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

94–943PDF 2015

THE GOLDMAN ACT TO RETURN ABDUCTED

AMERICAN CHILDREN: ASSESSING THE

COMPLIANCE REPORT AND REQUIRED 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

JUNE 11, 2015

Serial No. 114–88

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 

Ms. Karen Christensen, Deputy Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State .......................................................................... 5

Mr. Henry Hand, Director, Office of Children’s Issues, Bureau of Consular 

Affairs, U.S. Department of State ...................................................................... 9

Christopher Savoie, Ph.D. (father of abducted child to Japan) ........................... 21

Ms. Edeanna Barbirou (mother of abducted child to Tunisia) ............................. 36

Mr. Ravindra Parmar (father of abducted child to India) .................................... 44

Mr. Preston Findlay, counsel, Missing Children’s Division, National Center 

for Missing and Exploited Children .................................................................... 70

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Ms. Karen Christensen: Prepared statement ........................................................ 7

Mr. Henry Hand: Prepared statement ................................................................... 10

Christopher Savoie, Ph.D.: Prepared statement ................................................... 28

Ms. Edeanna Barbirou: Prepared statement ......................................................... 39

Mr. Ravindra Parmar: Prepared statement .......................................................... 50

Mr. Preston Findlay: Prepared statement ............................................................. 72

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 90

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 91

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 Mariusz Adamski ............................................................................................. 92

(1)

THE GOLDMAN ACT TO RETURN ABDUCTED 

AMERICAN CHILDREN: ASSESSING THE 

COMPLIANCE REPORT AND REQUIRED 

ACTION 

THURSDAY, JUNE 11, 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 3:03 p.m., in room 

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

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

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

First of all, let me apologize for starting late. We did have a series of 14 votes in succession. So, again, to our distinguished witnesses I apologize for the lateness in getting underway. 

I wanted to especially thank all of you for being here today, especially all of the left-behind parents that I see in the audience and 

the thousands more who are here in spirit and deeply concerned 

about their abducted child. 

And I thank you for joining us this afternoon to review the U.S. 

Department of State’s first annual report under the Sean and 

David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act. 

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 the care of the parent and family left 

behind. 

Child abduction is child abuse and it continues to plague families 

across the United States. Every year an estimated 1,000 American 

children are unlawfully removed from their homes by one of their 

parents and taken across international borders. Less than half of 

these children ever come home. 

The problem is so consequential and the State Department’s previous approach of quiet diplomacy was so inadequate that Congress 

unanimously passed the Goldman Act last year to give teeth to requests for return and for access. 

These actions increase in severity and range from official protest 

through diplomatic channels, to extradition, to the suspension of 

development, security, or other foreign assistance. 

2

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

return of Sean Goldman from Brazil in 2008. But a law is only as 

good as its implementation. 

Brokenhearted parents across America waited 4 years for the 

Goldman Act to become law and still await full U.S. Government 

implementation of that law. 

The State Department’s first annual report that we are reviewing today should be a roadmap for action. The State Department 

must get this report right in order for the law to be an effective 

tool. 

If the report fails to accurately identify problem countries, the actions I mentioned above are not triggered. Countries should be listed if they have high numbers of cases, 30 percent or more, that 

have been pending over a year or if they regularly fail to enforce 

return orders or if they have failed to take appropriate steps in 

even one single abduction case pending for more than a year. 

Once these countries are properly identified, the Secretary of 

State then determines which of the aforementioned actions the 

U.S. will apply to the country in order to encourage the timely resolution of abduction and access cases. 

While the State Department has a choice of which actions 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 a non-compliant nation. 

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

note parenthetically that I authored both 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 reforms. 

Accurate reporting is also critical to family court judges across 

the country and parents considering their child’s travel to a foreign 

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 filled with zeros in the unresolved 

cases category, erroneously conclude that a particular country is 

not of concern, and give permission to an estranged spouse to return to their country with the child for a vacation. 

The taking parent then abducts the child and the left-behind parent then spends her or his life savings and many years trying to 

get their 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 instance, the report indicates that India, which has consistently been in the top five destinations for abducted American children, had 19 new cases in 2014, 22 resolved cases and no unresolved cases. 

However, we know from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children that India has 53 open abduction cases and that 

51 have been pending for more than 1 year. 

3

The report also shows zero new cases in Tunisia for the last year, 

three resolved cases and zero unresolved cases. And yet Ms. 

Barbirou will testify today to her more than 3-year battle to bring 

her children home from Tunisia. 

Again, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children’s 

numbers show six ongoing abductions in Tunisia, all of which have 

been pending for more than a year. 

Nowhere is the report’s disconnect with reality more clear than 

in its handling of Japan, a country that has never issued and enforced a return order for a single one of the hundreds of American 

children abducted there and it was not listed as a country showing 

failings to cooperate in returns. 

In March, nearly the 2 months before the annual report was released, you will recall I chaired a hearing of this subcommittee featuring Ambassador Susan Jacobs in which it was made perfectly 

clear that Congress expects that Japan will be evaluated not just 

on its handling of new abduction cases after it joined the Hague 

Convention last year but on its work to resolve all open abduction 

cases including the more than 50 cases I and others have been raising with the State Department for at least the last 5 years. 

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

not seen his two children, Jade and Michael, Jr., 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 Japanese 

consulate personnel to kidnap their children, then aged four and 

two, in defiance of a court order, telling Michael on the phone that 

there was nothing that he could do because as she said, and I 

quote, ‘‘My country’’—that is, Japan, ‘‘will protect me.’’

Her country, very worried about its designation in the report, 

sent a high-level delegation in March to meet with Ambassador Jacobs and to explain why Japan should be excused from being listed 

as noncompliant, despite the fact that more than 1 year after signing the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International 

Child Abduction, Japan has zero returns to the United States. 

Just before the report was released 2 weeks late, Takashi Okada, 

Deputy Director General of the Secretariat to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, told the Japanese Diet that he had been in consultation with the State Department, and I quote him here, ‘‘because we 

strived 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 apparently got a pass from the State Department and escaped the list of countries facing action by the U.S. 

for their failure to resolve abduction cases based on what Mr. 

Okada euphemistically refers to as efforts, not results. 

Sergeant Michael Elias’ country has utterly failed to protect him 

and his children. He has seen zero progress in his case over the 

last year, the seventh year of his heart wrenching ordeal. 

And I traveled with his mother—in other words, the child’s 

grandparents—to Japan and met that brick wall that he has faced 

now for 7 years in trying to help move that case along. And yet the 

State Department can’t bring itself to hold Japan accountable by 

naming Japan as an offender in the annual report. 

4

It is disappointing, it is discouraging, and I believe it is disgraceful. The report whitewashes washes Japan’s egregious record on 

parental child abduction. 

Adding insult to injury, the report table that was to show the unresolved abduction cases in Japan failed to include a single one of 

the more than 50 cases, 36 of which have been dragging on for 

more than 5 years according, again, to the National Center for 

Missing and Exploited Children. 

Instead, the table listed Japan as having a 43 percent resolution 

rate. Japan, again, has never issued and enforced a return order 

for an American child. These young victims—these American victims—like their left-behind parents, again, are American citizens 

who need the help of their government. 

The Goldman Act is clear. All requests for a return that the 

State Department submitted to the foreign ministry and that maintain unresolved for 12 months later are to be counted against 

Japan, not just 3 months. 

Nearly 100 percent of the abduction cases in Japan remain open 

and the report’s conclusion of 43 percent resolution is truly indefensible. Moreover, not a single left-behind parent pursuing access was 

allowed in-person contact with their child over the last year. 

The Goldman Act has given the State Department new and, I 

would argue, 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 induction, and I remember when I 

was doing the Trafficking Victims Protection Act there were arguments against the bill—it took 3 years to become law—that this 

would hurt our relations with our allies if we stood up for women 

who were being turned into commodities and sold like chattel as 

part of human trafficking schemes. 

I persisted. Those who worked alongside of me persisted. We got 

the law passed, and I think the TVPA has proven itself to be a way 

of saying friends don’t let friends commit human rights abuses and 

we need to speak out with clarity, and with precision, and with 

boldness, all based on the facts. 

I do appreciate the State Department’s presence here today to 

discuss ways we can improve the report and ensure that it fulfills 

the purposes for which it is intended, namely the prevention of abduction and the reunification of thousands of American families 

that have suffered forced separation for far too long. 

I would like to yield to my good friend, Mr. Donovan, a former 

prosecutor and a distinguished new Member of the U.S. House. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As the chairman said, 

I am the second newest Member of the House. I was elected and 

sworn in 4 weeks ago. 

But in my previous life I was a district attorney and my experience with custodial abductions was limited to within our own Nation. So I look forward to hearing from the parents and I thank you 

for coming to share your grief with us. 

I am also the father of a newborn 3-week-old daughter so my 

heart goes out to you, and I also look forward to hearing from our 

distinguished panelists today to hear what our Government is 

doing for you. 

5

Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

I would like to now introduce our two distinguished panelists, beginning first with Karen Christensen, who has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Overseas Citizens Services 

since August 2014. 

Most recently, Ms. Christensen was the Minister Counselor for 

Consular Affairs at the U.S. Embassy in Berlin where she coordinated consular operations at several posts in Germany. 

Prior to that, she was Consul General in Manila. She has also 

served in Washington within the Bureau of Consular Affairs in the 

visa office and the Office of Executive Director. 

Overseas, she has served as a consular officer served in London, 

Bucharest, Warsaw, and Seoul. Other Washington tours include 

serving as an instructor in the consular training division and a career development officer in the Bureau of Human Resources. 

Then we will hear from Mr. Henry Hand, who assumed his duties as the director of the Office of Children’s Issues on September 

3, 2014. 

His previous assignment was Counsel General at the U.S. Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine. Mr. Hand is a career Foreign Service Officer who joined the department in 1989. He was promoted to the 

Senior Foreign Service in 2013. 

His previous postings include the American Institute in Taiwan, 

Consulate General Shanghai, Embassy Tallinn, and Embassy 

Nicosia. 

He has also served in the Bureau of Consular Affairs as a country desk officer on central African affairs. 

The floor is yours, Ms. Christensen. 

STATEMENT OF MS. KAREN CHRISTENSEN, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Chairman Smith and distinguished members 

of the subcommittee, thank you for this opportunity to discuss 

international parental child abduction and to review implementation of the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction 

Prevention and Return Act, including the Department of State’s 

first annual report under this new law. 

The Department values your continuing interest and support of 

our efforts to prevent international parental child abduction, to facilitate the return of children to their homes and to strengthen and 

expand the Hague Abduction Convention to include more partner 

countries. 

Our mission is to assist children and families involved in international parental child abduction and to prevent its occurrence. 

In my career I have worked with many families affected by international child abduction and I have seen firsthand the pain it 

causes. This new law already is encouraging more countries to consider becoming party to the Hague Convention or to improve their 

performance under the convention if they are already a party. 

The U.S. Interagency Working Group, for example, on prevention 

mandated by the law has already met twice, hosted by Special Advisor for Children’s Issues, Ambassador Susan Jacobs, and it has 

6

already resulted in enhanced coordination in preventing abductions. 

We devoted significant effort to analyzing this new law, to adapting our policies and procedures to implement it and to publish the 

first annual report. We fully recognize that this first report will not 

meet all expectations and we welcome feedback from you, from 

other Members of Congress, from parents who are seeking the return of their children and from the public on how we can improve 

future iterations of this report. 

As the law requires, 90 days following the annual report the Department will submit to Congress a report on actions taken in response to countries demonstrating patterns of noncompliance. 

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, we 

are committed to using every tool we have available to prevent and 

resolve international parental child abductions. We need and we 

appreciate your continuing support including through your feedback on our work and on our reports to you. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions later. So I will 

turn it over to Henry Hand. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Christensen follows:]

7


94943a-1.eps
8


94943a-2.eps
9

STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY HAND, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

CHILDREN’S ISSUES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Mr. HAND. Congressman Smith, distinguished members of the 

subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before the 

subcommittee regarding our work in the Office of Children’s Issues 

to prevent and resolve international parental child abductions and 

to implement the 1980 Hague Convention of the Civil Aspects of 

International Child Abduction, the International Child Abduction 

Remedies Act, and the Sean and David Goldman International 

Child Abduction Prevention and Recovery Act. 

