

Our Ambassador is energized. He had a lunch where we had lawyers who are also willing to do the same thing. So we are sort of 

attacking it from many angles, and we are hoping for success. We 

were just at a meeting in Macau that was sponsored by China, 

Macau, and the Hague Permanent Bureau. All of the countries that 

we are concerned with were there, and they all heard the same 

message: You need to take action now. And I was very fortunate. 

I had the first word at the conference, and I had the last word. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you. And my final point would be, Madam 

Ambassador, thank you for the work you are doing. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And if you think there are ways that we can improve or strengthen this existing statute, which would make this 

work more effective and produce greater results, I know we are all 

anxious to hear that. But one thing I would urge you to consider, 

that in the most egregious cases where we have real patterns in 

countries, I think strong public statements and bringing that to the 

attention of the world will be very valuable. 

Ambassador JACOBS. And if I could suggest when you all travel 

on codels, when you are going to countries that we are mutually 

concerned about, that you raise it in your conversations with legislators and with ministers, so that they understand that this is the 

23

United States of America’s concern, not just the State Department 

or just the Congress. 

Mr. CICILLINE. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Madam Ambassador, welcome back. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so I am trying to piece together some of the 

things you have talked about. So is there or is there not a reporting 

mechanism to report all open unresolved cases? Is there a reporting 

mechanism? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Apparently, there is. We took a more narrow definition of the law. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So, yes, you said that earlier. So let me ask 

you, who took the narrow definition? 

Ambassador JACOBS. The Department of State. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So Congress passed a law. It is up to you 

to implement that law. Is that correct? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Well, first, we had to interpret it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Rulemaking. Right. But I guess the concern that 

I have, Madam Ambassador, is you have been here before. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes, I have, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And we have had parents every time here before, 

and you got a little bit of a honeymoon phase the last time that 

you were before here. And by ‘‘honeymoon phase’’ I mean it was a 

new law, it was about to be implemented. And as we got this, you 

were here, and you were saying, ‘‘Well, you know, we are going to 

make great progress.’’ So now you are back with us. 

My concern is is, if the State Department made that interpretation, and it was ambiguous, how much consultation did you have 

with either the author of the bill, with folks that actually did the 

debate? How much of that actually took place? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I don’t know. I was not——

Mr. MEADOWS. May I suggest none? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I don’t know if it was none, so I can’t say 

that. What I can say is we did the best job we could on a compressed timeline. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I——

Ambassador JACOBS. Okay. We are going to fix it. You can keep 

beating me up about this, but, you know——

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I am not beating you up. Here is what—let 

me tell you what I am doing. I don’t have a child that was abducted, but I represent people who do. 

Ambassador JACOBS. And so do we. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And so it is imperative for us to get on the same 

sheet of music. 

Ambassador JACOBS. And we are there now. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But that is what you said in March when you 

came. You said ‘‘Well, you know, we are going to work this together, and we are going to work toward this.’’ So when will we 

have an accurate report? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I believe within a week. 

24

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. So within a week, you will report back to 

Chairman Smith and this subcommittee——

Ambassador JACOBS. There will be——

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. And you will have——

Ambassador JACOBS [continuing]. No——

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. You will have——

Ambassador JACOBS. There will be no zeroes for Japan or India 

or some of those other countries, unless it is a true zero. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Thank you. How do we help you make this 

more visible? You mentioned mentioning to Ambassadors on codels, 

and let me tell you what my concern is because I am very involved 

with a number of Ambassadors, as Mr. Cicilline is, and human 

rights is something that is bipartisan. It is one of those few things 

where I will have Mr. Cicilline’s back. He will have my back. And 

when we come to this, trying to do what is right, whether it is on 

this issue or other human rights issues, it is something that we can 

all agree on. 

I guess the concern that I have is as I talk to those in the diplomatic corps and those that are out there, this is not an issue that 

is frequently talked about. And I guess my concern is, how do we 

do this in a polite, kind, but persistent and tenacious way? How do 

we help you help these parents? 

Ambassador JACOBS. By being tenacious. I mean, that is what we 

have to do. We have made this, and I think that two Secretaries, 

Secretary Clinton and Secretary Kerry, have made children’s issues 

a prominent part of what they really care about, one of their baseline concerns. And because of that, we get a lot of attention to the 

issue, more than in the past. 

And with the new law, it really has energized many Ambassadors. I write to Ambassador Kennedy; she answers me immediately. She has three talking points on abductions that she uses 

in every meeting. Ambassador Varma in India, Ambassador Ayalde 

in Brazil, exactly the same thing. They have the same points that 

they use over and over. 

It is always part of what they talk to when they meet with the 

Foreign Minister or the President’s chief of staff or whatever highlevel official in that country is at the meeting. And we need you 

to reinforce that message, to keep saying, ‘‘This is really important.’’

Mr. MEADOWS. So if we were to send them a YouTube of this particular hearing where they have got Democrats and Republicans 

that say that this is an important issue——

Ambassador JACOBS. I love it. 

Mr. MEADOWS. You love it? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Sure. Why not? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, here I would ask your help on something. 

Can you assure this subcommittee that, if there is ambiguity in the 

future, that you will check with us or have your counsel check with 

us, so that what we don’t run into is the next hearing that we 

have, is that we have got these glaring omissions. 

And I call them omissions; they may not have been out of commission, but they are omissions that indeed give the appearance 

25

that we are trying to protect certain individuals or give—and I am 

not saying that you did that, Ambassador. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I am not making that—I am saying it gives the 

appearance. 

Ambassador JACOBS. You have——

Mr. MEADOWS. And so do we have your commitment——

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes. 

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. That if there is ambiguity at all——

Ambassador JACOBS. Please, sir. 

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. That they will get on the phone——

Ambassador JACOBS. Absolutely. 

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. With the chiefs of staff. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Absolutely. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. 

Ambassador JACOBS. In person. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Very good. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Not on the phone. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Ambiguities are better resolved in person. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So let me ask you my final two questions. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Okay. 

Mr. MEADOWS. If you were to give your agency a grade today, 

what would that grade be? 

Ambassador JACOBS. A B-plus. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. All right. So I am concerned with that. 

Ambassador JACOBS. That is okay. And I am a hard grader. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, but we are not grading on a curve. And so 

my concern is is for the vast majority of parents. Their grade would 

be much closer to a D or an F. And so how do we take their grade 

for you and your grade for you and work together where we can 

make it where it is a B-plus to an A? How can we do that? 

Ambassador JACOBS. We know that without a return we are not 

satisfying the parents. I understand that. But it truly is not from 

lack of effort. Our diplomatic engagement is to persuade countries, 

whether through actions, but through words, and through meetings, and through education, that the return of abducted children 

is in their best interest. It is in the child’s interest. It is in the leftbehind parent’s interest. And it will make their relationship with 

the United States better. 

And that is my job, and that is what I and everybody that I work 

with, the 80 people in——

Mr. MEADOWS. I do believe that. 

Ambassador JACOBS [continuing]. That work on abductions——

Mr. MEADOWS. I do believe that. 

Ambassador JACOBS [continuing]. This is the goal. And maybe we 

get a B-plus on effort and work ethic and heart, and maybe we do 

get a D because we don’t have as many returns as we want. But 

I think there needs to be some recognition of the amount of work 

that we put into this, the effort and the heartbreak. 

This is not an easy job for anybody in children’s issues. These get 

to the core of who you are as a human being trying to resolve these 

questions. And it is easy to say we get a D because the kids don’t 

26

come back, but you need to think about all the effort and the work 

that we put into trying to get the children returned. And I am 

sorry if we fall short. I know that——

Mr. MEADOWS. I will close by saying that I won’t speak for my 

two colleagues here, but I would imagine that the three of us are 

willing to drop whatever we have pressing as a priority to see us 

engage. If you need our help, not only will we be willing to help, 

but we will drop other things to make sure that this becomes a priority, because one of the greatest quotes that I enjoy is, it says no 

matter how beautiful the strategy, we must occasionally look at the 

results. And so that—we want to help you with those results. 

And I will yield back. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I am going to take you up on that. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just, Madam Ambassador, this false sense 

that there is any ambiguity in the definitions. We wrote those definitions, and worked with legislative counsel, with a large—we 

asked for your input. It couldn’t be clearer what a pattern of noncompliance means, and it says—and it is all spelled out in riveting 

detail in the legislation. 

And that persistent failure is if 30 percent or more of the total 

abduction cases of such a country are unresolved abduction cases. 

And it has other criteria as well, but that stands as one; one or 

more of the following criteria is enough to trigger a pattern of noncompliance designation. 

On the whole issue of unresolved abduction cases, in a like manner we lay that out. I keep reading this and reading it. The last 

time I read it to your staff when they testified and said, ‘‘Where 

is the ambiguity?’’ There isn’t any. My concern is that Japan was 

put—I mean, when you talk about grading, maybe some of the 

countries where it was easier to give a pattern of non-compliance, 

but Japan, with all due respect, you get an F for that one. And, 

thankfully, you will at least change the unresolved cases category. 

But how that doesn’t then trigger the next shoe dropping, that 

they are now in the designation of pattern of non-compliance, it is 

bewildering beyond words, because that is what happens when you 

have so many cases. The definition is clear, not ambiguous. And, 

again, we had both the Senate and the House, my staff, the Judiciary staff, the Senators’ staff, everybody went over these definitions 

with such attention, to get it right. And then Japan mysteriously 

falls off. 

You know, we have some of our witnesses, and I do hope you will 

stay——

Ambassador JACOBS. Unfortunately, I have another meeting that 

I cannot avoid. 

Mr. SMITH. Please take their statements if you would. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I have seen—I had talked to a lot of the 

parents before. 

Mr. SMITH. Randy Collins makes a very important point. I would 

like this committee to insist that OCI and the State Department 

be far more transparent with Congress and with victimized parents. ‘‘We deserve answers,’’ he says. ‘‘Simply telling this committee 

that they are raising our cases means nothing. What are they saying? Who are they saying it to? We have suffered years of secrecy 

27

from State regarding our abducted children. Are they demanding 

the return of our children or simply begging?’’ as he point out. 

I have asked that question a number of times. One time at a 

press conference over at the grassy triangle. I am a great Seinfeld 

fan. I love Seinfeld. I have seen every episode 15 times. One of 

them was a case of the file, the Pensky file. George Costanza has 

this file, a Pensky file, and he puts it in his desk. Pensky himself 

comes in and George says that he is working Pensy’s file. And nobody knows what they are doing. 

And I raise this again with respect—when you get a case that 

is pending before you, you have a case officer, are they fighting 

hard? And does it trickle up, hopefully put up, to the levels of the 

political side to say, ‘‘This stuff means something to us. We want 

this resolved.’’ Because my feeling has been, and I saw it with 

David Goldman, David Goldman went for 5 years with his case, 

won in some of the courts, lost in others. 

