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

93–916PDF 2016

THE GOLDMAN ACT TO RETURN ABDUCTED

AMERICAN CHILDREN: REVIEWING OBAMA

ADMINISTRATION IMPLEMENTATION

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

MARCH 25, 2015

Serial No. 114–126

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 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

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 

TOM EMMER, Minnesota 

KAREN BASS, California 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

AMI BERA, California 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

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

of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State .................................................. 7

Ms. Bindu Philips (mother of abducted children to India) ................................... 38

Mr. Jeffery Morehouse, executive director, BAC Home (father of abducted 

child to Japan) ...................................................................................................... 47

Mr. Devon M. Davenport (father of abducted child to Brazil) ............................. 55

Mr. Scott Sawyer, vice president of operations, Global Future (father of abducted child to Japan) ......................................................................................... 64

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

The Honorable Susan S. Jacobs: Prepared statement .......................................... 10

Ms. Bindu Philips: Prepared statement ................................................................. 42

Mr. Jeffery Morehouse: Prepared statement ......................................................... 50

Mr. Devon M. Davenport: Prepared statement ..................................................... 59

Mr. Scott Sawyer: Prepared statement .................................................................. 68

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 78

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 79

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 Scott Sawyer .................................................................................. 80

Statement of Robert Makielski ........................................................................... 88

Statement of Keith White .................................................................................... 90

(1)

THE GOLDMAN ACT TO RETURN ABDUCTED 

AMERICAN CHILDREN: REVIEWING OBAMA 

ADMINISTRATION IMPLEMENTATION 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25, 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 2 o’clock p.m., in 

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

Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The hearing will come to order. 

Let me begin by thanking Ambassador Jacobs and all of our distinguished witnesses and guests for being here today, especially the 

left-behind parents that I see in the audience who are joining us 

this afternoon to continue to increase attention on international parental child abduction, whose victims include primarily children denied the love and attention of one of their parents, and parents cut 

off from their children that they love. 

Every year, by some estimates, approximately 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. Most of the left-behind parents in 

the audience today have not seen their children in years and know 

all too well the financial, legal, cultural, and linguistic obstacles to 

bringing their children home from a foreign country. 

Many of you have already been through a U.S. judicial proceeding prior to the abduction, and the courts have settled custody 

and visitation only to have a kidnapping spouse defy a court order. 

Others of you were caught completely by surprise when a spouse’s 

vacation turned into an abduction, a phone call in the middle of the 

night telling you that you will never see your child again. 

Your suffering is exponentially compounded by knowledge of the 

pain caused to your child by the separation. Child abduction is 

child abuse. Parentally abducted children are at risk of serious 

emotional and psychological problems and may experience anxiety, 

eating problems, nightmares, mood swings, sleep disturbances, aggressive behavior, resentment, guilt, and fearfulness. These young 

victims, like their left-behind parents, are American citizens who 

need the help of their Government when normal legal processes are 

unavailable or have failed. 

2

In 1983, the United States ratified the Hague Convention on the 

Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to try to address abduction and access. This Convention created a civil framework for 

a quick return of abducted children and for rights of access for leftbehind parents. Absent extenuating circumstances, the child or 

children are to be returned within 6 weeks to his or her country 

of habitual residence for the courts there to decide on custody or 

to enforce any previous custody determinations. 

The Convention has helped return some children, but implementation has been unpredictable and spotty at best. Susceptible to 

abuse by taking parents or judges who either don’t understand 

their obligations under the Convention or are unwilling to abide by 

them, the Convention has too often been stretched to provide cover 

for the abduction rather than the recovery of the child. 

Some Hague Convention parties are simply not enforcing legitimate return orders. The State Department’s 2014 Hague Convention compliance report highlights four countries—Brazil, Mexico, 

Romania, and Ukraine—that habitually fail to enforce return orders. Other countries—Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and The 

Bahamas—are non-compliant with the Convention. 

In other words, abducted American children are not coming home 

from these countries, and so many other countries where the Convention operates weakly or with which the United States has no bilateral agreement of any kind. 

To give one more example, Jeffery Morehouse, a left-behind parent who will testify today, will say that there have been 400 cases 

of U.S. children kidnapped to Japan to 1994. We do not know of 

a single case in which the Government of Japan has issued and enforced an order for the return of an abducted child to the United 

States. That is unconscionable. And I must emphasize that since 

they have signed the Hague Convention, Japan’s efforts have been 

breathtakingly unresponsive, especially for abductions that occurred prior to their ratification of the Hague Convention. 

Mr. Morehouse will testify that 1 year ago, next week, at the 

very moment Japan acceded to the Hague Abduction Convention, 

parents joined us to hand deliver 30 Article 21 access applications. 

I would note parenthetically I joined those parents at the Japanese 

Embassy. They were unbelievably respectful and disciplined and 

very, very cordial, and yet very, very determined. None of the backhome parents, however, have received access to their kidnapped 

children. That is almost a year ago next week. 