I welcome the chance to provide further detail and answer your 

questions about the Department of State’s first annual report 

under the new law. 

Our office worked hard since the new law was enacted in August 

to analyze and translate its provisions into concrete actions such as 

collecting 40 new data fields for every case. Our focus was on ensuring this first report contained all the information required by 

the law. 

The information in the 2014 report naturally is different than 

the previous annual compliance reports on international parental 

child abduction, which were drafted under previous legislation. 

The 2014 report represents a first in the initial effort that we understand does not meet all of your or others’ expectations. 

We compiled it under a compressed timeline with data gathered 

in the months after the law came into effect. We worked diligently 

simultaneously to make sure that as we implemented the law we 

maintained the office’s ongoing work in support of families affected 

by international child abduction. 

Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the subcommittee, we 

are committed to fully implementing the law and making the most 

effective tool we can in service our shared goals of preventing international parental child abduction and bringing abducted children 

home. 

We very much appreciate the feedback we already have received 

and seek your comments and questions to inform the work we are 

doing. 

Thank you, and we welcome your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hand follows:]

10


94943b-1.eps
11


94943b-2.eps
12

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Hand, thank you very much. Ms. Christensen, 

thank you very much. 

Could you, Ms. Christensen, tell us in what ways has the State 

Department made Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs aware of the 

50-plus abduction cases predating Japan’s ratification of the Hague 

Convention? 

And do we give their Foreign Ministry or their, you know, competent entity there a list of abduction cases? Is that how we do it? 

Mr. HAND. Sir—Mr. Chairman, we have discussed—we have 

raised specific cases with the Japanese Foreign Ministry. Right 

now, the Japanese Foreign Ministry there is the Central Authority 

which works on Hague cases. 

There are other parts of the Foreign Ministry which have the 

lead on pre-Hague cases. We have raised the issue of pre-Hague 

cases with both sides of the Japanese Foreign Ministry. We have 

also raised it at senior levels of the Japanese Government and continue to do so. 

Mr. SMITH. Since that is the case it is, perhaps, an oversight, but 

I think it may be more than that, the Goldman Act makes it very 

clear that there must be accounting of all unresolved cases, and I 

will read you the pertinent part of it. Title I, Department of State 

Actions ‘‘Each annual report shall include a list of all countries in 

which there were 1 or more abduction cases, during the preceding 

calendar year, relating to a child whose habitual residence in the 

United States . . .’’—then it goes through specific more detailed 

information. 

But the idea is that just one case in the whole preceding calendar year. And yet, in reading the report on page 17 it says 

Japan, abduction cases, unresolved cases zero, and yet elsewhere 

in the report it does mention the 50. 

But the way of evading putting Japan on the list—and there are 

22 countries, as you know, since you compiled it—who are on the 

list who have shown a pattern of noncompliance is somehow to just 

exclude these 50-plus cases that information has been given over 

to the Japanese Government, as just indicated, and I know that because I have been talking to our people both in Tokyo as well as 

at the State Department here. 

They do make representation on behalf of individuals. And yet it 

is baffling beyond words. Unresolved cases, zero. How did that happen? 

Mr. HAND. Sir, one of the things that we have been working very 

hard on in the past several months since the law was enacted is 

in devising the report with—that calls for new data, data that we 

were not using before. 

The legislation also contains some new definitions and one of the 

issues that we have encountered is that the definition and the definitions in the law, an unresolved abduction case is one that remains unresolved for more than 12 months after the date in which 

the completed application for return of the child is submitted to the 

judicial or administrative authorities. 

What, in our extensive review, we found is that it was determined that we cannot include many non-Hague cases where there 

was no application for return. There was an application for custody 

or application for access and so on. 

13

Again, though, let me reiterate we look forward to working with 

you and with others to make this report as comprehensive, as understandable, and as effective a tool as we can because we share 

your desire that this report be something that members of the public, Members of Congress, judges and others can use as an effective 

reference and also as an effective tool to press other countries. 

Mr. SMITH. I deeply appreciate that we share that concern and 

I do believe we do. Your intent is our intent, both Mr. Donovan and 

I and many others who are concerned about this. 

But the definition of ‘‘unresolved abduction case’’—and I will 

read it again and I think it needs to be clearly put on the record—

‘‘means an abduction case that remains unresolved for a period 

that exceeds 12 months after the date on which the completed 

application for return of the child is submitted for determination to the judicial or administrative authority, as applicable, 

in the country in which the child is located.’’

We have made representation to the Japanese Government on 

behalf of these case files, one after the other after the other, to return the child. 

I mean, of course access is usually a part of it, but it is to return 

the child because custody, we all know, is something that we hope 

is going to be done at the place of habitual residence. 

I don’t think a definition could be more clear and, you know, 

when I juxtapose that with something that Secretary Jacobs said, 

in 2013 at a hearing that I chaired on this issue, I become very 

concerned. 

She said, ‘‘I think, for cases that are not covered by the Convention, that we do need to reach an agreement with Japan,’’ and you 

might want to comment whether we are close to reaching a bilateral agreement with them. 

But then she said—and this is very disturbing—

‘‘I think that threatening countries is often an unsuccessful 

way to get them to cooperate with us, because most of the relationships that we have are very complex and involve many 

issues.’’

Then she said:

‘‘. . . 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.’’

Now, I believe passionately in the bilateral relationship with 

Japan—security and economically. But, again, we have a situation 

here where was the fix already in back in 2013—that when it came 

to, if we ever passed the Goldman Act, that you would have a table 

where it says there are no unresolved abduction cases in Japan. 

Again, I think this is theater of the absurd. There are more than 

50 of them. Some of the left-behind parents are sitting in this room 

saying zero, how could that be zero? 

The definition is as airtight as I think lawmakers can write. I 

don’t see how you felt you could not include that, and then even 

in your footnotes you even acknowledge the 50 cases later on in the 

narrative. 

14

I think you have done a grave disservice to all of those American 

children who have been abducted and to their left-behind parents. 

I say that with total sincerity. 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. I just want to say I don’t think the fix was 

in. I don’t think there was an intention to not cite Japan. I think, 

as Henry has explained, when we read through a lot of internal 

discussion this definition here, it was the feeling that those cases 

did not meet this definition as written in law. 

But it was precisely because of our concern for those 50 cases 

that we did discuss them at length in the rest of the body of the 

report and they continue to remain of great concern to us. 

Ambassador Susan Jacobs will be going very soon to Japan and 

these cases are going to be a subject of that discussion, and we continue to attempt to resolve and establish some protocols with Japan 

for the resolution of those cases. 

Those 50 cases are very definitely at the forefront of our thinking. We also understand that among those 50 cases about 17 of 

them have actually filed now—filed cases—Hague cases for access 

and are working through those cases. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, again, these are desperate loving parents who 

have been frustrated to nausea with the lack of responsiveness by 

us, the U.S. Government, and especially by the Japanese Government. 

And just let me make a point. When you talk about application, 

we made it very clear that the term application means the case of 

a non-Convention country—the formal request by the Central Authority of the United States, you, to the Central Authority of such 

a country and that could be their foreign ministry, requesting the 

return of an abducted child or for rights of contact with an abducted child. 

I presume on each of those outstanding cases, which is now in 

excess of 50 and because some have aged out and gave up, perhaps 

they are not even counted anymore, surely you have made an application to Japan on each and every one of those. 

When I was at our Tokyo Embassy I asked those kinds of questions—are we making a representation? What do you do with the 

file? You know, you have this file. Of course you convey it to the 

Japanese in a hopefully a persuasive manner. That happened, 

right? 

Mr. HAND. In the report, as you know, Japan acceded to the 

Hague Convention and the statistics in the report. We counted the 

applications for return as applications for return filed under the 

Hague. 

We will get back to you with a more detailed answer on the preHague cases and exactly what was done. But let me say that we 

have—this is very much a focus of our office. It is very much a 

focus of our Embassy in Tokyo. 

I have been in meetings. Ambassador Jacobs, other senior officials in the department have been in meetings discussing this with 

the regional bureau, with senior officials at our Embassy in Tokyo 

and others. 

So there was no attempt on our part to evade this issue or somehow push it under the table. It is an issue that is very much a 

focus and it is one that we care very deeply about. 

15

Mr. SMITH. I do look forward to that explanation and we hope, 

if she is amenable to it, to ask Ambassador Jacobs if she would 

come back in July because, again, we are in the 90-day review period and if this could be amended—this report—to get it right because I believe, based on the clear language of the Goldman Act, 

Japan should be the 23rd nation on the pattern of noncompliance. 

It is the most self-evident of all the countries, and there are some 

countries on here and I am glad you have Brazil, India, and other 

countries. I do note that in your unresolved cases number on India, 

amazingly, even though the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children says there are over 50 cases there as well and it 

is zero there, too. 

I am working with several cases there myself including one, of 

Bindu Phillips, which she has testified twice before my subcommittee. She has been to the State Department. She is doing everything humanly possible and that is an unresolved case now for 

multiple years and that is listed as zero as well. 

So we do need and maybe you can amend this to get that right 

because I do believe it is an egregious flaw. Yes, you wanted to respond, sir. 

Mr. HAND. Going to say, sir, that again, we worked with the definitions as our experts determined in putting together the report. 

Because a case is not in the report does not mean that we are not 

working with that parent or that case is not a concern. But this 

is—again, this is something that we are very concerned with in our 

office is, again, we want the report to reflect the work that our office is doing. 

We want the report to be an effective, useful tool. But we also 

want it to comply with the terms of the legislation. 

Mr. SMITH. But, again, as I said in my opening getting the Trafficking Victims Protection Act—a whole another issue but it is certainly a serious human rights abuse issue—we have always argued 

just get it right in the report and then part two, the sanctions regime, if there are any. 

There is a very generous waiver if the President thinks that it 

is in the best interests of the issue itself, the cause, as well as 

other interests like national security where he is not obliged to impose sanctions. But getting the report right is all important. 

As I said before, judges will read this or could read this and say 

hmm, zero cases—unresolved cases in Japan—no problem there, 

and send somebody off and that kid or children then get abducted 

by an offending parent. Mr. Donovan. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you, Chairman. For either of our panelists, 

how many children and families are we talking about? 

Mr. HAND. As of June 1st our office has a total of 919 outgoing, 

meaning children taken from the United States, abduction and access cases. 

The cases may involve more than one child so the total is about 

1,285 children. As Chairman Smith has said and others have 

noted, we rely largely on cases that are reported to us. 

So we—there are cases that are out there that are not reported 

to the Central Authority that may not be in this figure. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Does each family have a liaison at State that informs them of the progress of their case? Do they have to inquire 

16

at a general number and try to find somebody to help them or do 

we have somebody that is working particularly—with each particular family? 

Mr. HAND. The Office of Children’s Issues is divided up by the 

region and each region has country officers. 

If you are familiar with how regional bureaus in the State Department work where there is a country desk officer, we have a 

similar set-up in the Office of Children’s Issues. 

So we have country officers who are experts and work with families in particular countries and particular regions. So we have people, for example, who work with families who are affected by abduction cases involving Brazil or China or Russia or Japan or other 

countries. 

Mr. DONOVAN. And as the chairman pointed out, one particular 

country that we feel is not complying. Are there countries that are 

very complying that could be models for others? 

Mr. HAND. There are countries that we have a very good working 

relationship with. We are engaged in—like other aspects of our relations with other countries, some countries, for example, we might 

have a very good working relationship with the Central Authority 

but we might have huge problems with judicial authorities or law 

enforcement authorities not complying or other elements of that 

government. 

In other cases, there is also issues with just volume. A country 

we work very, very closely with—Mexico—which, because of its 

proximity to the United States, we they have far more children 

being abducted to Mexico and from Mexico to the United States 

than any other country—that relationship is far different than a relationship with a country where maybe there is one or two abductions. 

But it really varies. Some countries everything works well. Some 

countries, we are struggling. Some countries we are trying to work 

with elements within that government to bring along other elements of the judiciary or law enforcement to achieve returns of 

children. 

Mr. DONOVAN. And my final question—is one of the stumbling 

blocks that some countries don’t recognize the judicial determination of parental rights in our country, therefore don’t recognize it 

in their country as a reason to assist in getting this parent back 

with their child? 

Mr. HAND. At the Department of State we are big advocates of 

the Hague Convention because that is a mechanism whereby countries can—I am simplifying, but effectively recognize judicial decisions made in other countries to get children back to their habitual 

residence. 