But it was always the wonderful Consular Affairs people who 

tried to do welfare and whereabouts. They love David. They love 

everything about trying to resolve the case. But it never got to the 

point where the political side said, ‘‘This is something the United 

States of America cares about.’’ And that is where there is this 

total disconnect. Again, when you get it wrong in the report, it 

makes it even harder. What do you say? 

We now hear—and I asked Secretary Kerry when he testified 

when President Obama and when Secretary Kerry went there, did 

they raise individual cases? We have learned in human rights work 

you raise individual cases. You don’t say generically, ‘‘We are all 

for ending parental child abduction.’’ And he said that they raised 

it at every level. 

Are these cases brought? The ones who will testify, the left-behind parents today, does somebody say, ‘‘This means something to 

us. Here are the details. Let us resolve this.’’ That is the problem. 

And with Japan, even when I was over there, I got the sense that 

there was empathy, but it was not a political priority. Everything 

else, Status of Forces agreements, everything else under the sun, 

put this on page 5 as a footnote. 

Ambassador JACOBS. It is a political priority now. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. If you could, again, revisit. And I don’t know 

how you update the unresolved cases and not put Japan on it. 

Ambassador JACOBS. You are going to see——

Mr. SMITH. It ought to be on the list. And what you do sanctionswise is all up to you, of course with——

Ambassador JACOBS. Actions. Actions, sir. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Reporting to Congress about what you 

do or don’t do. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Actions. 

Mr. SMITH. We want actions. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Actions. 

Mr. SMITH. But we need the designation to be accurate and clear. 

Otherwise, we will be here a year from now talking about the same 

thing. 

Okay. But F for Japan so far. I would love for all of us to put 

that as an A. 

28

Mr. CICILLINE. Yes. I just want to follow up on Congressman 

Meadows’ comment. I think it is understandable that every parent 

who has a child who has been abducted who is not yet returned 

would give everybody an F, Congress, every agency, because your 

child is not returned. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Right. 

Mr. CICILLINE. And I want to just take a moment to acknowledge 

your work, Madam Ambassador, and the work of the dedicated professionals who are doing this work. And the frustration that everyone has with individual cases should not in any way be read to not, 

at least from my perspective, undermine your deep commitment, 

your long record, and the really hard work that others in your department and agency are doing. I want to be very clear about that. 

I do think that the value of the report—and I really appreciate 

your willingness to go back and both supplement it and revise it 

and correct it, the value of that report in this work cannot be overstated, because we can use it in our codel conversations. We can 

use it as a public statement. We can do a lot with it. And so the 

accuracy and the transparency of that is really critical, because it 

loses its potency as an effective tool if it doesn’t include places like 

Japan, et cetera. 

So it is not that I think any of us are interested in giving it a 

grade, the report, just because we are fastidious folks. But it is because its usefulness——

Ambassador JACOBS. I agree. 

Mr. CICILLINE [continuing]. In terms of ultimately bringing children back home is dependent on its completeness and accuracy. 

And I look forward to the work that you are going to do to provide 

us——

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you. 

Mr. CICILLINE [continuing]. With that tool. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Appreciate your comments. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Madam Ambassador. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. And I look forward to that designation of Japan. Sure 

hope you do it. 

I would like to now welcome our second panel, beginning with 

Patricia Apy, who is a partner in the law firm of Paras, Apy & 

Reiss, who specializes in complex family litigation, particularly 

international interstate child custody litigation. Her qualifications 

for testifying are impressive and extensive. She has litigated and 

been qualified as an expert witness in connection with family disputes throughout the world. 

Ms. Apy frequently consults and is regularly qualified as an expert on family dispute resolution in non-Hague countries in risk 

factors for child abduction. She was also one of the lead attorneys, 

as I said, the principal attorney for David Goldman and provided 

expert advice and counsel in that long and arduous case. 

We will then hear from Mr. Randy Collins, who is the father of 

Keisuke Collins, who was abducted to Japan in June 2008 by the 

non-custodial mother. He is also the managing director of Bring 

Abducted Children Home, an NGO working for the return of children abducted to Japan, and for the children’s access to both parents. 

29

As a resident of California, Mr. Collins inspired and helped 

write, with then-California State Senator, now Congresswoman 

Walters, SB 1206, also known as Keisuke’s Law, which was named 

after his son and helps to deter future parental child abductions. 

The law was unanimously passed in the California Legislature in 

2012. 

We will then hear from Ms. Kelly Rutherford, who is the mother 

of two young children, Helena and Hermes, now 6 and 8 years old, 

who were sent by a U.S. court 3 years ago to live with their father 

abroad solely because their father alleged he could not enter the 

U.S. 

Ms. Rutherford has since traveled to Monaco 70 times—70 

times—to see her children and has had to declare bankruptcy. 

When the children’s father began denying her access to their children this year, she again had to go to court in Monaco while continuing litigation in the U.S. Ms. Rutherford founded the Children’s 

Justice Campaign to help other parents avoid the international 

legal nightmare she is now enduring. 

We will then hear from Dr. Samina Rahman, who is currently a 

resident in internal medicine at the Montefiore Medical Center in 

New York City. She studied medicine at Gulf Medical University 

in the United Arab Emirates, and moved to the U.S. in July 2012, 

where she was joined by her son and husband. 

However, as she will relay, her husband became verbally and 

physically abusive of her, as well as threatening to her son, culminating in his covert abduction of their son to India in 2013, a place 

the family had never lived. She is the sole custodian of her son 

under U.S. law, but has been able to speak to her son just 12 times 

in 2 years while India very slowly takes steps to consider her case. 

And then we will hear from Diane McGee, who is the mother of 

several children who have been held by her American husband in 

Japan since 2012. Ms. McGee and her husband were married in 

New York, and each of their four children were born in the United 

States. The McGees temporarily relocated to Japan in 2011 when 

Mr. McGee was offered a job there, but maintained their home in 

New Jersey. 

Ms. McGee’s husband reneged on his promise to return with the 

children to New Jersey and began divorce proceedings in Japan in 

2012. Ms. McGee returned to the U.S. with the youngest child in 

December 2012, and has suffered parental alienation from the 

older children and poverty while fighting for their return. 

Ms. Apy. 

We are joined by the distinguished Chairman of the full Foreign 

Affairs Committee, Ed Royce. 

Mr. ROYCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will just take a moment 

here and thank you for your years of advocacy on this issue. It is 

good to see Ambassador Jacobs here, and I hope, really, that this 

hearing will help improve the reporting that this new law requires 

from her office. And, in particular, accurate data on unresolved abduction cases is essential to enabling American parents and judges 

to make informed decisions about whether to allow children to 

travel to particular countries in order to avoid new abduction cases. 

I also want to welcome all of our left-behind parent witnesses, including Kelly Rutherford, whose case I have raised previously with 

30

the State Department. We cannot help but feel the trauma that all 

of you endure while separated from your daughters and your sons. 

And, Kelly, all of us here are so pleased that you have been reunited with your children for the summer. We continue to hope for 

a permanent resolution for your family. 

Before yielding back, I also would like to submit for the record 

a written statement by Sarah Kurtz, a resident of Los Angeles, who 

is enduring a painful separation from her two children who are 

currently in Sweden. 

And I am grateful to the subcommittee, again, but also to the 

State Department, and our brave witnesses, for coming together 

today to shine a very personal light on these very tragic separations which must be mended. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Chairman Royce. And thank you for your 

work on the Goldman Act, and as full committee chairman, for 

making this a priority of our full committee. Thank you. 

Mr. ROYCE. Well, what is amazing is 1,000 new cases a year. It 

demands our action. So thank you, Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. We are also joined by a good friend of mine from the 

State of New Jersey, Leonard Lance. 

Mr. LANCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, this is a very 

important issue, and I commend your leadership on this, your leadership over many years. And among the panelists, I welcome Ms. 

McGee , who is from the part of New Jersey that I have the honor 

of representing. This is an issue that demands the attention of the 

full Congress of the United States. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF MS. PATRICIA APY, PARTNER, PARAS, APY & 

REISS, P.C. 

Ms. APY. It is my privilege to return to discuss ICAPRA and to 

discuss the reporting requirements. My purpose today is to review 

and articulate, first of all, the importance of the report, the current 

deficiencies in the existing report, and the necessity to address 

those deficiencies as a matter of urgency in order to aggressively 

combat international child abduction by encouraging a report 

which will become the authoritative source of objective evidence to 

assess obstacles to recovery of all children. 

The focus of this act is two-fold. The first is prevention, which 

is of course one of the most important aspects of preventing the 

scourge of child abduction. This is the only report that is internationally issued with regard to accurate numbers involving child 

abduction. 

Secretary General Bernasconi at the Hague has at least twice 

formally indicated that the Hague doesn’t have the resources, does 

not have accurate information, is not provided information by countries. So much like the Trafficking in Persons Report, this is going 

to be not just the report that is looked at for prevention purposes 

by those in the United States of America, by those of you who legislate, by the diplomats who are addressing these issues, but of 

course by American judges, by American lawyers, by parents, in 

making determinations with respect to the resolution of their international custody agreements. 

31

If you don’t have accurate information, then you don’t know that 

there is a risk. In my written remarks, I have outlined the way 

that those of us who do this work assess the risk of abduction. And 

it is a matrix, and I have talked about this before before this subcommittee. It is a matrix of the individual attributes of the litigants and the obstacles to recovery. 

And the way that the obstacles to recovery are assessed is by 

looking at the objective information regarding whether or not there 

is a likelihood that a country is going to return a child who has 

been wrongfully removed or retained. 

Now, I listened carefully to Ambassador Jacobs, and I was concerned in that one of the things when you, I believe it was Mr. 

Cicilline, who asked about the non-compliance process and that definition. And the Ambassador returned to the compliance assessment that preceded the current law. 

What used to happen—and, again, this is more definitively addressed in my written remarks, what used to happen is the State 

Department would subjectively review, as she recounted, the judicial performance, law enforcement performance, and whether or not 

there is a central authority. That is no longer the way, or at least 

it is not the exclusive way, under the law that we are looking, in 

terms of oversight today. 

And the point was that it was too subjective a mechanism to enable judges or lawyers or anyone else to accurately tell whether or 

not a country was or was not in compliance. So the new law made 

the requirement to be that of objective numbers. Tell us how many 

cases there are. Tell us how long they have been there. 

Give us the objective criteria, so that anyone looking at the report, not just those who are perhaps on the telephone—and we 

have heard about transparency—anyone can pick up the report, including a judge, including a diplomat, including a legislator, and 

know whether or not there is a problem. 

I recounted in my written remarks two cases, focusing on two 

particular countries. I did that because I could testify about specific 

cases that were not represented in the report. The United Arab 

Emirates is a country with which we have great diplomatic relationships. They are our partners in fighting terrorism in the region. 

I work with them consistently, and it is reported that there are no 

pending cases. 