Japan’s implementation of the Hague Abduction Convention—

Mr. Morehouse will go on to say—is an abysmal failure. Sanctions 

under the Goldman Act will provide some of the necessary public 

pressures on Japan to create change to this ongoing human and 

family rights crisis. 

Again, the status quo is simply not acceptable. Over the last 5 

years, many of you who are here today helped me and my staff 

write and pass through the Congress the Sean and David Goldman 

International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act, simply 

known as the Goldman Act. Today’s hearing occurs more than 7 

months after the Goldman Act became law and gives us an opportunity to hear from the State Department and parents about 

3

whether the bill’s key provisions are being implemented according 

to the law. 

A brief refresher on Sean and David, David Goldman spent over 

five agonizing years trying to legally rescue his son Sean from abduction to Brazil, which is a signatory nation, like the U.S., to the 

Hague Abduction Convention. Despite Mr. Goldman’s airtight case 

that demonstrated an egregious example of both child abduction 

and wrongful retention, the Hague Treaty was unavailing and the 

outcomes in the Brazilian courts proved mostly infuriating and 

firm and ineffective. 

David Goldman waged his case by the book and won judgments 

in New Jersey courts, yet both Sean and David were made to suffer 

emotional pain for over half a decade as one delaying ploy after another was employed by the abducting party. In the end, because of 

a father’s abiding love for his son, and an indomitable will, like so 

many of you here today who have suffered so much, the Goldmans 

today are united and happy, unlike you who still are separated. 

To underscore, the Goldman Act was not intended to simply reform the system, but to bring about a fundamental sea-change in 

U.S. diplomacy, so that the State Department officials would see 

themselves as advocates for the return of abducted American children. 

Now, under the Goldman Act, when a country fails to appropriately address an abduction case pending for more than 12 

months, the law requires the Secretary of State to take action. 

When a country has more than 30 percent of its U.S. cases pending 

for more than a year, the law requires the Secretary of State to 

designate the country as non-compliant in the annual report and 

take action. 

The Goldman Act specifically lists the increasingly escalating actions that Congress has in mind, from a demarche or protest 

through diplomatic channels to a public condemnation to a delay 

or cancellation of one or more bilateral visits, and even withdrawal, 

limitation, or suspension of foreign assistance, including non-humanitarian aid and including security assistance to the central governmental authority of a country. 

These are serious sanctions. They must be seriously applied by 

a country that takes parental child abduction seriously. We may 

also request extradition, where appropriate. 

If these measures sound pointed, it is because they are intended 

to focus the designation country on quick and accurate resolution 

to abduction and access cases, and we hope to find out today from 

Ambassador Jacobs how these tools are being used and with what 

frequency. 

The Goldman Act was written to cover countries that have 

signed the Hague Convention, such as Brazil, and countries that 

have not signed the Convention, such as India, and countries that 

have a mix of open abduction cases from before and after signing 

the Hague Convention, such as Japan. 

In 2013, India was the number 3 destination in the world for 

parents who abducted from the United States. Currently, there are 

64 known open abduction and denial of access cases involving 

India, and yet the United States does not have any sort of resolution mechanism to my knowledge in India or with India. Moms and 

4

Dads are left in the United States. They are forced to enter a foreign court system known for its incessant appeals and multi-year 

delays and even mega-intimidation. 

But now the Goldman Act applies. India will now face real penalties for any case that has been pending for more than 1 year and 

will be named and shamed in the State Department’s report. As 

with the State Department’s annual Trafficking In Persons Report, 

there is morally suasive value in simply reporting what a country 

does and some countries will, I am sure, respond to such moral 

pressure. 

Thus, we expect the State Department will apply these penalties 

zealously and work with India on establishing a bilateral agreement for the efficient and fair resolution of abduction and access 

cases. If the State Department faithfully applies the laws written, 

it will be in India’s best interest to come to the negotiating table. 

The same holds true for Japan. Even though Japan recently 

signed the Hague Convention, in the upcoming April report Congress expects that Japan will be evaluated not just on its handling 

of new abduction cases after it joined the Hague last year, but on 

its work to resolve all open abduction cases, including the 67 cases 

that I and others have been raising with State for the last 5 years. 

Among such cases is that of Michael Elias, who has not seen his 

children, Jade and Michael, since 2008. Michael served as a Marine 

and saw combat in Iraq. His wife, who worked in the Japanese 

Consulate, used documents fraudulently obtained with the apparent complicity of the Japanese Consultant personnel to kidnap 

their children then aged four and two in defiance of a court order 

telling Michael on the phone call that there was nothing that he 

could do. She said, ‘‘My country’’—that is, Japan—‘‘will protect 

me.’’ Her country will protect her, but what is our country doing 

to protect Michael and his children? 

While the State Department has touted Japan’s accession to the 

Hague Convention as an accomplishment, Japan has said the Convention would only apply in post-ratification cases. As Ambassador 

Jacobs knows, I and several others predicted that unless an MOU 

or other bilateral agreement was concluded with Japan, American 

children and their left-behind parents will be left behind in perpetuity. 

I ask my friends at the State Department once again, what then 

is to happen for the parents already suffering from abductions prior 

to ratification? Would they be left behind again, this time by their 

own Government? 