There are countries where a left-behind parent does have to file 

a custody application for a court case in the judiciary in that country. Legal systems, as you know, vary very much from country to 

country. 

Mr. DONOVAN. Thank you very much, and before our next panel 

comes up I apologize. I have to go somewhere else. So if I leave 

during the middle of your testimony please don’t be offended. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Donovan. 

17

Let me ask you just a few final questions. When you raise with 

senior members of the Japanese Government could you to tell us 

how senior that is—who they are? 

Mr. HAND. We have raised it with senior members of the Foreign 

Ministry. We are actively discussing with our Embassy in Tokyo 

other ways that we could raise this issue. 

The instances I am most familiar with are senior members of the 

Japanese Foreign Ministry. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay, but no names? Maybe you can get back to us 

just—do you have an idea who your interlocutors are? 

[The information referred to follows:]

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM MR. HENRY HAND TO QUESTION ASKED DURING

THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

The Department of State remains committed to raising child abduction cases with 

senior level Japanese officials at every opportunity. Specifically, U.S. Ambassador 

to Japan Caroline Kennedy has discussed the issue of international parental child 

abduction, Japan’s compliance with the Hague Convention, and the concerns about 

pre-Hague cases in meetings with the Vice-Minister for Foreign Affairs and the 

Chief Cabinet Secretary. Special Advisor for Children’s Issues, Ambassador Susan 

Jacobs, and senior U.S. Embassy officials have met with the Director General of the 

First North American Division, the Deputy Director General of the Consular Affairs 

Division, and the Political Minister of the Japanese Embassy to the United States. 

On a routine basis, the Department of State’s Office of Children’s Issues and U.S. 

Embassy Tokyo staff meet with officers of Japan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ First 

North America Division and the Hague Convention Division.

Mr. SMITH. Okay. If a country has allowed a case to go on for 

longer than 6 weeks but is otherwise complying with the requirements of the treaty, do you consider that a case resolved? 

Mr. HAND. I am sorry, sir. Could you repeat the question, Mr. 

Chairman? 

Mr. SMITH. If a country has allowed a case to go on for 6 weeks, 

which is, of course, what the Hague prescribes, but is otherwise 

complying with the requirements of the treaty do you consider that 

case resolved? 

Mr. HAND. One of the things that we are working with is our definition of resolved and unresolved cases and we have cases that 

kind of fall into the middle. 

The annual report defines a resolved case per the definition of 

the law. At the same time, our Office of Children’s Issues might 

close a case for other administrative reasons—for example, rejected 

by the foreign Central Authority. 

That case would still be unresolved in the annual report. We do 

have cases that have not been resolved, meaning they haven’t come 

to some sort of conclusion but they don’t meet the definition of unresolved, meaning they have been with the foreign judicial or administrative authorities for more than 12 months. 

This is another area which we look forward to working with you 

and with others to make the report more clear and more useful. 

Mr. SMITH. Could you tell us how many abduction cases OCI currently has open inclusive of all years? How many open cases do you 

have? 

Mr. HAND. Yes, sir. The figure I have is currently as of—this is 

as of June 1 so I apologize. I don’t have as of June 11. The office 

has a total of 919 outgoing abduction and access cases that involve 

1,285 children. 

18

As, sir, you have said and we have said before, we understand 

that there are cases that are not reported to us. But that is our 

open caseload as of June 1. 

Mr. SMITH. And in talking about India I have gotten letters. I actually asked Secretary Kerry when he testified earlier this year 

about whether or not he raised the case with Modi and whether or 

not President Obama raised abduction—parental child abduction—

and he just said that we continuously raise all international parental child abduction cases in appropriate meetings, which is now 

standard. 

It is even—it is included in emails that go back and forth from 

your office. But just to drill down on that, again, I have some individual cases in my own State that have gone on for years and yet 

the unresolved caseload for India, like Japan, is zero. 

I mean, that is like a body blow to a long-suffering left-behind 

parent in this case. Bindu is a mother who had her kids taken 

away from her. She’s tried everything and is counting on the U.S. 

Government to be the one entity that can make this come to fruition and get her children back. 

Mr. HAND. Sir, I very much—I mean, I understand the concern. 

And again, for this report we use the definitions that were in the 

legislation. 

That doesn’t mean we don’t have open cases in the Office of Children’s Issues and the case you cited and others are very much a 

concern of our office. 

We are pressing the Indian Government and other governments 

to resolve them. And, again, one of the things that we look forward 

to working with you and with others is how to make this report a 

better reflection of what we are doing and the numbers of people 

and so on that we are working with and the concerns of each of 

them. 

Mr. SMITH. We look forward to doing that. Again, and I read it 

and I won’t read it again, but the unresolved abduction case definition in Public Law 113–150, the Goldman Act, is as clear-cut as I 

could possibly imagine it. 

I mean, we worked hard to make sure that there was clarity, 

predictability. Nobody would be confused, no ambiguity. 

And, again, it says unresolved means an abduction case that remains unresolved for a period that exceeds 12 months after the 

date on which a completed application for return to the child is 

submitted for determination in judicial or administrative authority. 

And, again, we are tendering these requests to the Foreign Ministry and to whoever else in Japan and the same goes for India, 

and yet we have zeroes there. 

So, please, I ask respectfully if you could reopen this issue with 

regards to the report immediately and resolve that because it deals 

a real blow, I think, to the accuracy of the report. 

Let us just say it exactly the way it is, then work out what our 

response ought to be that is prudent and hopefully most efficacious 

to get the result we want, which is get the children back to their 

left-behind parents. 

So if you could consider that. 

Mr. HAND. We will take that back, sir. 

19

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. We will take that back, and as Henry said we 

do look forward to having an opportunity to talk in greater detail, 

a more detailed briefing about exactly where these numbers came 

from and what definitions we were using. 

Our goal here was really to try to comply with what was required 

in the report and since this was a new way of looking at the information, it was new definitions, we weren’t sure when we started 

down this road exactly what we were going to end up with and 

where that would take us. 

And it really is our goal to have a report that really is responsive 

to the interests and the concerns of everybody who is involved. 

And if I just might say one thing also about the act, the act is 

much more than just the report and we really believe that a lot of 

the measures that are in here involving prevention are really going 

to have a significant impact on this problem, and so we are grateful 

for those measures and we look forward to developing those further. 

Mr. SMITH. All right. I appreciate that. Just very briefly, I know 

that you report that you had a prevention interagency meeting in 

October and that’s from Title III, of course, of the law. 

Have you had any since? 

Ms. CHRISTENSEN. Yes, we did. We had have another one and I 

know that DOD was also involved in that one and that was in 

April, I believe, and at those meetings what is really evident is that 

that sort of an interagency meeting and interagency task force does 

surface ways that we can remove barriers to communications within the U.S. Government, which I think will provide a lot of benefit 

for this and we will see a lot of good results from that. 

Mr. SMITH. And again, if you could shed—this is my final question—any insight as to Ambassador Jacobs’ comments on May 9, 

2013 when she said we do need to reach an agreement with 

Japan—you know, a bilateral agreement or an MOU, which I have 

been arguing for for about 7 years. 

Are we close to it? Is there an active discussion going on with 

our friends in Japan? 

Mr. HAND. There is a very active discussion. This is something 

that, as director of the office, I have spent a fair amount of time 

discussing both with our Embassy in Tokyo, with others. 

It is something that we are extremely anxious to achieve. We are 

anxious to see some progress and we will keep you updated, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. And I would note parenthetically that I do believe that one part of the prevention scheme, and we have learned 

this from the Trafficking in Persons Report, is just getting the report accurate and it needs to be gotten accurate. 

So I want to thank you, and I appreciate you coming. And please 

get back to us if Ambassador Jacobs might be available in July before the 90-day period has elapsed. 

Mr. HAND. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

I would like to now introduce our second panel beginning with 

Ravindra Parmar is a New Jersey resident and a left-behind father 

of a young man who was abducted in India in March 2012 by his 

mother when Reyansh, who is the son, was 3 years old. 

20

He is a CPA, works for a big four accounting firm, emigrated 

from India in 1994 at the age of 16 and has lived in the U.S. for 

almost 21 years. 

He and Dimple, his wife, are both naturalized U.S. citizens and 

Reyansh was born in New Jersey where the family lived together 

from 2004 to 2012, and then that is when Dimple took Reyansh on 

what was supposed to be a 5-week vacation to India. 

He has been fighting for his son’s return for 3 years and cofounded the Bring Our Kids Home which advocates for the return 

of all American children abducted to India. 

We will then hear from Edeanna Barbirou, who is the mother of 

Eslam and Zainab, age nine and six respectively, who were illegally 

abducted by their father to the Republic of Tunisia in November 

2011. 

Ms. Barbirou has successfully returned home to the U.S. with 

her daughter, Zainab, and continues to seek the return of her now 

abducted son, Eslam, from Tunisia. Following her children’s abduction, she initiated an organization to bring awareness to her family’s case. 

Today, Return Us Home, or RUSH, has a mission to educate the 

public and public servants about the international child abduction 

issue and develop abduction prevention strategies. 

RUSH advances this mission through its membership with the 

iStand Parent Network, a coalition of parents, organizations and 

stakeholders united to prevent and remedy international parental 

child abduction. 

We will then hear from Dr. Christopher Savoie, a member of the 

American Bar Association’s Section of Science and Technology 

Law’s Big Data Committee. He is a licensed attorney, technology 

executive, and data scientist. 

He is currently senior manager of enterprise architecture at Nissan where he oversees the company’s global efforts in big data analytics. Dr. Savoie started his technology career in Japan where he 

founded Atmark, one of Japan’s first Internet consulting firms, and 

then became founder and CEO of Dejima, where he invented and 

commercialized the natural language understanding technology behind Apple’s Siri. 

Dr. Savoie also founded Gene Networks International, or GNI, in 

Japan, a publically traded pharmaceutical company that utilized 

his inventions for novel pharmaceuticals. He will speak about his 

child being abducted, of course, in just a moment. 

And then we will hear from Mr. Preston Findlay, who is a legal 

counsel for the Missing Children Division of the National Center 

for Missing and Exploited Children. 

In his role he provides legal technical assistance and training to 

law enforcement attorneys, family members, and the public regarding international and domestic child abductions including children 

who have been taken by a parent or a family member. 

Mr. Findlay edited and co-authored the National Center’s Litigation Guide for attorneys handling cases under the Hague Child Abduction Convention as well as an investigation and program management guide for law enforcement agencies responding to cases of 

missing and abducted children. 

21

Mr. Findlay is a former prosecutor and government attorney admitted to practice law in Texas and Virginia. 

So Dr. Savoie is going to be going first. 

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER SAVOIE, PH.D. (FATHER OF 

ABDUCTED CHILD TO JAPAN) 

Mr. SAVOIE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to 

speak with you today about the ongoing obstacles that victim parents face in their struggle to be reunited with their kidnapped children, and thank you for this great honor. 

My name is Christopher Savoie. I am by trade a data scientist, 

technology executive, and licensed attorney and cofounder of the 

nonprofit organization Bring Abducted Children Home. 

But more importantly, I am a father, a father who has been unable to meet with his children in nearly six unimaginably painful 

and heartbreaking years due to Japan’s complicity in the kidnapping of our children. 

My nightmare began back in August 2009 when my ex-wife, 

Noriko Esaki Savoie, told me that she wanted to take the kids 

back-to-school shopping. Little did I know that on that day that in 

a few short hours my children would be on an airplane, in the air, 

and on their way to Japan, a known haven for parental child abduction. 

It would be slightly less painful perhaps if my ex-wife facilitated 

phone calls between me and my children. But like the majority of 

parental abductors, my ex-wife and her parents do not grant me 

any access to my children whatsoever. 

My phone calls to them are ignored, my packages are refused 

and my letters are sent back to me. The State Department informed me that they are working on my case. We had meetings, we 

had phone calls, and we had even more meetings, town hall meetings in which I met scores of other parents in my same situation. 

Their children were stolen to Japan, too. I was assured that the 

State Department was ‘‘raising the issue’’ of my case and other 

cases in which children were stolen to Japan in violation of U.S. 

law. 

Now, just briefly I would like to share with you some research. 

The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, NCMEC, 

who we will hear from later, says that parental abduction is very 

damaging and extremely traumatic to the child. 

The Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention says 

that parental abduction profoundly affects the victim children and 

has long-lasting consequences for their emotional health. 

The FBI says that parental abductions are often borne of one 

parent’s selfish desire to retaliate against the other parent and the 

American Bar Association Center on Children and the Law says 

that parental abduction is child abuse and that the effects of such 

trauma are deep and long-lasting. 

But in my first meeting with a State Department official, do you 

know what she said? Michelle Bond, currently the Acting Assistant 

Secretary for Consular Affairs, said to me, ‘‘At least they are with 

their mommy.’’ At least they are with their mommy. 

You would think that someone in such a high-level position 

would have known about NCMEC’s studies or the Justice DepartVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:19 Sep 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\_AGH\061115\94943 SHIRL
22

ment’s or the FBI’s or the ABA’s or perhaps, most glaringly, that 

the U.S. Congress, in passing the International Parental Kidnapping Crimes Act, stated that parental child abduction is in fact a 

felony crime. 

So this was my first introduction into the world of OCI, flabbergasted by the other parents’ stories of the State Department’s 

passive aggressive and often demeaning treatment of left-behind 

parents, its ongoing obfuscation of the substance of their alleged efforts to bring our children home as well as the State Department’s 

habit of fudging the numbers to protect a foreign country’s reputation in the eyes of Congress. 

I was actively communicating with the OCI from the beginning 

in 2009, 2010, 2011. After a while, it became more and more noticeable that the OCI staff lacked any outrage whatsoever at Japan’s 

complicity in this human rights violation that is their sole custody 

regime. 

I asked myself whose side are they really on anyway. Their language always seemed slippery to me. Finally, in 2011, when my 

children had been abducted for over 11⁄2 years, I asked my caseworker, Courtney Houk, has the State Department ever formally 

demanded the return of my children. 

On March 9, 2011, Courtney Houk responded by email and told 

me, and I quote, ‘‘The State Department has not formally demanded the return of any abducted children.’’ Let me say that 

again. ‘‘The State Department has not formally demanded the return of any abducted children.’’

If they are not demanding the return of any abducted children, 

then what are they doing keeping abduction issues on their agenda? 

I never received a satisfactory answer as to why the State Department has not asked for the return of any abducted children. 

Well, here I am now, a few years older and a few years wiser, 

and I am holding a copy of the State Department’s report on compliance with the Goldman Act that is the subject of today’s hearing, 

and this report is full of numbers—42 pages of numbers. 

But these are not just ordinary numbers, Mr. Chairman. Each of 

these numbers represents one or more actual American citizen children who has been kidnapped away from an American parent. 

Each one of these numbers is a real significant human rights 

tragedy that is causing very real tears, and yet I believe that this 

report has mischaracterized and under represented the problem, 

again, to protect the reputation of our allies in the eyes of Congress 

rather than being forthright. 

The truth is that when it comes to Japan in particular and its 

ability to abide by the Hague treaty we have a major problem. Japan’s own government and legal scholars fully understand and 

admit that they cannot be compliant. 

At a recent hearing in front of the Japanese Diet, the Parliament, Japanese lawmakers expressed explicit concern about the 

Goldman Act and mentioned you, Mr. Chairman, by name, and I 

quote, ‘‘because Japan only has sole parental rights, not shared parental rights like most other countries.’’

Please allow me to explain this so you and others may understand what is going on here and why, without a change in JapaVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:19 Sep 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\_AGH\061115\94943 SHIRL
23

nese law, Japan can never be in true compliance with the letter or 

the spirit of the Hague Convention. 

You see, in Japan every divorce results in the total loss of all parental rights for one of the parents. That is right. Under Japanese 

law, after a divorce, even a completely amicable divorce, the parents or a court must decide which parent will maintain parental 

rights. Not custody—parental rights. 

The result of this rule is that one parent must by law have his 

or her parental rights terminated, becoming legally a total stranger, a non-parent to the child. The non-parent may not have any decision making over the child anymore, never mind guaranteed visitation, decisions over medical care, access to a child in a hospital, 

or access to school records—none of that. 

This is also why the State Department and the Japanese Government, both of which would like to maintain smooth bilateral relations, have had to contort the numbers in this report and distort 

the truth in order to hide this awful fact about Japanese law and 

cultural values. 

By definition, there is only one parent after a divorce in Japan. 

So as far as Hague-mandated access and visitation is concerned, 

Japan has never developed any enforcement mechanisms because 

in its own country they would never create a system to enforce visitation with someone who is legally a stranger. 

So when the State Department suggests that Japan is magically 

compliant with the Hague Convention, according to their recent report, we must ask them how is it possible when the Japanese Government itself admits in open parliamentary session that divorced 

parents have no parental rights at all. 

How can Japan be compliant with this law without any possible 

parental rights or visitation rights or visitation enforcement, not 

only for these American parents but for their own Japanese citizen 

parents following a divorce? 

The answer is simple. Japan cannot be compliant legally, culturally, or practically. But yet the State Department misrepresents 

the numbers in order to claim that Japan is compliant when they 

know that this is not true. 

In fact, last week, in order to shine a spotlight on the underlying 

issue of sole parental rights in Japan, my client, U.S. Navy Captain 

Paul Toland, a sole surviving parent to his daughter, Erika Toland, 

filed a lawsuit in Japan challenging the very basis of this legal reality. 

He asked for what in U.S. courts would be considered a natural 

human right, that the sole surviving parent after a divorce and 

death of a spouse be granted physical custody of his child. 

Right now, the child is with a grandparent who refuses Captain 

Toland any and all access to his daughter. The premise of the lawsuit—that a biological parent has a fundamental right to his or her 

own child—has made national headlines in Japan. Why? 

Because as several Japanese experts state in the Japanese press, 

and I quote, ‘‘This case brings to light the stark cultural differences 

between Japanese and U.S. culture and laws concerning fundamental rights.’’ Again, Japan simply does not recognize that parents like me, like Paul Toland, like so many others, have any 

rights whatsoever to parent our children. 

24

Now, in addition to the abduction cases, there are cases the State 

Department refers to euphemistically as access cases. 

Simply put, access cases are cases like mine which, because our 

kids were abducted before the Hague Convention, Japan claims it 

cannot be forced to return them under the Hague Convention. 

But even in these cases the Hague Convention under Article 21 

requires that the Central Authority remove all obstacles to visitation with our children—all obstacles. 

Yet, in an e-mail dated June 3, 2015, my caseworker, Elizabeth 

Kuhse, told my attorney that the JCA claims it is not their responsibility to facilitate a visitation agreement about my access to my 

children despite the fact that my ex-wife only wants to communicate through the JCA. 

So my case, thanks to the State Department’s unwillingness or 

inability to advocate on my behalf, remains in a catch-22. The entity responsible for facilitating access and removing all obstacles to 

Hague-mandated access is the only entity through which my exwife will communicate and is claiming that in fact it is not responsible for Hague-mandated access. 

And, in fact, on a recorded interview with Australia Broadcasting 

Corporation, the director of the Hague Convention division at the 

Japanese ministry of foreign affairs, Kaoru Magosaki, admits verbatim, and I quote, ‘‘that Japan cannot enforce any sort of access.’’

In fact, the State Department in the report has carved out what 

appears to be a novel exception to the Goldman Act. Not just cases 

awaiting submission but already submitted cases are excluded for 

the purposes of compliance. 

In other words, once a case is submitted to a court in Japan and 

forced into delayed mediation or litigation, the State Department 

is taking the position that the Japanese Central Authority is off 

the hook with these cases simply because the courts and not the 

JCA itself are responsible for guaranteeing timely access to the 

children. 

So once a case is submitted, the State Department and JCA 

claim they can wash their hands of all responsibility to provide access to the children in a timely manner. 

So even if a court takes 10 years to provide 1 hour of access to 

a child, a country can be considered compliant for purposes of the 

Goldman Act under an exception that is nowhere to be found in the 

language of the Goldman Act. 

What is completely unforgivable, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, 

is that this numerical shell game is absolutely to the detriment of 

American citizen children who are crime victims. 

Note that there are voices of reform in Japan, including highlevel officials who want to see a change in Japan’s domestic laws. 

We need to support them in condemning the current system in 

Japan and not undermine their reform efforts by sugarcoating reality. 

These are people who really want to see Japanese laws and practices change for the better, people like Justice Minister Yoko 

Kamikawa who, in direct response to Captain Toland’s case, was 

quoted in the Sannkei newspaper saying that children custody 

should be based on the child’s best interest and not just on who has 

been raising the child following an abduction. People like Japanese 

25

Interior Minister Eda who stated in open Diet session that parental 

abduction should be regarded as child abuse, that abductors are 

not fit to be child custodians and that those who deny visitation 

with the other parent should be divested of custody. People like 

Chief Justice Terada of the Japanese Supreme Court who stated 

publicly there is an increasing scrutiny of these cases due to the 

signing of the Hague and that it is the responsibility of Japanese 

courts to regain the trust of the people by studying the real state 

of affairs of Japan and international trends in custody laws. 

These reformers in Japan understand just how far behind international trends Japan truly is. So why is the State Department 

still covering up for Japan? At the end of the day, what we all we 

need to do here is acknowledge where the problem is coming from. 

There’s a massive elephant in this room that nobody seems to 

want to talk about. The elephant in the room is the inherent conflict of interest problem for the State Department in these abduction cases. 

Their primary mandate, as they see it, is to maintain good relations with strategic allies such as Japan—a very good cause—and 

this is in direct conflict with the interests of our children and the 

children of Japan whose advocacy would require the State Department to publicly shame and reprimand Japan for its complicity in 

these kidnappings and for its truly barbaric sole parental rights regime—a regime that violates some of the most basic human rights 

of parents and children alike. 

But as State Department officials have told us, the military 

bases in Japan and the economic interests that we have do not 

allow them to ‘‘demand’’ compliance from Japan. The strategic relationship is too important—too important to advocate for our children, too important even when an act of Congress—the Goldman 

Act in this case—requires them to publicly shame Japan in a report by simply speaking the truth. 

They simply cannot bring themselves to do their job and tell the 

truth because their job requires them to navigate through a huge 

untenable conflict of interest—to maintain good relations with 

Japan while at the same time publicly calling them out for their 

horrendous human rights violations in this context. 

Honorable Members of Congress, we parents implore you to require the State Department to do its job, to tell the truth, and then 

apply the tools that it has been given in the Goldman Act based 

on that truth. 

We implore Congress to require the State Department to redo 

this report and be honest. Help the reformers in Japan by holding 

Japan accountable and declare Japan to be noncompliant. 

I want to conclude by offering a solution. We have seen this situation before with the State Department and its conduct surrounding international trade. 

The State Department was found to drag its feet, lie, and obfuscate in the interests of smooth relations with the Department’s perceived client states in trade. 

Until the early 1960s, the Department of State was responsible 

for conducting U.S. trade in investment diplomacy and have reporting responsibilities just as State does now with child abduction. 

26

Indeed, the Kennedy administration, in its wisdom, found that 

the State Department had an inherent conflict of interest in dealing strongly with our trading partners who were not dealing fairly 

with us. 

So President Kennedy created a new office, the Office of the U.S. 

Trade Representative. Even that was not enough because the trade 

deficit continued to grow and throughout the 1980s U.S. companies 

became quite perturbed with the State Department’s perceived interference in trying to rein in huge deficits with an important strategic partner. 

Remember the 80s? I do. Remember who the problematic country 

was? That is right, Japan. So what did Congress do about it? 

The USTR’s authority was further enhanced under the Omnibus 

Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988. Section 1601 of the 1988 

legislation codified and expanded the USTR’s responsibilities. In so 

doing, the legislation reinforced the congressional-executive partnership for the conduct of U.S. trade policy. 

The legislation required that the USTR be the senior representative on any body that the President establishes to advise him on 

overall economic policies in which international trade matters predominate and the USTR should be included in all economic summits and other international meetings in which international trade 

is a major topic. 

It is my firm opinion that this is exactly what Congress will need 

to do if we expect for the executive branch to develop the capacity 

to aggressively advocate for our children without the burden of a 

conflict of interest. 

I have learned in my many years of international business that 

a good cop negotiation strategy only works if there is a bad cop in 

the room. Asking State to be simultaneously the good cop and the 

bad cop simply will not work. 