There is no question that there is a pending case. There is no 

question that there is a case in which there have been criminal indictments issued by the United States Attorney for the return of 

Gabrielle Dahm. There is no explanation provided for why that 

case is not reflected. 

The other issue I would like to point out—and, again, my written 

remarks go into more detail, but—and we have been talking about 

Japan. Let me limit my remarks to Hague cases, because the response that the Ambassador gave was that the reason for the designation of no cases had to do with the pre-Convention cases. 

Presume for the moment that that is the case. Let me address 

the cases that are in being since the Hague has been passed, many 

of which involve parents desperate, who have been willing to forego 

the return applications in favor of access applications. The access 

applications—first of all, in many cases, the Japanese insisted that 

32

those return applications be withdrawn if they were going to work 

the access cases. Let us begin with that. 

You have no choice. You want to see your child; this is the way. 

There has been no case under the Hague in which there has been 

a judicial submission resulting in any type of access whatsoever. 

Twenty-nine cases are listed as having been delayed in some way 

as if these parents who have been working day and night somehow 

delayed the prosecution of their cases. 

They haven’t been worked, and yet the number of cases is zero. 

Using not the test that was testified to by Ambassador Jacobs, but 

using the test in this act, there is no question that Japan is noncompliant. No question. And, in fact, the narrative does nothing 

but create a question. 

If I am before a judge talking about someone going to Japan for 

vacation, and the judge asks me, ‘‘Is Japan compliant?’’ I have to 

say yes. I have to say yes. That is what the information provided 

by what the authoritative—and this is evidential for those of us 

who are lawyers—source in the world says. 

So the very first thing that I would say is that all of this act is 

dependent upon the report. If the report isn’t right, the rest of the 

remedies, the way it is treated diplomatically, the way it is treated 

in the Embassies, the way it is treated at the borders, falls apart. 

Those are my preliminary remarks, and I am prepared to address any questions that anyone may have with respect to the specifics of either the issues that have been raised or testimony. 

I would also mention, there was a question I believe by Mr. 

Meadows with respect to what type of actions were taken to go 

through these definitions. And I am speaking on behalf of myself, 

but I am a member of the American Bar Association’s Family Law 

Section, and have been for many years, and I am member of course 

of the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers. Neither 

group that I know of was consulted. 

I know our working groups on international law were not consulted, and have worked on these issues day and night, as part of 

our normal professional practices, to walk through why, for example, you would never remove a custody application in a non-Hague 

case. Please understand, there is no ability to seek the return of 

a child in a non-Hague case if you do not have the right to determine the child’s place of residence. It is the only way to seek the 

remedy. 

To exclude those cases without any explanation is simply to 

lower the numbers. And, again, I heard the Ambassador talk about 

the revision of the report as there having been mistakes. I am hoping that that is genuinely the motivation for lowering those numbers as opposed to being forced to address certain of the actions. 

And, again, there is tremendous discretion in the act. 

But the part that I am concerned about is there seems to be a 

lack of understanding of how important these numbers are outside 

of just the acts that are associated with the law. It is important 

in the way that NGOs, in the way that those of us who deal with 

human rights are able to have discourse with accurate, credible 

evidence. And the lack of concern about getting these numbers 

right before the report was issued is stunning to me. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Apy follows:]

33


95517e-1.eps
34


95517e-2.eps
35


95517e-3.eps
36


95517e-4.eps
37


95517e-5.eps
38


95517e-6.eps
39


95517e-7.eps
40


95517e-8.eps
41


95517e-9.eps
42


95517e-10.eps
43


95517e-11.eps
44


95517e-12.eps
45


95517e-13.eps
46


95517e-14.eps
47

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Apy, thank you very much. 

Before we go into Mr. Collins, let me welcome Sheila Jackson 

Lee, the gentlelady from Texas. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you, and to the 

chairman of the full committee, ranking member, and all of the 

witnesses, I will take just a moment to say that I am committed 

to this issue with every ounce of my abilities. I have been appalled 

at some of the stories, even in spite of this bill that we worked so 

hard to pass. 

And I think this hearing with Chairman Smith, who has listened 

to stories along with me, and let me welcome Ms. Rutherford and 

the other witnesses who have painfully indicated, that this is not 

about paper or legislative proudness or the fact that a good bill is 

trying to do a good thing. It is about the passion and love that a 

parent has for their children and one where they deserve to be able 

to express that love and affection. 

I would just yield back, Mr. Chairman, and say that however we 

can make the effective tool that the State Department uses to be 

an effective tool, I think that is what our challenge should be. 

American citizens should be able to look to their government for relief, even in spite of some of the unusual procedures of our foreign 

neighbors. 

And, with that, let me yield back and commit myself to working 

on this issue continuously. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Collins. 

STATEMENT OF MR. RANDY COLLINS, MANAGING DIRECTOR, 

BRING ABDUCTED CHILDREN HOME (FATHER OF CHILD ABDUCTED TO JAPAN) 

Mr. COLLINS. Chairman Smith, Chairman Royce, and committee 

members, thank you for the opportunity to share my story regarding international parental abduction to Japan. Reiko Nakata 

Greenberg and I were married on September 1, 2000, and on 03/

03/03 at 3:03 p.m., my first and only child Keisuke Christian Collins was born in Orange, California. 

In March 2008, we started the process of a divorce, and I needed 

to get my financial records together. I found monthly checks written by Reiko to her Japan Airlines credit card for almost 2 years. 

Through these cash advances on her personal credit card, and 

withdrawals from our home equity line, she secretly was able to 

build a nest egg for herself of over $220,000. 

With this new evidence, I went to court in 2008 to stop Reiko 

from taking Keisuke to Japan for the summer. The judge ruled 

‘‘Minor child not to be removed from the County of Orange, State 

of California, or the United States of America, and turn over the 

minor’s passports to the Japanese Embassy within 24 hours.’’

I relayed the court’s ruling to the Japanese Embassy in Los Angeles that afternoon. They replied, ‘‘We don’t care about your court 

orders. We won’t take the passports. They are Japanese citizens, 

and they can do what they want.’’ I said my son was born and 

raised in the United States and is a U.S. citizen. He said, ‘‘I don’t 

care.’’

48

Two days later was Father’s Day. I picked up Keisuke in the 

morning for church. We had a Father’s Day lunch and spent the 

afternoon at his favorite place, the Discovery Science Zone. Afterwards, I said, ‘‘Thanks for spending Father’s Day with me, 

Keisuke. I love you. See you tomorrow.’’ He said, ‘‘Love you, too, 

Daddy.’’ Those were the last words I heard from my son. That was 

2,586 days ago today. 

On June 16, 2008, in violation of my court orders, and with the 

help of her father, Ken Nakata, a retired international pilot with 

Japan Airlines, Reiko bypassed the system, was able to kidnap 

Keisuke, and flee to Japan. Reiko Nakata Greenberg Collins has 

warrants for her arrest by the Orange County Sheriff’s Department, is on the FBI’s Most Wanted List for Parental Kidnappings, 

and has a Red Notice issued by Interpol. 

Even with these Federal and international warrants in place, the 

State Department says it can do nothing. I believe it can; it just 

chooses not to. 

Three and a half years later, I was notified that Reiko filed for 

full and physical legal custody in Japan. In my reply I supplied the 

restraining order, final divorce decree which awarded me full physical and legal custody, and proof of U.S. jurisdiction of this case. 

The Japanese court replied by disregarding my final divorce order, 

stole jurisdiction, and ruled my restraining order, which stated, 

‘‘Minor child not to be removed from the County of Orange, State 

of California, or the United States of America’’ was too vague. 

What word in that sentence is vague? Nothing. 

As the Japanese family courts have proven time and time again, 

they have a bias against Americans. I will call it for what it is: 

Racism. My case, and the 70 cases listed with BAC Home, occurred 

prior to Japan becoming a Hague signatory, and, by definition 

under the Goldman Act, are abduction cases. 

To date, children are collectively trapped in Japan and cut off 

from us. These cases are not resolved, yet the State Department’s 

ICAPRA compliance report unilaterally, and without explanation, 

decided to downgrade all of them to access cases. To say the 

ICAPRA report is an insult and a slap in the face of every parent 

of an abducted child is an understatement. 

The numbers do not add up in any way you try, but create an 

ever-bigger problem as a grossly inaccurate report gives potential 

abducting parents ammunition to go to court, show any judge that 

Japan is compliant with the Hague, and nothing can be further 

from the truth. 

With no American child ever being returned by the Japanese 

Government, nor any ruling in favor of the victimized parent ever 

enforced by a Japanese court, Japan is non-compliant. Even using 

State’s own numbers, as ridiculous and as ludicrous as they are, 

Japan is still 57 percent non-compliant, which is greater than the 

30 percent Goldman Act standard. Japan is unequivocally non-compliant. Period. 

Japan’s compliant rating in the report is highly suspect after the 

recent testimony of the Japanese Diet on May 14 where Takashi 

Okada, Deputy Director General, and the Secretariat of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said, ‘‘I think I received Ambassador Jacobs’ 

understanding about how our country has been dealing with the 

49

issue of the Hague Convention. The report has not yet been released. As I explained earlier to the Diet members, because we 

strive to make an explanation to the U.S. side, I hope that the report contents will be based on our country’s efforts to deal with the 

issue.’’

The ICAPRA report is not to take into account what Japan tells 

the Ambassador its efforts are. The report is to be compiled based 

on facts and results. There are no facts to support Japan as compliant. 

For anyone to make any sort of assurance or to accept Japan’s 

explanation, to give it a favorable rating in the report, is outrageous. This report must be amended to show Japan as non-compliant. Over 400 abduction cases to Japan have been registered 

with the State Department since 1994, and no child has ever been 

returned by the Japanese Government. 

We have suffered years of secrecy from State regarding our abducted children. It is the perfect definition of insanity—doing the 

same thing over and over again but expecting a different result. 

The results have not changed in 7 years. We are still no closer to 

seeing our children today than we were before Japan joined the 

Hague Abduction Convention. So State’s actions, or in this case inactions, speak so loudly we can’t hear what they are saying anymore. 

I would like this subcommittee to insist that OCI and the State 

Department be far more transparent with Congress and with victimized parents. We deserve answers. Simply telling the subcommittee that we are raising our cases means nothing. Are they 

demanding the return of our children or simply begging? Do they 

drop the issue just because Japan tells them it is too difficult to 

return our kidnapped children? What are the answers they are receiving? 

It is time to start holding Japan accountable. Public condemnation, implementation of sanctions as outlined in the Goldman Act, 

and the demand that we have access to and the return of our 

American children immediately. My son, Keisuke Christian Collins, 

deserves his father, and I deserve my son. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Collins follows:]

50


95517d-1.eps
51


95517d-2.eps
52


95517d-3.eps
53


95517d-4.eps
54


95517d-5.eps
55


95517d-6.eps
56

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Rutherford. 

STATEMENT OF MS. KELLY RUTHERFORD, CO–FOUNDER, 

CHILDREN’S JUSTICE CAMPAIGN 

Ms. RUTHERFORD. Thank you all for being here today. It is wonderful to see your faces and to hear the questions that you asked 

Ambassador Jacobs. And I know each one of you really believes in 

this, and it gives us all a lot of hope. I really, really appreciate it. 

I would like to thank all of you, Chairman Ed Royce, Chairman 

Smith, Ranking Member Bass, Congresswoman Sheila Jackson 

Lee, who has worked on educating the public about my ordeal, and 

the distinguished members of the subcommittee, and these other 

gentlemen who I am just meeting today. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address you today regarding 

international parental child abduction, or IPCA, and my ordeal as 

a parent separated from her children, and my commitment to getting my children back or to stay in this country, and working to 

educate judges and advocating on behalf of other parents. 

My name is Kelly Rutherford, and I am U.S. citizen. My children 

were born in this country and are American citizens as well. They 

only hold U.S. passports. In 2012, at the ages of two and five, my 

children were ordered by a California Judge, Teresa Beaudet, to 

leave the United States and reside in France and Monaco, two 

countries where my children do not have citizenship and where 

they had never lived before. 

My kids are here with me in the United States for 5 weeks this 

summer, and I would like to say I had to go to Monaco to have 

them give me that, because in my country no one seems to be 

claiming jurisdiction for my American children, including California, even though they sent them there. 

They are currently required to return to Monaco 5 weeks from 

now, in August. I am testifying here in the hopes that you can help 

them and similarly situated children to remain in the United 

States. 

If someone had told me when my children were born, which were 

the two most beautiful days of my life, that one day my children 

would be ordered by an American judge to leave the United States 

and live in a foreign country, I would have not believed it. I never 

thought that what has happened was possible in this country, and 

there are fellow Americans that come up to me on a daily basis expressing the same disbelief. 

In 2008, my ex-husband and I both filed for divorce. We agreed 

at the time that California would have jurisdiction over the case, 

even though none of us were living in California at the time. I was 

under contract in New York to do Gossip Girl. I have since come 

to doubt whether it was proper for California to handle the case, 

because nobody in our family had lived there for a long time before 

the divorce was filed. 

My ex-husband made no dispute over money as neither one of us 

sought support of any kind. The only dispute was over which parent would have primary custody. I assumed it would be me, because I had been the children’s primary caregiver throughout their 

lives. This issue became an international controversy after my exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:49 Oct 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\071615\95517 SHIRL
57

husband left the United States before the custody decision was 

made, and then claimed, through his attorney, that he was unable 

to return to this country because his work visa had been revoked. 

In support of that claim, my ex-husband gave the court a photocopy of a forwarded email that appeared to have been sent to him 

from the U.S. Embassy in Berlin. The judge took no steps to authenticate the email or contact Federal officials to determine 

whether the information was true, even though the email contained 

many irregularities. For example, it was signed by the U.S. Consulate in Berlin, and there is no Consulate in Berlin. There is only 

an Embassy. 

The email also contained no date of visa issuance or visa revocation, both of which are required under Federal law. Despite the 

email’s questionable authenticity, the judge accepted the documents as evidence, and based on that email alone, ruled that my 

children must leave their own country and reside with their father 

abroad. 

For reasons that remain unclear today, to this day, the judge 

never asked my ex-husband why he needed a visa to enter the 

United States, given that he was a German citizen and Germans 

come to this country every day on passports alone for months at 

a time. Surely, my ex-husband could have exercised his parental 

rights in America by coming here on his passports as he did during 

our marriage, and just as I have used my U.S. passport to travel 

to France and Monaco over 70 times since 2012 to see my children. 

By forcing my kids to leave the United States, the judge ignored 

my children’s rights to live in their own country as granted by the 

Supreme Court’s 1967 decision of Afroyim v. Rusk. And because my 

children were made to live in a country where they had no citizenship, the judge effectively rendered them nationless, because, as an 

expert witness explained to the California court, many countries, 

including Monaco, have provisions in their laws that allow them to 

reject American court orders and American law generally. 

After living in Monaco for a period of time, my children were declared habitual residents of Monaco, subject only to the laws of 

Monaco. They have now lived there for 3 years. They said it was 

temporary. Under the UCCJEA, the habitual residence of a child, 

and not the child’s citizenship, determines where they live. Though 

legal experts tell me that this aspect of the UCCJEA may be unconstitutional as habitual residency cannot trump U.S. citizenship. 

One of the things that I argued in court was that I would be willing to take the kids to see their Dad in Monaco and France every 

holiday and all summer until he figured out whatever his work 

visa situation was. And that was ignored, because then we wouldn’t 

have this problem to begin with, because they would have stayed 

in their own country. 

The judge said that even though the visit to France and Monaco 

was temporary that if my ex-husband did not obtain a new visa the 

children would automatically return to this country. I saw that ruling as a hopeful sign that, worst-case scenario, my children would 

return home in a year or so, either with their father, if he obtained 

a new visa, or without him, if he did not. 

Much to my shock, when I returned to the California court in 

2014 to ask that my children be ordered to come home because 

58

Max has done nothing to obtain a new visa, a fact that I confirmed 

through the State Department in 2014, the court denied my request and ruled that it had no authority to address my ex-husband’s immigration efforts. 

The court then questioned whether it even had jurisdiction anymore, given that nobody had lived in California for many years. 

This was a curious statement, considering that I had asked that 

the California court previously to relinquish jurisdiction said that 

the case would be handled in New York. This is before they were 

sent there. So we agreed to California jurisdiction because the California court refused to allow me to move the case to New York. 

So here I was forced to litigate the case in California, which sent 

my children away in 2012, but it was now claiming it had no jurisdiction to fix the problem it had caused, and to this day that remains the same. 

After that 2014 California ruling, I tried to have the children file 

their own case in the New York Federal Court, hoping the Federal 

Government would bring my children home, but that was unsuccessful as well, though we are now asking the Supreme Court to 

review the decision. 

I went to Monaco earlier this year to object to jurisdiction there, 

and I went back to California again last week asking for the return 

of my children, but that California judge stated that if I don’t live 

in California, he can’t exercise jurisdiction for any purpose, including bringing the children home to America. 

This case has developed a very strange legal vacuum where nobody in this country appears willing or able to do anything to help 

my American children home, bring them home, even though this is 

the country that sent them away. I can only see this as a legal kidnapping by a California judge, forcing my children to live abroad 

for so long that the other country seized control over their lives. 

How could this be happening? I ask myself. I just ask each of you 

here today how it is possible that two American citizens have been 

ordered by their own Government to live in exile in a foreign country. I assume that many of you may have children, and can you 

only imagine a judge ordering you to put your 2-year-old child on 

a plane and sending them to live in a foreign country? 

There are lots of great countries in the world, and I have traveled to Monaco many times. It is a beautiful, interesting place. But 

among the wonderful things about this country is that people have 

a right to choose whether to live here. My children did not choose 

to leave their own country. I and their court-appointed attorney in 

California chose for them to remain in the United States. 

When they reach the age of maturity, if they want to live abroad, 

they can do so. Or if both parents make a private family decision 

to raise their children abroad, they can also do so. But my children 

are too young to make such a serious decision, and this was not 

a private family matter. This was a court order commanding my 

American children to leave the United States. 

Congress could fix this problem and help many children and 

many others simply by codifying what the United States Supreme 

Court said in 1967, that ex-patriation can never be ordered by any 

court because choosing to live abroad is an individual right, not a 

government power. The Supreme Court explained in Afroyim that 

59

no right is more fundamental than American citizenship. So I ask 

all of you here today, aren’t my children American citizens? 

On behalf of my children, and all American children affected by 

similar court rulings from family courts all across the country, 

please do all that you can to make sure that no child is ever forced 

to leave this wonderful country. 

Thank you very much. 

[Ms. Rutherford did not submit a prepared statement.] 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Rutherford, thank you so very much for your testimony. 

Dr. Rahman. 

STATEMENT OF SAMINA RAHMAN, M.D. (MOTHER OF CHILD 

ABDUCTED TO INDIA) 

Dr. RAHMAN. I would like to thank Chairman Smith and Mr. 

Meadows, Ms. Jackson Lee, and other members of the subcommittee, and my representative Congressman Eliot Engel, for 

giving me this chance to testify. 

My name is Dr. Samina Rahman, and I am Abdallah’s mother. 

I am a resident of New York and a citizen of Bangladesh. Today, 

I will be Abdallah’s voice. I will address the human rights violations, crimes, and injustice he and tens of thousands of American 

children are the silent victims of for decades. 

In brief, Abdallah, who is a U.S. citizen by birth, and whose habitual residence is Westchester County, New York, was abducted to 

India by his own father, Salman Khan, a non-resident Indian citizen, or NRI, who never lived in India prior to seeking a safe haven 

there in April 2013. 

In April 2013, after years of abuse, neglect, and his multiple declarations of divorce, I finally informed my husband that I agreed 

for divorce. Despite Shariah law, which would grant me sole custody, I promised him shared custody, to be fair to him, to which 

he responded, ‘‘There is no such thing as shared custody. I will 

never share my son.’’

Later, however, he cried in remorse, and he said he wished to 

reconcile. I gratefully agreed. A few days later, he announced he 

was going to Florida to visit his older sister, Arshi Khan. She had 

ex-communicated me in 2011 after she physically assaulted me and 

threatened to break my legs and my son’s legs and ordered my husband to divorce me and throw me on the street. As a resident training physician, I worked 6 days a week, so I could not have accompanied them to Florida anyway. 

Four days later, on the day my son and my ex were expected to 

return to New York, I received a text message from a United Arab 

Emirates cell phone number, ‘‘We are in Dubai.’’ Two days later, 

my husband ended all contact with me abruptly. His parents and 

other siblings, who live only a mile away from my parents’ home 

in the United Arab Emirates, refused to answer my, my parents, 

and my sister’s many phone calls on their many phone numbers. 

Arshi Khan did not answer any of my calls either. 

At a complete loss, I filed a complaint with the Mount Vernon 

Police Department. They made a phone call to Arshi Khan and 

asked her if she knew her brother’s whereabouts. She said she had 

no clue. Her lawyer later admitted to the FBI that she had purVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:49 Oct 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\071615\95517 SHIRL
60

chased one-way Delta Airlines plane tickets to Dubai for her brother and my son. 

However, the very next day, after this call from the police, my 

husband reestablished contact with me. He claimed I was having 

an affair and that is why he had to leave me, to protect my son 

from my immoral ways. He informed me that he had moved to 

India permanently. I later found out that he had also emailed my 

employers, my residency program directors, that all my certificates 

were fake and that I should be fired and deported. 