Like the trade czar—the USTR—what we really need is a child 

abduction czar outside the purview of the State Department, accountable directly to Congress and the President—a U.S. children’s 

representative office as the senior representative on any body that 

the President establishes to advise him on child abduction policies 

and international child rights matters. 

This children’s rights czar should be included in all summits and 

other international meetings in which child abduction or child 

rights is a major topic and should have its own agenda that is not 

subject to the desires of any specific country desk at State. 

This office would be staffed not by people who pass the Foreign 

Service exam with degrees in international relations and area studies but, rather, people with degrees and experience in child welfare, 

child psychology, and family law. They would be true advocates for 

abducted and abused children and be measured by Congress and 

the President on their progress in protecting our children internationally. 

Mr. Chairman, I know we cannot get to such legislation and get 

it enacted overnight. The USTR took decades to develop to its current state. 

But that needs to be the strategic direction. Our children have 

to be as important to us as international trade considerations. Our 

27

kids’ human rights have to supersede our other issues with foreign 

countries in the context of bilateral relations. 

They should, but at present they don’t, and this is causing an 

enormous amount of suffering, needless suffering, by the parents 

sitting before you here, the thousands of parents who are not in attendance today, and the thousands of abducted American citizen 

children throughout the world. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Savoie follows:]

28


94943e-1.eps
29


94943e-2.eps
30


94943e-3.eps
31


94943e-4.eps
32


94943e-5.eps
33


94943e-6.eps
34


94943e-7.eps
35


94943e-8.eps
36

Mr. SMITH. Dr. Savoie, thank you so very much for your testimony and for your tenacity in speaking up not just for yourself and 

your family but for all of the families. 

Ms. Barbirou, you may proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MS. EDEANNA BARBIROU (MOTHER OF 

ABDUCTED CHILD TO TUNISIA) 

Ms. BARBIROU. For the record my testimony will be paraphrased 

and I would request that it be submitted for the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Without objection, yours and all the other 

statements and any additional materials you would like to have attached to your testimony will be made a part of the record. 

Ms. BARBIROU. Thank you. 

Chairman Smith, thank you for committing your time today to 

address this issue of international parental child abduction and the 

implementation of the Goldman Act, henceforth referred to as 

ICAPRA. 

I am inspired by your continued concern for the pursuit of justice 

in the cases of our illegally abducted children. Without your constant vigilance over ICAPRA and its implementation by the Department of State, I and the thousands of others who have been 

victimized by IPCA would be all alone. 

Many of us have spent years begging to be heard, to be properly 

represented for the sake of our children by our Government. Thank 

you for answering our plea. 

In my family’s case my children, Eslam and Zainab, were illegally abducted to Tunisia by their father, a Tunisian native, in November 2011. At the time, I had full custody of both children and 

retained a judicial order preventing either of us from traveling outside of the United States with either child. 

Because there are no formal legal agreements between the U.S. 

and Tunisia, I relocated to Tunis in January 2012 in order to pursue the application of my custody rights through their courts. 

In October 2012, I obtained a Tunisian primary court ruling upholding my rights of custody of both Eslam and Zainab in the 

United States. That ruling was appealed and I later obtained concurring judgments through both the Tunisian appellate and Supreme Court upholding my rights of custody of both children, declaring that their best interest would be served by their return to 

the United States, their home of residence. 

Despite all of these judicial decrees, the Tunisian Government 

has refused to implement its laws and these rulings remain unenforced to this day. 

Prior to the passing of ICAPRA, State’s Office of Children’s 

Issues, or OCI, the U.S. Consulate in Tunisia, the U.S. Ambassador 

to Tunisia and Ambassador Susan Jacobs had been very active in 

our case. 

This support, coupled with the avid representation I have received from Senators Cardin and Mikulski and the FBI through its 

legal attache in Tunis, assured me that with the passing of 

ICAPRA our case would be immediately resolved and our family 

would be reunited here on U.S. soil. 

37

Unfortunately, that is not the case. Despite having every available tool at its disposal to secure the return of my baby, he remains 

illegally retained with his father in Tunisia. 

I firmly believe that this is due to intentional resistance on behalf of State to ICAPRA and the likely unpopular diplomatic and 

political consequences of its full enforcement. 

I defer to the compliance report to support these claims. I am 

thankful that in its testimony today State has provided an account 

of how many children have been represented by the report. 

While the report makes consistent references to cases throughout, there is not one instance where an abducted child is counted. 

My question is simple. 

Why? Why wasn’t a single child accounted for in 2014 and how 

did the Central Authority for the United States lose sight of the 

significance for every searching parent that it represents to have 

his or her child counted? 

After scrutinizing the 42-page report as submitted to Congress, 

I have no clearer understanding of how many cases of IPCA occur 

in the United States, how many children are affected, and no 

means of assessing whether the numbers of abductions have increased, decreased or remain the same. 

Simply providing evasive accounting of cases without identifying 

a total number of children affected does not bring us any closer to 

an understanding of the breadth of this crime on the American 

public. 

The compliance report is riddled with gross numerical manipulations, as exemplified by a cursory review of the Tunisia section of 

Table 2 where neither the unresolved case of Eslam nor that of 

Zainab, who returned home with me in August 2014, appear to be 

represented. 

Aside from this, the report also explicates State’s disinterest in 

pursuing the stronger remedies required by ICAPRA. It also clearly 

articulates its policy of increasing the number of signatories to the 

Convention as its major goal. 

This policy of pushing the Convention as a remedy has not been 

shown to effect a resolution in any existing case and I believe the 

devastating repercussions for our families with abductions to Japan 

provide strong evidence of that. 

To be clear, ICAPRA as it is written is a fair and powerful law 

that includes strong remedies which, if applied, will result in the 

return of our illegally-retained abducted children abroad. 

It is my firm belief that had State applied any of remedies four 

through seven as provided for in Section 202(d) if ICAPRA, Eslam 

Chebbi would be home with the family today. The policy and directive of OCI to promote accession to the Convention and to avoid politically and diplomatically contentious remedies for the return of 

our innocent American citizen speaks volumes. 

At this time, my baby is a vulnerable United States citizen who 

is being denied his constitutional rights under Tunisian law, international law, and U.S. law, and despite the extensive efforts of the 

various representatives of State, my United States Senators and 

Representative, the FBI and legal counsel, the Tunisian Government continues to eschew our case while opening its pockets to the 

38

ever-increasing financial allotments that State provides to the Republic annually. 

Clearly, if Eslam Chebbi counts and if every American child illegally retained abroad counts, then State must redouble its efforts 

to account for every abducted child in its report and apply every 

actionable remedy provided for in ICAPRA to ensure their return. 

As you well know, there is so much more that can be said about 

this very important topic. But given time constraints, I must conclude my testimony here. So I thank you again for the honor of testifying. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Barbirou follows:]

39


94943d-1.eps
40


94943d-2.eps
41


94943d-3.eps
42


94943d-4.eps
43

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much for your testimony. 

We will try to have an additional hearing in July because there 

is a 90-day window where the application of the sanctions. 

Hopefully there will be significant and robust sanctions against 

those 22 countries and I would hope that they will revisit Japan, 

as I mentioned to our two previous panelists, because Japan absolutely has to be on the list. It is a glaring omission. 

I would like to yield, before going to Mr. Parmar, to Eliot Engel, 

the ranking member of the full committee. 

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to just make a 

brief statement and then I think we are being called for votes. 

First of all, I want to thank you for scheduling today’s hearing 

and I want to thank you for your tireless advocacy. Through all the 

years we have both served in Congress together, I know of no one 

who fights harder than you for causes in which you believe and are 

effective in fighting for those causes. 

So I think that everyone here should understand how much of 

this is driven by you. You drive the agenda and you make your 

mark and you do good. So I just want to say that. 

I am here because I want to show my support on this issue, 

which affects more Americans than we know. In my district, a good 

constituent here, we have the case of Samina Rahman, who is the 

parent of an internationally abducted American child. 

Mr. Chairman, I know that you have been a champion of returning abducted American children back to their home and I join you 

in calling for reforms to the system. There are few crimes that are 

more heart-wrenching than child abduction. 

As a parent of three, I can’t even imagine Samina’s anguish and 

the pain felt by the other parents who have had a child abducted 

by their partner and taken to another country. These left-behind 

parents have little leverage to have their children returned home. 

They are often at the mercy of foreign courts with different cultural conceptions of custody and arbitrary determinations for what 

constitutes abduction and what is or is not in the child’s best interest. Usually, it is not in the child’s best interest even when they 

say it is. 

The most effective tool the United States has to help return abducted children is the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects 

of International Child Abduction. 

This treaty creates a global standard and requires signatories to 

return abducted children to the country of the child’s habitual residence for a custody hearing. 

Unfortunately, and very regrettably, there are significant gaps in 

the Hague treaty framework and we need to fill those gaps. I think 

that is something positive that we can do. 

International parental child abduction is an under-reported incident, an often overlooked crime which dramatically and traumatically impacts the lives of the children and parents involved. 

We need to send a message to the world that we take Hague 

compliance and returning abducted children back to the United 

States seriously. 

I want to thank my constituent for being here and for her courage and we are there with you. Keep in mind you are not alone and 

we are going to do everything we can to help. 

44

And, again, I would like to end by, again, thanking my colleague, 

Mr. Smith for his tireless effort on this important issue. Thank you 

very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Engel, thank you very much for your excellent 

statement, your leadership, and we do work—and I think the 

American people need to know—more and more we work across the 

aisle and it is always a privilege to work with Eliot Engel, the gentleman from New York, the ranking Democrat on the full committee. Thank you so much for being here. 

I would like to ask Mr. Parmar, who is from Manalapan, I understand. 

The abduction happened in Edison. I thank you for being here 

and look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF MR. RAVINDRA PARMAR (FATHER OF 

ABDUCTED CHILD TO INDIA) 

Mr. PARMAR. Thank you, Chairman Smith. Good afternoon. I am 

honored for the privilege to provide my testimony before you and 

I commend you for holding this important hearing. 

I am here today because I am inspired by a British-educated barrister traveling on a train to Pretoria in 1893 with a paid ticket 

who was thrown off a train for sitting in first class compartment 

because of the color of his skin. 

The sense of injustice and outrage within him inspired a struggle 

for civil rights in South Africa, which he later transformed into a 

fight for national independence from a colonial power. 

That resulted in an independent India. I am referring to 

Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, or Mahatma Gandhi. 

I am not comparing myself to Gandhiji, but I am compelled to 

stand up and fight for the cause that transcends cultures and nations. I am here today because my little boy, whom I love dearly, 

isn’t with me and he has been robbed of his father’s love and presence for over 3 years. 

Reyansh is another victim of a crime that was not perpetrated 

by a stranger but by his own parent. It was a calculated and malicious act committed to inflict maximum pain on me without any regard for Reyansh’s well being or rights. 

I am also here today because of Abdallah’s mother, Samina 

Rahman, Nikhita’s father, Vikram Jagtiani, Indira’s mother, Tova 

Sengupta, Albert and Alfred’s mother, Bindu Philips and dozens of 

parents whose children have been abducted to India are hoping 

that I have the courage to give an honest and accurate assessment 

of how our lives have been devastated not only by the abducting 

parents but by civilized nation states who have shown a blind eye 

to the immense human suffering that we have experienced for 

years. 

Parental child abduction is about our children. These are precious human lives and they matter to me, to Edeanna, to Chris, 

Jeffrey, Avinash, Bindu, Vikram, Samina, Arvin, Tova, Manu, 

Nihar, George, Eric, Marla, Carolyn, Devon, David, Noelle, Alyssa, 

Annie, Laura, and Vibhor and the list goes on. 

Our governments have failed to rise above their economic, security, cultural, and other geopolitical interests to solve what is a 

solvable problem. If one of the objectives of this hearing is to scrutiVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:19 Sep 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\_AGH\061115\94943 SHIRL
45

nize the records of Japan, India, Tunisia, and other countries with 

longstanding child abductions, then I humbly request, Chairman 

Smith, that we add one more name and that is the United States. 

Why the U.S., you will ask. Simply put, cases like mine have 

been lingering for years without any sign of progress, and you don’t 

need to know the inner workings of our Government to learn why 

that is the case. 

The Department of State’s Web site, which is included in Exhibit 

C of my testimony, lists parental child abduction at the bottom of 

the section under Youth and Education. Items listed above it include Office of Overseas Schools, Exchange Visitor programs, Fulbright program, Youth Exchange programs, Student Career. 