I made many desperate calls at that time, to domestic violence 

hotlines, the FBI, the NCMEC, the Indian Consulate in New York, 

the Indian Embassy in Washington, and the United States Department of State. They all advised me to take my matter to family 

court. My parents then retained a New York lawyer for me, and 

we petitioned the Westchester County Family Court, since that was 

my son’s habitual residence. However, my ex, despite being duly 

served, refused to appear in court even via phone, and instead simultaneously initiated custody proceedings in his local district 

court of Jhansi, India, where he claimed that I was an immoral 

woman who had abandoned my son and my husband. 

My parents then hired a lawyer for me in India on the recommendation of a close friend of theirs in the UAE. My parents, 

like me, have never lived in India. On the basis of clear death 

threats, which my husband had made against me and my father, 

which I had recorded from a Skype video call in May 2013, the Supreme Court of India issued a 3-month stay order on the Jhansi 

court proceedings, on the district court proceedings. 

However, 9 months later, that same Supreme Court of India refused to acknowledge that my son was abducted and ordered that 

I file a petition for a child custody case in a lower court of the State 

of Uttar Pradesh, which is a part of the world I have never even 

visited. 

This is in direct contradiction to India’s own Constitution. The 

Guardians and Wards Act of 1890, section 9, clearly states that the 

court that has the jurisdiction to entertain the application with respect to the guardianship of the minor is the district court of the 

place where the minor ordinarily resides, which, in my son’s case, 

is the Family Court of Westchester County, New York. 

The Supreme Court of India not only asserted jurisdiction over 

me, a non-Indian who has never lived in India, but also turned a 

blind eye to the death threats to my father and myself by an Indian citizen and threw out my Westchester Court Family Court 

order of sole physical custody without a written, unexplained disrespect to the comity of courts. 

Am I really expected to hire a lawyer, site unseen, in a country 

which grants me conditional visit visas of 3 to 6 months at a time? 

Am I to make that lawyer my power of attorney to represent me 

in court? Am I expected to wire transfer him tens of thousands of 

U.S. dollars and then trust in God that he is really making the 

court appearances he claims he is making? 

As a non-Indian who never lived in India, I have no records of 

tax filing, property ownership, employment, education, or residence 

in India. So on what basis would an Indian court decide whether 

I am a fit mother or not? 

61

Tova Haynes-Sengupta from Texas is an American left-behind 

parent. Like me, she has never lived in India. Her 4-year-old 

daughter Indira was abducted to India by her ex-husband Susanta 

Sengupta in December 2013. Due to financial constraints of being 

a single mother who was a homemaker for the duration of her marriage, and the fact that she is the sole custodial parent of Indira’s 

older brother, she has never been able to, and will never be able 

to, afford to retain a lawyer in India, nor make trips every 6 

months for a court appearance there. 

She was awarded sole custody of Indira by the Family Court of 

Williamson County, Texas, after her ex-husband was found guilty 

of felony child abuse only months prior to the abduction. There is 

an unlawful flight to avoid prosecution warrant issued against 

Susanta Sengupta. 

Why are Tova and I being asked to petition the district courts 

of India for child custody when we have never even lived in India? 

There are over 30 million cases pending in India’s courts today. 

Ninety percent have been pending for over a year, and over half 

of them have been pending over 5 years. So why am I being forced 

to be pending case number 30 million and one? 

Since April 2013, I have been allowed to speak to my son only 

12 times. Despite the false claims of an Office of Children’s Issues 

welfare report from July 2013, my son is not allowed to call me, 

and all my calls to him are screened by his father. It has been 27 

months since I last looked into my own son’s eyes. I breast-fed him 

exclusively for over 3 years until he outgrew his cow’s milk allergy. 

I taught him to read, write, pray, ride a bike. 

My son, my ex, and I lived with my parents for most of my married life. I worked hard on my career as a physician, so that I could 

provide myself and my son with security and our home someday, 

since my husband was unemployed, though he is also a medical 

graduate. 

People often ask me, ‘‘How did your ex get your son past five 

international airports without a notarized consent letter from you?’’ 

So I went online and discovered that while the Customs and Border Patrol recommends such a letter, it does not require such a letter. The U.S.A. has no exit controls for people; only for bottles of 

shampoo over four ounces. 

Americans then ask me, ‘‘Why don’t you talk to the State Department and they will bring your child back,’’ which could not be further from the truth. Left-behind parents like myself of American 

children who have been abducted to India have all had the same 

experience in our responses from the U.S. Department of State’s 

Office of Children’s Issues. 

In December 2014, 4 months after the Goldman Act was signed 

into law, I emailed my OCI caseworker to have my son deported 

back to the U.S.—I thought it was a great idea—because he is an 

American minor living in India on a fraudulently acquired residence visa, or overseas citizen card, which by Indian law requires 

the notarized consent of both parents of the minor. 

And this is the response I got from my caseworker, and I quote,

‘‘The Department of State does not have the authority under 

U.S. law to inform India that a foreigner is residing there illegally, or to request their deportation. I encourage you to conVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:49 Oct 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\071615\95517 SHIRL
62

sult with your attorney about the best way to inform the Indian court and the Ministry of Home Affairs, Foreigners Division, about Abdallah’s legal status in India.’’

They continue to write,

‘‘The Sean and David Goldman Act, ICAPRA, grants the Department of State the authority to employ a full range of diplomatic tools to improve cooperation with India on resolving all 

cases of international parental child abduction. We strategically tailor our bilateral efforts to India’s unique legal and political system. While I cannot share government-to-government 

communications concerning the status of bilateral efforts or 

procedures, I can assure you that we will seek opportunities to 

utilize the tools enumerated in the new law.’’

I was elated to learn that consequent to the Goldman Act there 

were now bilateral efforts and procedures, and government-to-government communications ongoing between India and the U.S. State 

Department. Finally, there was hope for parents of children abducted to non-Hague Convention countries. 

However, in May 2015, on reading the 2015 annual report, we 

left-behind parents were devastated to discover that there are still 

no bilateral procedures in place between India and the U.S., according to the report, whereas section 103 of the Goldman Act 

clearly states not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this act, which should have been 5 months ago, the Secretary of State shall initiate a process to develop bilateral procedures, including MOU, which include identification of the central 

authority, which was not done; identification of the judicial and administrative authority that would promptly adjudicate abduction 

and access cases, which was also not done; and identification of the 

law enforcement agencies, not done. 

We at Bring Our Kids Home are outraged to learn that our children’s cases have been open with the State Department for years, 

but have still not been reported to the Government of India. Three 

years after Reyansh Parmar was abducted, 2 years after Abdallah 

Khan and Nikhita Jagtiani were abducted, yet to date the OCI has 

submitted no application to the Government of India for any of 

these children. 

What prevents the State Department from reporting these cases 

to the Government of India? Child abduction is a crime in India 

under Indian Penal Code 361, punishable by up to 7 years in prison. And both the Ministry of Women and Child Development and 

the National Commission for the Protection of Children’s Rights 

are mandated by the Indian Constitution itself, to uphold the 

United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, which India 

ratified in 1992, which states that India has committed itself to, 

‘‘Take measures, including the conclusion of bilateral and multilateral agreements, to combat child abduction and the non-return of 

children abroad.’’ This is referring to Articles 11 and 35 of the 

UNCRC. 

The case of Avinash Kulkarni from California is now 25 years 

old. His son Soumitra, who was abducted at age 6 months in 1990, 

is now 25 years old and is completely alienated from his distraught 

63

father who says that his life stopped the day his son was abducted 

25 years ago. 

Twenty-five years later, there is still no bilateral agreement in 

place between India and the U.S. to address IPCA, which is a 

crime, an act of child abuse, and a terrible violation of children’s 

rights and parental rights. The numbers in the 2015 annual report 

by the State Department are inexplicable. Nineteen new abduction 

cases were reported in calendar year 2014. None were reported to 

a foreign central authority, yet 22 cases are reported as resolved. 

What is probably the most alarming is that although India is 

listed as non-compliant, the only remedial measure recommended 

by the State Department is D, encourage India to sign the Hague. 

India has a long and well-documented history of treating parental abduction cases as routine custody cases, disregarding custody 

court orders from jurisdictions where the child was habitually a 

resident and relitigating those decisions in India for several years 

and millions of rupees. The only person who consistently wins in 

India is the abducting parent. 

It is no secret that our children are abducted to India precisely 

because of the legal and cultural environment prevalent in India 

for decades that provides a safe haven for abductors, where they 

can about their daily lives as if they never committed a crime. 

Abducted children from the United States and from around the 

world are rarely returned by Indian courts. So why wouldn’t the 

State Department choose to apply the full range of Goldman Act 

recommendations to address their non-compliance, including (A) 

training, the State Department promotes training with judicial and 

administrative authorities on the effective handling of international 

parental child abduction cases; (B) training with law enforcement 

entities on how to effectively locate children and enforce court-ordered returns; (F) Department officials intensify engagement with 

the foreign central authorities for updates on IPCA cases and to 

promote prompt case processing. 

While we left-behind parents live a nightmare every waking moment, what really kills us inside is that we know our children suffer far more than us. They were pulled out of their homes at the 

most tender age, cruelly deprived of a mother or father’s nuture, 

removed from their family, friends, their pets, their school. 

Overnight they find themselves in a new country where they are 

thrust into a new living situation, a new school, with a foreign language and foreign customs, where they must always be stigmatized 

and bullied as the Indo-American child whose American parent 

abandoned them. 

They are brainwashed by the abducting parent that they have 

been abandoned and are already forgotten by the left-behind parent. And they are forced to turn against their left-behind parent in 

violation of their every natural instinct to love and be loyal to both 

parents. 

My own son was snatched from me at age 6 and is now being 

cared for by a maid who probably did not attend school, who cannot 

even communicate with my son. When I last spoke to my son a few 

months ago, he only knows English. He doesn’t know any Hindi. 

I am also shocked at how the school that my son was enrolled 

in, the Delhi Public School, which is one of the best schools of India 

64

with several international branches, has enrolled my son without 

my ex-husband providing a transfer, a school leaving certificate, 

from Abdallah’s elementary school in New York, without providing 

recent report cards, immunization records, none of that, all of 

which are typically required by the Board of Education for enrollment of children between grades one and six. 

Is it not incumbent on every civilized society to protect its most 

vulnerable citizens? We at Bring Our Kids Home understand that 

this is a new era for the strategic partnership between the United 

States and India. Forward together we go. Chalein Saath Saath. 

The two largest democracies of the world have agreed to work together, not only for the benefit of both nations but for the benefit 

of the world. Together we seek a reliable and enduring friendship. 

However, our leaders must never forget Gandhi’s words, the 

seven deadly social sins, including politics without principle, and 

commerce without morality. Our children need not be considered as 

sacrifices to the altar of commerce. 

A true friend will tell you the truth about yourself and use it to 

empower you, not to belittle or destroy you. The question is: Does 

the United States have the courage to make the human rights and 

security of American children a priority and tell the truth? And 

does India have the will to lead by actions, not just by words? 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Rahman, if you could just briefly, to interrupt, 

we have——

Dr. RAHMAN. I am done. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. We are on zero for a vote. No. We will 

come back, and you can pick up where you have left off. But we 

will take a short recess. We have five votes, and I deeply apologize 

to you for that. But hopefully 20 minutes, 25 minutes or so, we will 

be right back. 

Dr. RAHMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. And reconvene. Thank you. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SMITH. First of all, let me again express to our distinguished 

witnesses and guests here, I apologize for that long delay. We did 

have a series of votes, and they went a little bit longer than advertised. 

But, Dr. Rahman, if you would continue? 

Dr. RAHMAN. We at Bring Our Kids Home ask Congress that 

they continue to press the State Department to change the way 

they are engaging with left-behind parents and nations that our 

children are abducted to. There have been good communications, 

good conversations between India and the State Department, but 

a year after the Goldman Act there is still no MOU, no treaty, as 

required by the Goldman Act. 

We ask that, though it may be politically unpopular, both Congress and State make clear to offending countries that these abducted American children must be returned to their habitual residence using the full range of diplomatic tools available to them by 

the Goldman Act. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Rahman follows:]

65


95517b-1.eps
66


95517b-2.eps
67


95517b-3.eps
68


95517b-4.eps
69


95517b-5.eps
70


95517b-6.eps
71


95517b-7.eps
72


95517b-8.eps
73


95517b-9.eps
74


95517b-10.eps
75


95517b-11.eps
76


95517b-12.eps
77


95517b-13.eps
78


95517b-14.eps
79

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Dr. Rahman. 

Ms. McGee. 

STATEMENT OF MS. DIANE MCGEE (MOTHER OF CHILDREN 

ABDUCTED TO JAPAN) 

Ms. MCGEE. Thank you. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak today. I would like to start out by saying that my 

children are being illegally retained in Japan by Sean McGee currently employed at Nomura Securities. Under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act (IPKCA), he has been retaining them 

outside the U.S. with the intent to obstruct the lawful exercise of 

my parental rights. 

My children, Brendan, MaryKate, Jack, and Megan are all natural born U.S. citizens, holding only U.S. passports. Sean and I are 

also natural born U.S. citizens, holding only U.S. passports. We are 

not Japanese. 

My husband, Sean McGee, works for Nomura Securities. He has 

been retaining my children against my will since December 2012, 

and has not allowed them to return to the United States in over 

3 years. This is not about a custody dispute. This is about my children’s right to be with and be loved by both parents. 

Much has transpired over the 3-plus years, most notably the fact 

that after an 8-day plenary hearing Judge Matthew Curry ruled 

that my children and I are all bona fide habitual residents of New 

Jersey. Jurisdiction in the State of New Jersey. Why is it so difficult to bring my American children home to the United States? 

The State Department, via the Sean Goldman Act, released its 

first annual report on countries that refuse to return American 

children who have been abducted or retained by a parent abroad. 

Conspicuously absent from this list was the worst offender, Japan. 

Japan has never enforced or issued a return order for any American child being held captive there. 

This scenario of one parent violating the wishes of another parent by retaining children in Japan has been going on for many 

years. Japan is a black hole for child abduction. All members of the 

McGee family are American, and they are being held hostage by 

their father in Japan. 

Sean has been able to live a very extravagant lifestyle in Japan, 

thanks to his employer, Nomura Securities. He vacations regularly 

to Phuket, Australia, India, Hong Kong, Korea, London, and Portugal. His lavish apartment costs $14,000 per month. At the same 

time, our youngest daughter Megan and I were on food stamps for 

over a year. The gas company, PSE&G, shut our power off. 

Sean has not been following through with the court orders that 

are required of him. He is court ordered to pay my legal fees. My 

lawyers are no longer representing me due to his willful neglect in 

payment. In addition, he was court ordered to pay the mortgage on 

the family home. Our home is currently in foreclosure due to his 

willful neglect in payment. Not only do I have no one to represent 

me, but I had to file bankruptcy as well. Sean is breaking the law 

on many levels. 

Our family unit has been torn apart physically and emotionally. 

Not only are they held captive in Japan, but they are now victims 

of Sean’s mental abuse. His campaign to alienate them from me 

80

and my entire family will cause lasting repercussions. The children 

are in grave danger due to his alcoholism and lack of supervision. 

Many nights they are left home alone while he is out drinking in 

Tokyo. The truth is that the children are struggling immensely in 

many areas affecting their lives, including academic, mental 

health, and substance abuse. 

Last September, my father died, my children’s grandpa, Vincent 

Cianciotto. Sean did not permit them to come home to attend his 

funeral. The role of their grandpa was one to be admired, for he 

took on a fatherly role for them their entire life due to Sean’s lack 

of the ability in this area. 

It pains me as a mother to be so far removed and not be able 

to comfort them and love them, as I have done their entire lives. 

You cannot imagine waking up each and every day not being able 

to be with your children. I miss every aspect of their being, their 

smiles, their laughter, and their tears. 

If there are any parents in the room today, I ask you to close 

your eyes and envision one day where you wake up and have no 

idea what is transpiring in the life of your child. That is what I 

have been experiencing every day for the past 21⁄2 years. A void 

that needs to be filled. No loving parent should have to experience 

this. 

Japan and Nomura Securities, you are aiding and abetting a 

child abductor and abuser. Send my children home. 

Thank you for allowing me this opportunity to tell my personal 

story. I hope this helps to bring awareness of the situation in order 

to return all our American children home. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. McGee follows:]

81


95517c-1.eps
82


95517c-2.eps
83

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Ms. McGee. And your testimony, and that of all of our very distinguished witnesses, not only 

put a human face on the agony that you face, but all the others 

who have been left behind. And, frankly, this is like our fifteenth 

hearing or so, and always with a group of people who have lost 

loved ones, children, or had a court, as in Ms. Rutherford’s case, 

do an awful job and not understanding. 

And, Ms. Apy, you might want to speak to uninformed judges 

and how deleterious that is to cases, if you would. 

But thank you so very, very much for that. Just a couple of questions. 

You were all here for the testimony from Ambassador Jacobs earlier. The fact that egregious omissions remain in the first report 

seem to be on the cusp of being rectified. I will wait and see. I am 

not from Missouri, but I am from New Jersey, and we have the 

same motto sometimes. But the abduction idea of unresolved cases 

for zero for Japan, obviously for two of you had to have been like 

a hot poker in the face. 

I mean, when I read that, I kept saying, ‘‘I am missing something. What am I missing?’’ And the Ambassador did indicate that 

they are going to fix that, but with that comes the designation of 

non-compliant, which follows like day follows night. And we will be 

asking, as I did here today, repeatedly asking that, don’t wait until 

next year’s report. Do it now. And my hope is that they will do it 

now, and then take appropriate actions. 

The only reason I brought up how we got Korea and Israel’s attention on trafficking was that we couldn’t have closer allies than 

those two countries, and yet we were honest enough to put in the 

report for trafficking exactly what the situation was on the ground. 

No games, no brinkmanship, no omissions. 

So I can assure you we are going to keep trying, and hopefully 

she and the Office of Children’s Issues and all those who make decisions at State will amend an egregiously flawed report. 

And I also, hopefully, will finally get to the bottom of what do 

the Foreign Service Officers do, what do OCI people do in a very 

tangible way to take the cases and represent the American citizen, 

you, who has been so wrongly dealt with. 

So maybe some thoughts on that, if any of you would like to 

share what you think the Department has done. 

Ms. Apy, on prevention and recovery, what does the State Department’s excluding pending abduction cases from the report have 

on the goals of prevention and recovery? 

Ms. Rutherford, you made some recommendations for possible 

legislation. If you could maybe elaborate where in the queue is 

your case, before the U.S. Supreme Court, I take it? Or is it State 

Supreme Court? 

Ms. RUTHERFORD. My lawyer hasn’t——

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Okay. 

Ms. RUTHERFORD [continuing]. But I definitely think there needs 

to be things put in place. I mean, my case is a little different because it is court-sanctioned child abduction. 

Mr. SMITH. Right. Right. 

Ms. RUTHERFORD. But a lot of the problem is, when the kids are 

over there, you can’t just come get them and bring them back or 

84

you will be in trouble here. For instance, I can’t just go get my 

kids, even though nobody is claiming jurisdiction, because I am still 

bound to the California court order, right? So it is not like I can 

just go get my kids and bring them back here and say, ‘‘Okay. 

Somebody decide who has jurisdiction,’’ because I can’t go to either 

country. So you are in this vacuum. 

I think it is the same with the kidnapping, where you can’t just 

go to Japan and bring the kids back here either unless your country decides to protect you and you are a U.S. citizen. So maybe if 

we can at least ourselves go back and kidnap them back, and be 

protected by our own country somehow, that would be good. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, you——

Ms. RUTHERFORD. We are willing to do it. 

Mr. SMITH. In Japan——[Laughter.] 

Ms. RUTHERFORD [continuing]. If our country won’t, but we just 

need to be backed by our country saying, ‘‘You did the right thing. 

We couldn’t figure it out, but you as a parent figured it out, but 

we are going to back you, and your kids will stay here in the U.S.’’ 

But there is that loophole, too, I think. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Thank you. 

And, again, Ms. Apy maybe to speak to the issue of judges being 

properly trained and informed about these cases. 

Ms. APY. Well, I think, first of all, and I mentioned it briefly, but 

one of the most stunning moments of the testimony was—and I 

don’t think she appreciated it as an admission, but admitting that 

the application of non-compliance was based on the old test and not 

based on the content of the new law, which requires objective numbers. 

I am very concerned, however, that the promises that we heard 

with respect to changes in the report—first of all, it is not just 

Japan. We talked about Japan, because it is so obvious, and 

reaches the level of almost black comedy to be in a situation where 

you have a room filled with people who know that there are ongoing cases. And to see in print not only that it is not a situation of 

non-compliance, but also a situation where the case isn’t even referenced as being in being, that is not the only country where that 

is reflected. 

I am very concerned with the removal of any case in which custody is being proffered as no longer constituting a pending abduction case. There is also a failure—and I understand that since this 

is the first piece of legislation worldwide to address access that figuring out the access issues and how that will be done would take 

additional time. 

The original comment to the report was not that we need more 

time. There was nothing in the report that said, ‘‘Yes, we have 

done a truncated report. But as it turns out, we are going to need 

a little bit more time to address how these definitions now fit with 

the reporting requirements.’’

The first time that the timeframe for reporting was raised was 

in response to the criticisms of the content of the report, because 

I am sure that if there had been a request for an extension of some 

kind because of the complexities of the definitions or a request to 

garner more information in reviewing them, that would have been 

85

addressed. There was no request. The report was issued with determinations regarding conformance and non-conformance. 

I would like to address India briefly, because of what I think is 

the persistent desire to continue in the mind-set that preceded this 

law. The only reference made in dealing with the Indian cases is 

to press the signator to the Hague Abduction Convention. I totally 

support efforts to do so. 