How much confidence does that give victims of parental child abduction when on one hand the Office of Children’s Issues publicly 

state that they care about other children and are doing everything 

they can to bring children home yet the facts show a different picture? 

How long can parents like me have to wait even for a glimmer 

of hope? Let us look at elsewhere within our Government where 

the Department of Justice, whose mission is to enforce law and defend the interests of the United States according to the law, to ensure public safety against threats foreign and domestic, to provide 

Federal leadership in preventing and controlling crime, to seek just 

punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior and to ensure fair 

and impartial administration of justice for all Americans. 

Has the Department of Justice lived up to its mission? How 

many parental child abduction cases have they prosecuted in the 

last decade? How many cases have they a closed without children 

returning? How many offenders have they successfully prosecuted? 

The answers are hard to find. So here I am today presenting a 

victim’s report card to rate our experience in terms of how a nation 

has acted to protect our children’s rights and cooperated in their 

return using a rating scale that my son would understand—really 

bad, not good, okay, good, and awesome. I would rate our experience in the United States as not good and in India, unfortunately, 

as really bad. 

It doesn’t give me any joy to say this, but after several decades 

of collective hardships faced by left-behind parents and our children, the dial on international parental child abduction just hasn’t 

moved. 

From a parent’s point of view, where is the leadership? Where 

is the urgency? Left-behind parents have been kicked around like 

a soccer ball from one courtroom to the next, from one government 

agency to another, from one elected representative’s office to another and by chance, if their stars align, the left-behind parent like 

David Goldman, Noelle Hunter or Alyssa Zagaris may get the support and justice they deserve. 

Otherwise, for most left-behind parents we hit the repeat button 

and do this all over again. Avinash Kulkarni’s son, Soumitra, was 

abducted in 1990 from California when his son was only 6 months 

old. The abducting parent did everything she could to alienate 

Soumitra from his father. 

Today, Avinash has no contact with his son and he spent his entire life savings, sacrificed his career to fight a legal battle to seek 

46

justice which continues to elude him. This must change. The time 

to act was yesterday. 

Parents all over the country and around the world are outraged 

by the ground reality and the mediocre response—at best—to address the real human tragedy. 

For too long the voices of children have been left behind. Voices 

of children and left-behind parents have been ignored or silenced. 

If I don’t stand up today and speak about injustice, Reyansh will 

have one less role model to look up to. 

While I support a strong and growing strategic partnership between our country and India based on the foundation of shared values, including family values, it must not come at the expense of 

American children and families. As we enhance engagement with 

India, more and more people will establish social and other bonds. 

Many of these relationships will lead to cross cultural and cross 

national marriages. For all practical purposes, if the United States 

and India don’t establish a strong framework including considering 

alternatives like bilateral agreements or Executive orders on the 

issue of parental child abduction, this will lead to an exponential 

growth in abduction cases and will lead to a human rights disaster 

that will jeopardize our children’s future. 

Policymakers in India need to think beyond its borders and modernize its laws on crimes against children, family and custody matters to reflect the new global realities and align them to international standards. 

I respectfully urge all Members of Congress, especially those in 

the India caucus, to use this opportunity to bridge the divide and 

create a foundation for human welfare and prosperity. 

It is time to take individual and collective ownership and bring 

accountability wherever it is lacking. We are all aware of India’s 

positive contributions to the world and we know as a rising power 

it has the aspirations to lead the world. 

Upholding core values like rule of law, inclusive growth, and protections of human rights without taking stock of its own ground realities the path forward will not lead to achieving those goals. 

I wish I could say that the only challenge that we face in India 

is systemic delays in the judiciary and that despite the delays abducted American children and left-behind parents consistently get 

their justice in India. 

Unfortunately, neither statement is true. While I have seen some 

recent progress as instances of divorce and custody battles have increased within India, the fact of the matter is that those decisions 

are too few and far between. 

Indian courts are using outdated laws or, worse, no laws in the 

case of parental child abduction, to address the challenges of a 

modern globalized world. 

In a recent case in the Supreme Court of India, the court ordered 

the return of two British citizen children abducted from the UK 

predicated on the left-behind parent meeting a whole slew of criteria. 

It was plainly clear that even when the abducted children are in 

extremely rare instances returned to their home countries, it is 

often with significant preconditions on the left-behind parent, 

which in effect penalizes the victims and rewards the abductor. 

47

Based on direct experiences and the ground realities in India, 

even in 2015 left-behind parents are completely stacked up—sorry. 

The ground realities in India even in 2015 are completely stacked 

up against the left-behind parents. 

We hope leaders in India will pay heed to the following observations not because America is demanding or asking for any favors 

but her own citizens deserve better. 

The lack of policy and law recognizing parental child abduction 

as a crime both civil and penal has significant ramifications for not 

only Indian citizens but those around the world who have some 

sort of association with India including cross cultural ties, marriages with Indian citizens, or people of Indian origin. 

India’s policy decision that Indian courts are competent to decide 

on individual child abduction cases based on existing law in the absence of acceding to Hague and/or Indian laws addressing parental 

child abduction is leading to confusion, inconsistent decision-making and wasting precious legal resources for a country that has 

over 31 million pending cases as of September 2014. 

The inconsistent, at times incorrect, application of criteria for 

domicile with an Indian divorce law such as the Hindu Marriage 

Act on foreign citizens, permanent residents of other countries, and 

expatriates is resulting in wrongful assertion of jurisdiction by Indian courts raising serious questions of extra-territorial application 

of Indian law and impinging U.S. Constitutional rights and protections guaranteed to each of us living in the U.S. 

Thus, a cocktail of issues combined with a lack of joint custody 

provisions, gender-biased domestic violence laws, nonbailable offenses like the Indian Penal Code 498(a), which is the anti-dowry 

law, are routinely involved by abductors, give abundant incentives 

for parents of Indian origin across the United States and the world 

for India to become their preferred destination for child abductions. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Parmar, if you just suspend briefly. 

Mr. PARMAR. Sure. 

Mr. SMITH. We have two votes on the floor and I will be back and 

hopefully with some other members within about 10 minutes. If 

you could pick up right where you are now and then we will go to 

Mr. Findlay, and I apologize but we will stand in very brief recess, 

then resume. 

Mr. PARMAR. Sure. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will resume its hearing and, Mr. 

Parmar, sorry for cutting you off mid-sentence but I had to make 

the floor vote. So thank you. 

Mr. PARMAR. I will probably take no more than 2 more minutes. 

The issue of domicile and jurisdiction pose the greatest risks for 

American children and families who have made a conscious decision to permanently settle in the United States and yet find themselves being dragged into Indian courts due to issues described 

about. 

In my own case, we are Hindu-Americans permanently residing 

in the United States and Reyansh was born in New Jersey. My exwife and I both are U.S. citizens. I have lived in the country for 

21 years. Reyansh lived here until he was wrongfully removed from 

New Jersey and retained in India by his mother. 

48

Her presence in India is due to her absconding from New Jersey 

after multiple violations of U.S. State and Federal law. It is evident 

to any reasonable person that neither I nor my ex-wife were domiciled in India, thus the Hindu Marriage Act would not apply to us. 

Yet, three different levels of courts in India reached the complete 

opposite decision. I urge this subcommittee to take special note of 

the broad and subjective interpretation and application of family 

law which is being applied in an extraterritorial manner by Indian 

courts to foreign nationals and nonresidents as a cause of concern. 

Our rights as American citizens and protection under the Constitution of the United States are being impinged upon by Indian 

courts at all levels. The Hague Convention has been in place for 

30 years. 

How many more hearings will it take before we can see American children being returned from countries like Brazil, India, and 

Japan who have either failed to recognize parental child abduction 

as a crime or disregarded international law and their own treaty 

obligations? 

We are not demanding any special favors from our Government, 

but when parents are being left behind twice, once by their abductor and then by our own Government, to fight a state machinery 

in another country without direct and sustained U.S. Government 

intervention, it is no coincidence that for every Sean Goldman 

there are hundreds of Reyansh Parmars. 

The seeming lack of strong will, courage and urgency across different parts of our Government to address this human tragedy is 

baffling. 

It is troubling to see that the same state actors continue to repeat their bad behavior without any consequence because it appears we are too concerned about our economic security and other 

interests, which begs the questions who will be the beneficiaries if 

our children don’t return. 

I have a few recommendations that I have submitted in Exhibits 

E and F and I would like this subcommittee to kindly consider 

those. I will not go into the details right now. 

But in conclusion, on a positive note, earlier this month, the U.S. 

Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois indicted a Skokie, Illinois, father for international parental kidnapping of three children 

traveling with him to Turkey en route to Pakistan without their 

mother’s consent, permission, or knowledge. 

He left on May 2nd and was arrested on May 6th at O’Hare Airport on arrival as a result of swift and coordinated actions on the 

part of the Turkish Airlines and law-enforcement agencies. All 

three children are now safely in the United States. 

We urge our Government to deliver the same kind of justice for 

our children who are victims of this terrible crime including Albert, 

Alfred, Archit, Siva Kumar, Reyansh, Nikhita, Abdallah, Ishaan, 

Indira, Trisha, Pranavan, and dozens if not hundreds of other 

American children currently in India. 

I will conclude with what David Goldman stated in his testimony 

before this subcommittee in May 2013.

‘‘These cases typically drag on for months, which soon turn into 

years as the abductor creates a home field advantage with endless appeals and delay tactics in their home country’s legal sysVerDate 0ct 09 2002 11:19 Sep 30, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\_AGH\061115\94943 SHIRL
49

tem. This is the norm, not the exception. These cases are abduction cases and laws have been broken!!! Let’s remember 

that these cases are not custody disputes.’’

Let us also be clear what we left-behind families are asking for. 

Some people mistakenly believe we are asking for our Government 

to intervene in custody disputes. We are not. 

All we are asking is that when our children are kidnapped to 

thwart a proper resolution of custody, law governing their return 

to our country is upheld. 

When it comes to international law that deals with children abducted from the United States and other lands there is no rule of 

law. In the broken lives and broken spirits of left-behind parents 

across America, whom we represent here today, stand as a living 

rebuke to that failure to enforce the rule of law.

‘‘The plain fact is that nations who refuse to return America’s children pay no price for defying the law, and unless we 

arm the State Department with the tools they need to do their 

job and unless nations who break the law flagrantly and repeatedly suffer real consequences, nothing will change . . . 

nothing will change.’’

After over 2 years, those words still hold true. The Department 

of State now has the tools in the Goldman Act to use them urgently 

and effectively to bring our children back. 

We are asking for action. We are asking that you bring our kids 

home. 

Thank you, Chairman Smith. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Parmar follows:]

50


94943c-1.eps
51


94943c-2.eps
52


94943c-3.eps
53


94943c-4.eps
54


94943c-5.eps
55


94943c-6.eps
56


94943c-7.eps
57


94943c-8.eps
58


94943c-9.eps
59


94943c-10.eps
60


94943c-11.eps
61


94943c-12.eps
62


94943c-13.eps
63


94943c-14.eps
64


94943c-15.eps
65


94943c-16.eps
66


94943c-17.eps
67


94943c-18.eps
68


94943c-19.eps
69


94943c-20.eps
70

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Parmar, thank you so very much for your testimony and for your very extensive list of recommendations including for aiders and abettors of child abduction. 

I think, you know, all of your testimonies are brilliant and I 

thank you for those very specific recommendations. 

Mr. Findlay. 

STATEMENT OF MR. PRESTON FINDLAY, COUNSEL, MISSING 

CHILDREN’S DIVISION, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING 

AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN 

Mr. FINDLAY. Thank you, Chairman Smith and distinguished 

members of the subcommittee. I am pleased to be here this afternoon on behalf of the National Center for Missing and Exploited 

Children. 

First, I would like to take a moment to thank you personally, Mr. 

Chairman, and other members of the committee for your tireless efforts on behalf of the families impacted by the terrible crime of 

international child abduction. 

The enactment of the Sean and David Goldman Act provided 

families and their supporters with additional tools to bring their 

children home and I appreciate your work to help ensure it is implemented in the manner that Congress intended. 

As you are aware, and it is elaborated further in my written testimony, for years NCMEC has focused on the problem of international child abduction, working with the State Department and 

law enforcement agencies to assist the impacted parents and families. 