However, there is no question that had India been addressed in 

a more aggressive way, we would be talking about negotiating 

MOUs, which of course the Department of State, as a matter of formal policy, refused to do prior to this act. The idea in the act is 

that whether a Hague country or a non-Hague country, a memorandum of understanding or other bilateral discussions were to be 

formally engaged in, so that the conditions of those MOUs—I like 

to say MOU with a hammer—the idea is that we are not going to 

have private, unknown, unnamed, unseen conversations, and then 

tell left-behind parents, ‘‘Well, we have talked about your case.’’

Now, I know that in a number of cases where that representation 

has been made, no one that I have been in contact with references 

individual cases that I am aware of having been diplomatically discussed. I don’t think this is a matter of national security. I think 

that the issue is one of accountability. 

There are sensitive conversations, and we all understand that 

they would take place, but the point of having objective actions in 

the bill—and now the law—was so that there would be transparent 

and public censure to behaviors that are deemed to be not in keeping with international law. 

And the first efforts at compliance with this act harken back to 

the diplomatic efforts that were done without scrutiny, and based 

on subjective diplomatic determinations that were deemed by this 

Congress to not be adequate. It was not adequate to merely have 

an independent determination that, is there difficulty with judicial 

compliance? 

And the reason for that was, even in that setup, unless all three 

categories were met, the country was not deemed to be non-compliant. So if a country never issued a return order, it could never be 

non-compliant because you would never get to law enforcement. 

It made no sense. It was subjective. It was not responsive, and 

so it was changed by the Congress. But you heard today that the 

test that was applied—and apparently will be applied at the end 

of the week—is the old test. And the way that they got away with 

it was by not giving objective numbers for the number of pending 

cases, because if they had they would have no choice. They would 

have to look at the actions that are mandated to be taken under 

the new act. 

I am delighted to hear, although I have some incredulity, about 

a report that will be issued in a week. However, if it only deals 

with Japan, and if it does not also include compliance with the actions portions, if it doesn’t deal with accounting for what actions 

have been taken in India in addition to suggesting that they sign 

the Hague Convention, then we will be another year and the faces 

that are now becoming familiar to us will again be sitting here and 

asking the same questions. 

86

It is supposed to be hard. The deal is, if these parents—and I 

said this before—this is not about them not taking all efforts necessary to litigate their cases and apply the rule of law. They are 

in a situation where despite having done everything that they are 

supposed to do on a systemic nation state level, they cannot get the 

remedies, which is why this act was originally conceived and 

should be applied. 

And it is clear that either there is a huge lack of understanding 

or, as my written remarks I indicate, or a continued resentment to 

the provisions of the act about which the Department of State is 

uncomfortable. They opposed this act, and I would like to think 

they haven’t gone into compliance with it kicking and screaming. 

But all evidence seems to support that they have in fact not been 

enthusiastic in their desire to be in compliance. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Collins, when you decided to attempt an access 

agreement, did you give up your longstanding claim for return or 

otherwise change your case with the State Department from return 

to access? 

And, if I could, Ms. McGee, how has Japan responded to New 

Jersey’s claim of jurisdiction in the case? 

Mr. COLLINS. I didn’t change anything. My whole thing from the 

get-go—my whole thing from the beginning is I want access to my 

son. He is a U.S. citizen, born here. He was illegally taken. 

Mr. SMITH. So you still maintain your earnest desire for return. 

Mr. COLLINS. Absolutely. I have two court orders that state 

‘‘Minor child not to be removed from’’——

Mr. SMITH. I just wanted to get that on the record. 

Mr. COLLINS. Yeah. 

Mr. SMITH. Appreciate that. 

Ms. McGee. 

Ms. MCGEE. Japan ignored the jurisdiction order totally and actually gave him a divorce without my consent or knowledge at the 

time, without me being present, without me being served. And so 

he has a divorce order in Japan and custody of all four children in 

Japan that, according to Judge O’Neill in New Jersey, has stated 

that he is not allowed to use that court order here. It doesn’t mean 

anything here. 

But I have no access to the children in Japan, because he has 

full custody over there. And it is not a legal divorce or anything. 

Mr. SMITH. I think, Ms. McGee, your presence here today further 

underscores that whether it be a father or a mother, Japan is a 

haven for child abductors, notwithstanding their signature and 

ratification of the Hague. And maybe there are, and I do believe 

there are some people within the Government of Japan—I have 

met with some there—who are reformers and want to see systemic 

change. 

But it seems to me that we will sharpen the mind if we do our 

due diligence as a country, pursuant to the Goldman Act, and get 

it right first with the report, and do that with every nation, not 

just Japan, which—where it is egregiously flawed, but also to then 

apply the sanctions part, which should kick in on or about August 

15. 

The whole idea, we followed the way we did it in the trafficking 

law was to have first the report, and then for some serious considVerDate 0ct 09 2002 13:49 Oct 06, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\071615\95517 SHIRL
87

eration of what the sanctions regime should look like. And so my 

hope is that next week, from the Department, we will not only get 

a report that is right, but then they will sharpen their pencils and 

figure out what, if anything, they should do. And I think there are 

some things that ought to be done vis-a`-vis Japan to get their attention. 

Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. I am sorry I was slipping out dealing 

with another emergency and votes. But thank each of you. My 

heart goes out to you. And truly as best I can, not being in your 

situation, will certainly try to understand it and be an advocate for 

each one of you. 

I guess one of the frustrations—and all of you were here to hear 

the Ambassador, and I do believe that the 80 people that she mentioned truly want to solve this problem. There are all kinds of diplomatic hurdles, but the frustration many times can be with regards to the State Department and that there is the bureaucracy, 

there is the lack of connecting, consequences with inaction. And I 

think that is what we all see. 

And so I want to ask, for those of you that have been dealing 

with the State Department, how would you characterize those conversations? Are they enough? I mean, let us take it back away from 

the results. But are they keeping you informed? Do you feel like 

when they say they are working on it that they are actually working on it? And really want to get your perspective of that, if we 

could. And we will just go down—quickly down the——

Ms. APY. Thank you. I had a conversation in which Congresswoman Lois Frankel, my client, Mr. Dahm, and representatives 

from the Department of State were on the telephone to discuss the 

pendency of the case. The representatives could not tell me—from 

the Department of State could not tell me why the UAE was not 

listed at all as having the pending case. 

They couldn’t tell me the location of the child. The information 

that they provided with respect to the status of the case was information that I had originally given to them almost 2 years earlier. 

They had no idea who the current FBI agent on the case was, despite the fact that the Department of Justice identified the State 

Department OCI as being the ball carrier. 

My experience—and I get very frustrated—is that when I have 

these conversations the answer is usually either, ‘‘I will get back 

to you’’ or the ubiquitous, ‘‘We have been having conversations, and 

we have mentioned your case at the highest level.’’ That seems to 

be a euphemism for it is—I don’t know, it is on a list, it is—again, 

and I tend to press that issue, because absent a national security 

concern I think there are things you can share with a parent, and 

things you can share with regard to where that conversation is. 

And both on an individual level, as well as of course when there 

are systemic conversations taking place, I think there is still a reluctance to engage in those systemic conversations. I think that 

that becomes extremely frustrating for parents and for those who 

are attempting to work the cases. 

I would also note that nowhere in the report is there the required reference to the number of cases that involve our 

servicemembers. So those conversations, when I ask, you know, 

88

this is a servicemember, are we following up on it from that standpoint? There just isn’t any response in that regard. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you. 

Mr. Collins, before we go to you, I will say there is sometimes 

a reluctance to share details because of the fear of lack of cooperation if you share. And so I would offer each one of you, if you feel 

like it is more appropriate, to reach out individually instead of 

under sworn testimony. 

Feel free to adjust your comments privately, and that goes to the 

rest of you. Mr. Collins. 

Mr. COLLINS. We can go back to the beginning of my case when 

the DA filed the charges and passed it on to the FBI. It took the 

FBI over a year to finally return my phone call. I called the agent 

of my case three to four times a week every week, and they never 

returned a phone call. 

Caseworkers, I know they are doing the best that they can. 

About I think it was probably 4 years ago we were told in one of 

these hearings that these caseworkers want to be there for you. 

They are going to be in place. They are not going anywhere because 

they were coming in and out so quick. 

I have just had my third caseworker this year. So it is like a 

semi-annual thing. And the only communication I get is—well, I 

got one 2 weeks ago. ‘‘Have you heard anything new?’’ So I get like 

an annual call. 

I did—I was one of the first cases accepted by the JCA, and I 

got an email from my caseworker that came through the JCA saying that they have accepted my case. And then about—they would 

get back in contact with me when they have located my son. About 

6 weeks later, I got another email saying they have identified an 

address, but there has been no response. And then, 2 weeks later 

was the last one that said, ‘‘We still have gotten no response. It is 

past the deadline. You need to hire an attorney.’’

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Collins. 

Ms. Rutherford. 

Ms. RUTHERFORD. Ambassador Jacobs had helped—I had reached 

out to her a while ago, asking her to help in terms of just asking 

if my ex-husband had even reapplied for a visa. And they were 

helpful and wrote a letter saying, no, there was no application for 

him; he hadn’t reapplied. 

Beyond that, I think what I run up against is that most people 

see it as an ongoing litigation, or they refer to it as that. Nobody 

wants to get involved in that. They see it as a custody dispute, so 

they don’t want to get involved in a custody dispute. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Do you mean the State Department is saying 

that? 

Ms. RUTHERFORD. Well, I think in general the people that I have 

asked to reach out to the State Department and myself have gotten 

that response. And it is almost like domestic violence. You hit a kid 

on the street, it is a crime and you are in front of a jury. You hit 

your own kid in your own home, it is domestic violence. Same with 

your wife or husband or whatever. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Sure. 

Ms. RUTHERFORD. It seemed it very differently when it is in family court than it is if it was in criminal court or another court. So 

89

I think it is that same gray area of there is no jury, there is no 

one sitting there, it is kind of this family thing, an ongoing dispute 

litigation thing. 

And so it is not dealt with in the way that it should be in terms 

of immigration issues or criminal issues or all of this, because it 

is family. That seems to be the response I get is that they can’t 

help me because there is this sort of family court, ongoing litigation 

kind of thing. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Thank you. 

Dr. RAHMAN. The communications I have had with the State Department Office of Children’s Issues caseworker, usually they will 

ask me if I have heard anything new, that is about every 6 months. 

So that is one problem. 

The other problem—and then they never sent—formally sent an 

application for my son. I asked them last week, and 2 days ago I 

got the email that they never submitted a formal application for 

my son’s return to any Government of India office. They raised his 

name in May, but there is actually no application, which means he 

will not be included in next year’s report until there is an application for him. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And why did they say they had not? 

Dr. RAHMAN. Because India didn’t sign the Hague, no foreign 

central authority has ever been identified for India. That is the reason I got by email. Because India didn’t sign the Hague. So there 

is no foreign central authority. 