Today, in our distinct role as a nonprofit nongovernmental organization, we continue to work with families, as we have with each 

of the parents here today, to apply our experience, networks and 

resources to help them locate and recover their children. 

You have heard today clearly that significant challenges remain. 

There are still several countries, including Japan, India, Tunisia, 

among others, in which systemic problems lead to lengthy delays 

and a lack of any real progress toward the recovery of U.S. children. 

For just one example, India currently represents the individual 

non-Hague country with the highest number of active abduction 

cases noted in NCMEC’s own statistics and those statistics illustrate the exact same depressing reality facing the individual parents who have shared their powerful stories today. 

NCMEC is currently assisting families in 53 total child abduction 

cases to India right now and of those open cases 51, almost the entire total, have been active for longer than 1 year. 

In nearly half of those cases to India the parent has been seeking 

the return of their child for more than 5 years. When that much 

time has passed since a parent was separated from their child, 

phrases like delay, or unresolved, or noncompliance are not adequate to describe that situation. It is much more appropriate to describe it as heartbreaking. 

The statistics and outcomes that NCMEC has submitted to the 

subcommittee, this is not comforting information. But every single 

statement we have heard today illustrates that information is important. 

71

The annual compliance report produced by the State Department 

has long served as the only comprehensive source for information 

to evaluate the performance of foreign nations in the most important metric there is—how many and how often are abducted U.S. 

children recovered. 

The compliance report is a tool. It’s a tool that NCMEC and I 

personally utilize nearly every day to educate parents and professionals. 

For those concerned that an abduction might occur, the information it contains is utilized to assess the risk associated with the potential international abduction and it is also directly relied upon by 

families, attorneys, courts, law enforcement agencies, and others to 

support their efforts in implementing safeguards to ensure a child 

is not wrongfully removed from the United States in the first place. 

The question that is always posed by each of these interested 

parties is, ‘‘What can I expect?’’ and the compliance report helps to 

fill in that answer. 

For those families that have already experienced the tragedy of 

an international abduction, the report is a tool that NCMEC uses 

to inform parents of the specific challenges that they might be facing and to help them sort through what realistic avenues are available for recovering their child. 

Among the most common fundamental questions asked by parents in this terrible situation is, ‘‘What can I do?’’ and, again, the 

compliance report has often helped in some small part of fill in that 

answer. 

As you have heard, there have been numerous concerns identified about the breadth of information contained in the State Department’s first compliance report issued under the requirements 

of the Goldman Act and whether or not it contains sufficient details 

to continue serving as a useful tool to answer the questions of parents, families, and professionals. 

Because NCMEC serves as an information clearinghouse, we 

uniquely appreciate the importance of detailed information when a 

child has been lost. 

Mr. Chairman and other members, I thank you for the chance to 

share with you to help ensure that the most useful and complete 

information is always available and, most importantly, to help you 

implement better solutions. 

My hope and anticipation is that each successive compliance report continues to expand on existing knowledge and to serve as an 

even more useful tool than the last report. 

I am happy to answer any questions about NCMEC’s own programs and our role or to otherwise provide any additional information similar to the statistics that I have submitted to the subcommittee, anything I can answer to assist you with your work. 

I thank each parent for sharing their story and I encourage this 

subcommittee to continue your action and ongoing support for 

these families who seek to bring their children home. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Findlay follows:]

72


94943f-1.eps
73


94943f-2.eps
74


94943f-3.eps
75


94943f-4.eps
76


94943f-5.eps
77


94943f-6.eps
78


94943f-7.eps
79


94943f-8.eps
80

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so very much, Mr. Findlay, and I want to 

thank you and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children. 

The Senate finally had the bill on the floor, which I had introduced 5 years ago, and it was on the fifth anniversary of the introduction of the bill in the House that they finally got to vote on it. 

But NCMEC was very involved. Your letters of support and endorsement were key because many Members were unaware and 

there were a lot of balls in the air. 

A lot of people are multitasking every day of the week here, and 

it helped to pierce through and say, ‘‘Oh, they are for this—what 

does the bill do?’’

So I want to thank you for that very, very important and pivotal 

support that you provided as well as the work that you do on behalf of the families and the families on behalf of themselves and 

for each of those who have testified what you do for all the others. 

I mean, I have always been so encouraged and deeply impressed 

and how you never just fight for your own child or children. You 

reach out and you try to help others who are similarly hurt by the 

abduction. So I want to thank you for that leadership as well. 

And I hope that the American public—we are very grateful that 

C–SPAN decided—because they get to pick, they have editorial 

judgment as to what hearing merit their coverage—to come and 

hear you as well as the administration speak to this issue. 

So we are grateful that they are now able to take that message 

throughout the entire country so that people will know the agony 

that you face and the frustrations that you face as well. 

Let me just ask Ms. Barbirou, if you would. I know you do support with others who are left behind. Could you tell the subcommittee, with some detail, if you would, what it is like to wake 

up, you know, every morning knowing that your child has been abducted, not knowing what is happening during the course of the 

day? 

I mean, all of you might want to speak to that. As a father of 

four children and grandfather of four grandchildren, I can’t even 

begin to sense how traumatizing that has to be on a daily basis, 

year in and year out. 

You know, Captain Paul Toland is here. His daughter was abducted when he was deployed to Yokohama and the mother of his 

child has passed and he can’t even get his own child back. 

I mean, as you mentioned, Dr. Savoie, in your testimony, his 

case. If you could speak to the pain that it imposes upon you it 

would be helpful for the subcommittee to get that sense. 

Ms. BARBIROU. Thank you, Chairman. 

I don’t know that you can verbalize the pain. I can say that it 

is something you have to work through. It is devastating every day 

to, as you said, you can’t imagine it. But even when it is happening 

to you, you can’t imagine it. It is a nightmare that continually goes 

on, and for me I am grateful that I do have my daughter with me 

and through her I am able to witness a piece of my son on a daily 

basis and that is a tremendous blessing that I am firmly aware 

that so many other parents do not have the gift of. And for them, 

I can say for each of us our cases are different. 

81

Our circumstances differ. But we can feel each other’s pain. We 

can feel each other’s tragedy. I sat here and spoke with Mr. Savoie 

and I want to cry for him, and it is not something that I feel I can 

personally put into words but just ask you to try to imagine. 

And knowing that you can’t ever get to the point of understanding that depth of devastation realize that it is equally difficult 

to put into words. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Savoie. 

Mr. SAVOIE. All I can do is really echo those same statements 

that there really are no words for this kind of pain, this kind of 

trauma. Daily, hourly, every time you see a child in a supermarket 

it reminds you. 

And I am also a stepfather as well and I have stepchildren and 

every time I go to a sporting event or hug my stepchildren I am 

reminded that I am not able to give that same love and care to my 

own biological children and I think all of us feel that way. 

We are constantly reminded that we are parents. You don’t lose 

that. It is a biological imperative. It is part of our fabric, part of 

the fabric of our beings, and that love is being denied. 

And then you start feeling the empathetic pain for the child. 

That is the other thing. As a parent, you don’t think oh, I am being 

denied something—I am being stopped, and that is true, we are. 

We are victims. We are crime victims. But our children had no 

choice in this matter whatsoever and you empathize with them—

all the hugs they are missing, all the sporting events that they 

could have with you, the opportunity to speak your native language 

with them. 

All of that gone, and it would be great if at some point we could 

find a justice system that would give us back that time. But the 

truth is Congress cannot give us back that time. The U.S. Government cannot give us back that time. God Himself cannot give us 

back time with our children. 

It is gone forever. And so we are left with the pain and the suffering and the parents here and many of these parents have chosen 

maybe as a bit of therapy to give back and help prevent these 

things from happening to other people and to work together to help 

return these children in some measure and not lose more time. 

Mr. PARMAR. Chairman Smith, I 100 percent agree with what 

was just said. I think, again, just reminding that this is a human 

problem. These are lives that we are talking about. 

If we just focus on that and try to decouple it with law and diplomacy and everything else, the geopolitical power games and everything else, then we can solve it. 

As long as this stuff is out there in terms of technocratic stuff, 

we are really missing the point. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Findlay, in their testimony just a few moments 

ago Ms. Christensen had said that the new law is already encouraging more countries to consider becoming party to the Hague Convention or to improve their performance under the Convention if 

they are already a party. 

Are you seeing any similar trends? I mean, is the law beginning 

to make a difference, in your opinion? And again, and I would say 

this as a source of encouragement, if we had the report right—and 

I think on Japan it is egregiously flawed, it is a whitewash, it is 

82

awful, I can’t think of any more words to describe it—and as you 

recall earlier when—from the testimony from our friends from the 

administration I did ask that they go back and relook at it and reissue portions where they got it wrong. 

There was nothing wrong with the definition of ‘‘unresolved abduction case,’’ which is why I read the definition right from the text 

to make that clear. 

They have misread that, clearly, somehow, and as I said earlier, 

and before you answer, I am concerned, again, at a previous hearing when Ambassador Jacobs said, ‘‘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.’’

A bilateral relationship, like any friendship, needs to be based on 

trust, it needs to be based on honesty, clarity and not putting uncomfortable truths under the table like this egregious wound that 

it does to your children as well as to left-behind parents of parental 

child abductions. 

So shame on us if we do not say, looking them straight in the 

eye, this has to improve and this is a very serious issue between 

our two countries because we care about the kids—the abducted 

children—and we care about the left-behind parents. 

So Mr. Findlay. 

Mr. FINDLAY. Thank you, Chairman Smith. 

I think, as you have stated and I have reiterated several times 

in my testimony I see the Sean and David Goldman Act as a tool—

a tool of recovery but also a tool potentially of prevention and some 

of the most promising differences that I have seen in the time since 

it was enacted have been steps—slow steps toward improving our 

Nation’s response to preventing an abduction from occurring in the 

first place. 

I have indicated that the information the National Center submitted in our written statement regarding the active cases to 

Japan where 50 out of 54 active cases have been ongoing for longer 

than a year, 20 out of 22 active cases to Brazil have been going on 

longer than a year, 51 out of 53 to India have been going on longer 

than a year and all six of the cases we are currently working on 

in the country of Tunisia have been active for longer than 1 year. 

That is not comforting information. We are happy and pleased 

with the opportunity to present that kind of information and to 

give that perspective and that picture to other parents and to the 

committee as you try and get a real perspective on whether or not 

these countries are complying. 

But that remains a depressing picture and that remains a depressing picture even in the months since the Goldman Act has 

been passed. So I am hopeful and I am optimistic. But the active 

cases remain the way they are. 

Mr. SMITH. This is—as you all know, the next shoe to drop will 

be on the sanctions portion vis-a`-vis the 22 nations which ought to 

be 23. 

Japan has to be on that list, and there are very serious repercussions which I hope the administration will use as that toolbox and 

we will hopefully hear from Ambassador Jacobs in July as to how 

that is going so that we don’t get a designation without commensurate sanction so that the countries know that we mean business. 

83

There are two other areas that I have worked on very closely—

trafficking I mentioned and international religious freedom—and 

very often we have seen a lack of enforcement of sanctions when 

it comes to other human rights abuses. 

So this, hopefully, is an opening for the administration to say if 

you use the toolbox right, if you say we mean business, sanctions 

will be deployed and the quickest way to get those lifted is to, obviously, resolve the cases in a way and return is the ultimate resolution of the case. 

Let me just ask you, finally, to what extent any of you might 

want to speak to this do you believe that corruption abroad—Mr. 

Findlay, you might want to speak to this—in terms of judicial system, judges, a foreign ministry that might be susceptible to corruption. 

We know that corruption is a huge problem in many countries. 

It is a bad problem here in the United States. What would you say 

to that? Has that caused some of this? 

Mr. FINDLAY. I will try to do my best to answer your question—

to some extent I would defer on the realities that individual parents have faced and the frustrations they have faced in their own 

cases to the parents who have lived it. And so I wouldn’t presume 

to speak to each individual situation. 

What I will say, especially as that question relates to the purpose 

of this hearing, is that one of the most useful pieces of information 

contained in previous compliance reports has been detailed descriptions of the performance problems in countries that are a concern 

for noncompliance. 

When previous reports listed concerns, for instance, about judicial performance there was significant detail provided for a country 

that has not been spoken about today but a country such as Costa 

Rica where there were in past compliance reports detailed descriptions of the problems that the United States noticed in the application of the treaty’s principles in their courts when considering 

Hague Convention cases. 

They remain noted, I believe, in the current report as do numerous other countries. However, to some extent some of the detail 

and the level of depth on what exactly led to those designations 

does not exist in the current report and as I look at this as a useful 

tool to educate and to make everyone aware of not just existing 

problems but how to prevent this it is important to make sure that 

the level of depth and the level of detail remains and——

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Findlay, I think your point is extremely well 

taken. On Page 30 of the report it has countries demonstrating patterns of noncompliance and there is an A, B, C, D, E with, you 

know, foreign central authority performance, judicial performance, 

law enforcement performance and, of course, persistent failure of 

non-Convention countries to work with the United States Central 

Authority to resolve abduction cases. 

Then when you turn to the next page where it has the 22 countries, it has Brazil, ACD; India, E. And you are right, so that level 

of reporting needs to—a point very well taken—break out so we 

know and so that they know and so there is real transparency 

about what is the depth of the problem. 

84

More is more here and we need more. This is—I mean, you got 

to keep referring back to say what is E. It shouldn’t be that way. 

So thank you for that. That is a good insight. 

Would any of you like—yes? 

Mr. SAVOIE. I think in Japan we have a—I would not describe 

it actually as corruption. I would just say that the fix is in. The 

law just doesn’t allow for this to happen and the courts aren’t 

changing it. 

There is a problem with following rule of law even within Japan 

itself. 

Mr. SMITH. But I think what you pointed out with even the Chief 

Justice of the Supreme Court in Japan, we need to become a tailwind behind the reformers in Japan so if we put a zero for unresolved cases who are we really helping there? One, it is inaccurate 

but, secondly, it is not helping the reformers. 

Mr. SAVOIE. And we are taking the wind out of their sails, actually, and when the Chief Justice is saying that he was, you know, 

speaking to the family court judges in his country and saying look, 

you have got to get with it and actually follow the laws. 

There are some laws that could be used, on the books, in Japan 

and lawmakers have put some things in there, like Article 766 has 

been reformed somewhat to help visitation. The parental rights 

thing hasn’t changed. 

But the courts themselves are not cooperating and when you 

have this kind of intransigency and this kind of cultural recalcitrance it is not technically corruption but it is an official problem 

that we have. 

And by calling out Japan with its problems for what it is and 

saying to our friend, our compatriots over there, that look, you 

have a problem with your system—it is violating human rights, let 

us not do that—I don’t think that we are hurting Japan. 

We are helping Japan and we are helping Japanese children at 

the same time who deserve those same human rights. 

Ms. BARBIROU. Thank you for the question, and I think I would 

echo that statement that I am not sure that it would be corruption 

that is the descriptive word I would use. But there is certainly an 

issue in Tunisia with a rule of law. 

When you have a Tunisian President visiting with U.S. Senators 

and declaring to them that there is no final judgment in an abduction case where the Supreme Court of Tunisia has made a ruling 

declaring that Eslam and Zainab’s home of residence is the United 

States and their best interest is served there, to repeatedly through 

various members of their administration up to the newly-elected 

President to respond to any request by our Government officials to 

say that there isn’t a final judgment it is absurd. 

What is your rule of law? You have just instilled a new constitution that directly upholds your Supreme Court and its rulings and 

then you turn around in the face of those and say well, we don’t 

have a ruling—we don’t have a final judgment. 

Well, if your Supreme Court is not the final judgement then 

what is? And I have to say, though, personally I do applaud the 

Tunisian judiciary for following international law and upholding its 

legal obligations in the face of what is very obviously an interest 

85

of society to protect its citizen because they see my children as 

Tunisians and they do not see them as individuals. 

They do not see them as children who deserve the familyhood of 

both a mother and a father. They see them as symbols of their national symbols and my children are Tunisian. They are American 

as well. Their home of residence is the United States. 

The Tunisian courts have ruled. The American courts have ruled. 

And it is simply time that those judgments be enforced and I don’t 

know if you call that corruption. I certainly call it a problem. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Parmar. 

Mr. PARMAR. Mr. Chairman, I think there is a lot of commonalities and it is hard for us to define whether we face corruption or 

not. 

But, you know, for example, laws that have no clear guidelines 

so that from one judge to the next these—under the same set of 

circumstances you will get different rulings, the fact that even 

after, for example, in India there has been very progressive thought 

in the law commission. 

In 2006, one of the reports said that India should accede to 

Hague and make changes to their sole custody laws so that joint 

custody is allowed. 

Fortunately, on the latter, there has been some movement within 

the Indian Parliament. They have placed a rule change. It is still 

probably going to take some years to implement. But I think there 

are changes going on. 

I think the main challenge that we face is both cultural and attitude approach to that, I think. So it might not be in an overt decision to harm somebody but it is the ignorance in the issue that is 

probably what is hurting us. 

Mr. SMITH. If you have anything else you would like to say I 

would like to give you all the last word or we will just conclude. 

But the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which I wrote in the 

year 2000, requires the TIP Report, this mammoth study, countryby-country, Mr. Findlay, as you know so well, which breaks out 

prevention, prosecution, and protection—the three P’s of trying to 

combat sex and labor trafficking. Every country has a monologue. 

It has a box of recommendations. And then there is a tier system—a 1, 2, 3—and watch list, and if you are a Tier 3 country you 

are an egregious violator in the issue of human trafficking and you 

get sanctioned. 

Now, this didn’t start out as this thick book but it quickly became that, data calls going out to our Embassies. In the Goldman 

Act we make very clear that we want somebody in every Embassy 

working this issue where it is their portfolio. 

We want a seriousness of implementation for you and for your 

kids. My hope is that, again, correcting the deficiencies currently 

right now and we will appeal to Secretary Kerry, who I think is 

a very reasonable man, and he will hear that appeal and hopefully 

will take it to heart and make sure that on Japan and on India, 

where there are no unresolved cases—according to this we have an 

unresolved case too from both of those countries sitting right 

here—we will look to fix it and to get it right for accuracy. 

And again, for the courts—and Mr. Findlay, you might want to 

speak to this—how important it is for current cases before judges 

86

that this report be correct so that they make informed decisions 

about the vulnerabilities of someone perhaps going abroad with 

their child. 

Mr. FINDLAY. I am happy to speak to that, Mr. Chairman. 

Just yesterday, Wednesday of this week, I was on the phone and 

speaking to a family court in the State of Washington and to the 

litigants and the attorneys involved in that case and describing and 

answering questions related to the risks of abduction to a particular country, not one that has been spoken about or represented 

today. 

But the resource aside from the information—the limited information that our center obtains for cases reported only to us, but 

aside from that information that we have firsthand, the next and 

the most important and the most comprehensive source I have to 

point to is the information that comes from the U.S. State Department. 

And I value that information and I value the completeness of 

that information, and I do know there are 14 states plus the District of Columbia that have adopted uniform child abduction prevention laws in their family law systems that encourage or require 

family judges to receive information about whether or not a country 

is a signatory but, more importantly, whether or not they are living 

up to the terms of that treaty and what it means to be a signatory 

to that treaty. 

And that is built right in. That is a factor for that court to consider when deciding whether or not to allow visitation, allow relocation or otherwise address safeguards for preventing an abduction. 

So I know firsthand and our center knows firsthand that there 

are interested parties. There are government entities, there are 

parents, there are attorneys, there are advocates, there are agencies who are—who are desperate for this information and would 

love as much information as can be provided. 

We do our best to provide what limited information we can and 

we share that with the subcommittee. But that is where I will 

leave it is that information is important. Whether or not it is comforting and whether or not it paints a happy picture it is still important. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Savoie. 

Mr. SAVOIE. I had actually yesterday an individual contact me 

about the report and knew that I was testifying here today and he 

wanted me to mention his case, which is very much on point. 

He, prior to Japan signing the Hague, had been granted sole custody of his children with supervised visitation because there was 

a threat of an abduction. 

And now that Japan has signed the Hague, the other side is now 

petitioning to have that supervised visitation removed in court 

under the premise that Japan is now a Hague country and is compliant and therefore we don’t have to worry about this anymore. 

And very much to that point if this report is not accurate and 

it says zero, zero, zero, no problem, those children may well be abducted. 

87

They may well be abducted and they may well be abducted with 

the judge’s permission because he or she will rely on this report 

saying that zero, there is no problem. 

And, you know, 90 days is actually not enough time to correct 

that for this individual. The other side can present this report as 

evidence with an expert witness into that court and put it on the 

record and now claim that Japan has a flawless record in this area 

when we all know that that is not the case. 

So it is very real. It is a very real concern and it has created a 

very real concern for this particular individual in Texas right now 

who is worried that this report may have given the other side, who 

may have nefarious intentions, the ability now to legally abduct 

these kids right out from under us. 

Mr. SMITH. That is also the case in the report with Tunisia 

where there are zero unresolved cases. Did you want to speak to 

that? 

Ms. BARBIROU. You offered for us to have a closing statement so 

I am going to take you up on that offer, Chairman, and thank you 

for that opportunity. 

I just wanted to reiterate that Ms. Christensen, in her testimony, 

asserted that the mission of OCI is to assist children and families 

involved in IPCA and to prevent its occurrence. 

It is a simple mission that does not mention recovery. But my 

assumption is that the assistance to children and families involved 

in IPCA means that they are offering the assistance for recovery 

and yet all that I heard in their testimony and all that I see 

through the compliance report is an interest in prevention. 

And I stated in my testimony but want to restate that the Convention is a powerful tool but it is not a tool that will result in the 

return of our already abducted children. 

And while I advocate strongly for its use in future cases, I wish 

for it to be made crystal clear in the record that ICAPRA, as it is 

written, is a fair and powerful law that includes strong remedies 

which, if applied, will result in the return of our illegally retained 

abducted children abroad. 

And as a request to this subcommittee, I would ask that in the 

future you ensure that ICAPRA is implemented with the spirit in 

which it was created and that if necessary it be updated with an 

explicit requirement of accountability for the total existing cases of 

IPCA by country including newly reported cases and the total number of children involved in each case represented in future reports 

by State to Congress because our children count and they must be 

counted. 

It is so important that State understands that they represent individuals and they must count. Thank you. 

Mr. PARMAR. I will just end on a couple of items from the recommendations that I had. I think a path forward is while we are 

talking about the report, since the 30 years the Hague Convention 

has been in place we haven’t had a consolidation of data sources. 

So Department of State should expand and enhance the data 

gathering and tracking of abduction cases by leveraging sources 

such as the U.S. family courts, police department records, the 

NCMEC, FBI, and other sources that they can then have a more 

88

consolidated reporting instead of waiting for the parent to report 

the case. 

One of the other recommendations I would like to highlight is in 

returning the children, especially to the top destinations, the Department of State should consider deploying a permanent attache 

at the U.S. Mission who will ensure that the pending cases are 

being worked on in a fair and quick manner so that children actually come home. 

That is the bottom line. And the third request I have is with you 

and the rest of Congress is to really take the leadership on this and 

make it a win-win situation for both the U.S. and India and really 

engage with them on this issue just like you would engage with 

them on any other strategic and economic issue. 

If you make it important I am sure that it will be important for 

them as well. 

Mr. SAVOIE. If I could just put on the record one last request, 

just to be able to say that I love my children, Isaac and Rebecca, 

and that I will never stop fighting for the ability to be involved in 

their lives. 

And I look forward to the day that all of us can be reunited with 

them—with our children, and I thank you for all your support in 

trying to make that happen. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Savoie. Thank you all for your extraordinarily compelling testimony. I can assure you this subcommittee, this Member, will be unceasing in our and my efforts. 

As you know, I learned the deficiencies and the gaps in what you 

face on a day to day basis through David Goldman’s case. Very 

good welfare and whereabouts but not much when it came to policy 

in trying to effectuate the return of Sean, his son. 

And from that ordeal, I learned through him and through his son 

and now through all of you just how agonizing it is and that is why 

we wrote the law and that is why we will be tenacious in making 

sure it is faithfully implemented. 

Again, you are heroes and I thank you for your leadership and, 

Mr. Findlay, thank you for the work that NCMEC does. It is irreplaceable. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:41 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] 

(89)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

90

f


94943n.eps
91

f


94943m.eps
92

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


94943g-1.eps
93


94943g-2.eps
94


94943g-3.eps
95


94943g-4.eps
96


94943g-5.eps
97


94943g-6.eps
98


94943g-7.eps
99

Æ


94943g-8.eps