So, and one thing that disturbed me was that my case, it took 

me a long time to figure it out, because this whole abduction thing 

is new to me. So my son, like any Indian citizen, or any American 

citizen, can live in India on an Indian green card that is called the 

Overseas Citizen of India Card. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Right. 

Dr. RAHMAN. And that needs parental consent from both parents, 

notarized consent. People with OCI cards, they can come and go 

into India. There is no need for an exit permit, and they never have 

to register at a police station or an FRRO office. 

It took me 2 years to find that out, and I have to tell my caseworker that. And he thanked me for sharing the information with 

him. He found it very helpful. So——

Mr. MEADOWS. So what you are saying is is that you are the 

source of some information at least for your State Department 

caseworker. 

Dr. RAHMAN. For my caseworker, yes, at the State Department, 

which is unfortunate because I don’t know anything about India 

myself, and I was hoping that they would know something because 

that is what they deal with. They have an embassy or consulate 

there. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. Thank you. Ms. McGee. 

Ms. MCGEE. Yes. The State Department has shut me out, because my case is before Japan signed the Hague. So I don’t fall 

under their criteria. And I have also been told it is more of a custody battle, which it is really not. So that is what I have gotten 

from them, but it has been a while since I have even talked to 

them, because they have not been able to help me. 

90

Mr. MEADOWS. So I guess when they are saying this is a custody 

battle, and they are not wanting to weigh in, you are talking to 

lawyers at the State Department or just caseworkers? 

Ms. MCGEE. I spoke to the caseworkers. I think I have sent them 

a lot of court orders and things like that to show them, but 

they——

Mr. MEADOWS. But they are giving a legal opinion? 

Ms. MCGEE. They are giving an opinion that——

Mr. MEADOWS. This is a softball question. 

Ms. MCGEE. Yes. [Laughter.] 

Well, also the fact that mine started before they signed the 

Hague, so I don’t count. My kids don’t count. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, I know I speak for the chairman. If there 

is anything that we personally can do to help that process with the 

State Department, we will be glad to do that. 

I will yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. I will just conclude, you know, the promise of the 

Goldman Act remains underrealized. This is the beginning, and implementation is key. If we do find that there are needs for tweaks 

or upgrades for reforms, we will do it, but so far, as you pointed 

out, Ms. Apy, using an old standard to judge countries as opposed 

to the new very clear and precise standard is mind boggling, in my 

opinion. And I did say that to the Ambassador previously. 

I do think that the key of what we are trying to do at these hearings—and there will be more, and we are trying to get more members to really get involved with this issue. 

Matter of fact, one of the provisions of the Goldman Act is for 

the State Department to notify a Congressman or Congresswoman 

if, and the Senators, to give, obviously, the constituent who has the 

abduction against them the ability to opt in, but to tell them that 

having additional eyes and ears and advocacy is a good thing, get 

members who will speak out. 

When they travel, they will raise these issues. So hopefully that 

is being implemented effectively. I don’t know yet, but I should 

have asked that question earlier. 

Dr. RAHMAN. Might I add something? 

Mr. SMITH. Yes, please. 

Dr. RAHMAN. Last week I got the email asking me to sign off a 

privacy waiver thing to allow State Department to inform my Congressman of my case, which is last week. 

Mr. SMITH. Just last week. 

Dr. RAHMAN. It should have been done some time ago. 

Mr. SMITH. Better late than never and hopefully that will become 

the norm, and everyone will get that, which I think is likely. 

Yes, Ms. McGee. 

Ms. MCGEE. I have to call the Congressman’s office and let him 

know, and I had many other people call his office to let him know. 

So I was glad he was here. 

Mr. SMITH. If there is anything you would like to say while we 

conclude, but just I thought, Ms. Apy, you didn’t read this, but it 

is in your written testimony, again, this whole issue of 

prioritization. 

The Goldman Act—that is my word—you said ICAPRA; I don’t 

use those words—

91

‘‘articulates Congressional intention that an individual left-behind parent and their legal representatives will no longer be 

forced to litigate ‘systemic’ maladies in the diplomatic relationship between that country and the United States of America. 

Once it is determined, using entirely objective criteria, that 

there is a breach in the reciprocal relationship with a Treaty 

partner, or there is a systemic governmental failure to address 

international parental abduction, the burden for action shifts 

to the Department of State to utilize the diplomatic tools available to it to identify and ameliorate the problems. If they can’t, 

when they can’t, the President of the United States has an escalating arsenal of measured diplomatic resources to direct attention to the problem and communicate its priority of the 

American people.’’

I emphasize the word ‘‘priority.’’ And then you go on from there. 

And that summarizes what we have tried to do with this. Hopefully, it will be effectively and aggressively implemented. That remains to be seen. And there are tests, like what do they do vis-a`- vis Japan, and some of the other countries, and we will stay at it. 

Thank you for your testimonies. Yes, Ms. Rutherford. 

Ms. RUTHERFORD. Is there something that can be put in place, 

like a Web site or something, and maybe we need to do this ourselves, where people can report how often this is happening, because it has been a long road for all of us to sit in front of you here. 

And I know that for most parents that don’t have the resources certainly that I have had and still had to deal with this, I mean, I 

don’t even know what they do or how they get here. 

But is there a place where these things are being reported? 

Mr. SMITH. There is no one clearinghouse. Bring American Children Home, BAC Home, I should say, Bring Sean Home has a Web 

site where many people do go on and share best practices and what 

their situation is. 

Ms. RUTHERFORD. Okay. 

Mr. SMITH. But in terms of one watershed type of—yes, Ms. Apy. 

Ms. APY. I would also encourage—and, again, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s international desk, one of 

the advantages is that they sometimes give more breadth to the 

issues than one might find from the Department of State. 

Additionally, they have exceptionally good connections with law 

enforcement, to the extent that you are working through the law 

enforcement piece of this, which is by no means easy and should 

be the subject of a separate hearing, frankly, in terms of Title III 

of this act and those implementation issues, because we are off the 

rails there, too, I am afraid. 

But NCMEC is a good go-to place to begin to develop the vocabulary for that, and to make those connections. But I think that the 

conversation, again, is finding pieces of information from various 

sources, and NCMEC would be one that tends to pull some of those 

together. 

Ms. RUTHERFORD. So I am just trying to understand this. So the 

State Department is saying that there are zero reports of kids 

being kidnapped in Japan? 

Mr. SMITH. Zero unresolved cases, and we know of at least 50. 

We have two here. 

92

Ms. RUTHERFORD. Right. 

Mr. SMITH. A few sitting right behind you, and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children testified more than 50 

cases. 

Ms. RUTHERFORD. Right. So facts and figures are everything, obviously, to all of these people. So how do we get all these facts and 

figures? Because I have people stopping me on the street daily, 

so—and I don’t think that people really know where to go and report these things. And it is more specific, so I think people think, 

‘‘Oh, that may be a little different than my case,’’ but certainly my 

case is different than that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, you make a valid point. I will be 

glad on your behalf to try to work on that to make sure that from 

an official standpoint that we have a Web site. There are some privacy issues, you know, just like with you guys having to sign a privacy release. I can’t talk to the State Department about your case 

without you giving me permission to do that. 

Ms. RUTHERFORD. Right. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But there may be some ways that we can work 

that, and I personally will follow up and report back to you, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Ms. RUTHERFORD. Just so we have some numbers, right, that are 

undeniable? 

Mr. SMITH. Well, that is what the OCI should have been doing. 

And one of the questions we had even before the Goldman Act was 

the numbers never jived. There was always one number, it would 

change, we would have a meeting with key people at OCI, and we 

would get different numbers at the meeting. 

With regards to Brazil, one time I almost fell off my chair when 

we got two different numbers from people sitting in the room. What 

is it? 

Ms. RUTHERFORD. Well, it depends on how those are aggregated. 

I mean, depending on where they are getting their information, 

there is going to be a dispute. But even if you just say, okay, let 

us round it off, this is probably a good estimation of how often it 

is happening, because I know the facts and figures are the most 

important, it seems, to everyone. So——

Mr. SMITH. Well, the facts help us to——

Ms. RUTHERFORD. Well, I mean, you know what I am saying. 

Just say if this many people have reported it, we may not know 

their individual stories, but if that many people are—you guys 

have to go vote again. 

Mr. SMITH. One of the reasons not often articulated why we 

wanted the Goldman Act to pass was that so that more people 

would feel it would be an engraved invitation to use the State Department. There are cases we know nothing about. These are just 

reported cases that State has, and they didn’t even have an accurate number of that. 

And the most recent report, as we have been talking about all 

day today, it is not even accurate here. And, you know, that is 

deeply troubling. There should be no other geopolitical consideration when you are doing this report. What you do on meting out 

sanctions, maybe some things ought to come into play. Not on the 

93

report itself; that is foundational. So we would hope that this 

would be the ultimate clearinghouse. 

Ms. RUTHERFORD. Right. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Ms. APY. The other point, the reporting back to Congress, one of 

the main reasons to do that was to avoid exactly the situation that 

we are in, and that is that the State Department was the purveyor 

of the numbers, and there was no way for members to have any 

accurate information other than if they were contacted by their 

constituents. 

The State Department pushed for, obviously, if personal information about the cases were needed, that there be privacy concerns, 

and we all agree with that. But it doesn’t obviate the responsibility 

to get the information to the Congress of the United States accurately without the private information regarding the case. 

And I think that is the piece that is, not to circle back on the 

report too much, but that is the only other place you will get it. 

So unless your constituent calls you or the State Department contacts an individual and says, ‘‘Will you opt in?’’ the original language was to opt out. And so that was a change that State Department wanted and got. 

The bottom line is that the numbers have to be right, and so I 

just encourage that I don’t think that there is encouragement to 

sign off on the privacy issues, and I don’t think that there is a desire necessarily to make sure that that information is as transparent as perhaps members would and need to know. 

You are dealing—as we have talked about before, you are dealing 

with international issues in which knowing accurate numbers is 

absolutely crucial to the business of governing. 

Ms. RUTHERFORD. I signed those waivers, and they got the same 

response that I did from my representative. So it didn’t matter 

whether they reached out or I reached out. So it would be good to 

get the number here. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much. We will likely have a follow-up hearing in September, especially when the sanctions part 

kicks in, but also to ascertain what has been done on Japan, for 

example. And, you know, the key here would be to keep Congress, 

as well as the administration, focused so that we don’t get the kind 

of egregious mistakes that were made in this report. 

Again, so thank you. Your testimonies were extraordinary and 

extremely helpful to the Congress, and this will be widely circulated to other members. So thank you so very much. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:27 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(95)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

96

f


95517n.eps
97

f


95517m.eps
98

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

f


95517f.eps
99


95517g-1.eps
100


95517g-2.eps
101

f


95517g-3.eps
102

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE EDWARD R. ROYCE, A

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND CHAIRMAN, 

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS


95517h-1.eps
103

Æ


95517h-2.eps