I know Ambassador Jacobs, who is here to testify, as recently as 

February 2014 in her testimony before the Senate stated that she 

would continue to make progress with the Japanese Government 

on resolving existing cases in the spirit of the Convention. We will 

have a chance to ask the Ambassador what progress has been 

made on resolving cases like those of Michael Elias, Captain Paul 

Toland, and so many others who are suffering every single day. 

And I am sure when they wake up in the morning it is the first 

thing they think of. 

The Goldman Act requires accountability for the Japanese Government on the abduction cases open at the time when Japan 

signed the Convention. Unless Japan resolves scores of American 

5

cases before the end of next month, nearly 100 percent of abduction 

cases in Japan will still be unresolved, and the Goldman Act penalties will apply. 

The Goldman Act has given the State Department new and very 

powerful tools to bring Japan and other countries not to the negotiating table, but the resolution table. The goal is not to disrupt relations but to heal the painful rifts caused by international child abduction. I look forward to hearing testimony on the Department’s 

use of the tools. 

And I would now like to yield to Dr. Bera, serving as acting 

ranking member, for his opening comments. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you, Chairman Smith, and I want to thank 

Ranking Member Bass for as well for calling this important hearing to discuss the issue of international child abductions and the 

Goldman Act. I especially want to thank the chairman for his tireless effort and work on this issue. 

I also want to thank the witnesses and the left-behind parents 

for your heartfelt testimony today. It, obviously, cannot be easy, 

but it is incredibly important to hear these stories. 

As we will hear today, this is a serious issue. Approximately 

1,000 U.S. children are reported to the State Department as victims of international child abduction annually. These abductions 

are devastating to families, especially to the children. Many of 

these children are too young to know what is occurring and are isolated from their left-behind parent. The left-behind parent has to 

go through a stressful and expensive legal process, and, as we will 

hear today, not always successfully. 

One avenue to pursue in order to combat this issue is to push 

more countries to sign the Hague Convention. This brings those nations into a legal framework in which they can resolve the issue in 

a more effective manner. This, however, is not a panacea, but it is 

a good first step. 

In addition, just signing onto the Hague Convention doesn’t solve 

the issue if the countries don’t adhere to what is in there. I am 

going to implore the State Department to continue to push more 

countries to sign the Hague Convention and continue to work on 

reuniting left-behind parents with their children. 

And, again, I just want to commend the chairman for your tireless work on this issue. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Dr. Bera. 

Mr. BERA. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. I would like to now yield to Mark Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, Ambassador Jacobs, thank you for being back with us. It is good to have you here. 

You expressed your heart the last time that you were here, and I 

think that was evident, because one of the troubling things I think 

for parents—and I met one parent yesterday in the hallway coming 

between the Capitol and back to the offices. 

One of the difficult things for a lot of parents is they see other 

things that the State Department is engaged in, not you, but other 

things that the State Department, as a whole, is engaged in. And 

what they have come to the realization, or at least the belief, is 

that it is not a priority for the State Department to return these 

children. And because of that, it is very difficult, as a dad, because 

6

you empathize with just the thought of not being able to visit or 

see your children, that priority. 

So I am looking forward to hearing from you today on the 

progress we have made since the last hearing where we had a 

chance to hear a little bit from your heart. 

But I want to put it in the context, you know, when we see the 

State Department, when we see five GTMO prisoners being traded 

for a potential deserter, and we see that kind of priority from the 

administration and we don’t see progress here. 

What happens is there is this balance that goes out, and I am 

not trying to be critical of that decision or of your agency. I am just 

saying there is a natural assumption that says, well, if they would 

make the same priority for my son or daughter, I would get to see 

them. 

And so I hope that we hear some of that from you today. I do 

appreciate you coming back and the emphasis that you put on it. 

And I will yield back to the chairman. 

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

I would like to yield to Ms. Walorski, who has been working tenaciously on a case of one of her constituents out of Cyprus. Ms. 

Walorski. 

Ms. WALORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful for your 

efforts and for the help that you have given me and remain grateful. I am grateful I am allowed to come as a non-member. 

The Honorable Ambassador, I actually came to seek your help. 

And I really, in the short amount of time in an opening statement, 

just want to familiarize with a case that I am working on in the 

State of Indiana. I have worked on this for 3 years. The case has 

been active for five. And I know this is small, but forgive me, this 

actually just came from Cyprus. 

These are my constituents. This is Marla Smith-Theocharides, 

and her kids were kidnapped in Cyprus. And there is domestic 

problems in my district in Indiana. This couple was divorced. We 

have been working through every single legal channel there has 

been trying to secure the release of these kids. 

And I literally came here today, and I am grateful to this chairman, I was so thrilled to hear that the Goldman bill passed and 

that there maybe was some help for people in my district, because, 

you know, I look at this, and you have done phenomenal work on 

this. I am here in my role, you know, as a Congresswoman representing these kids and this mother. I am also here as a fellow 

advocate on domestic violence and the things that we have all 

worked on our whole lives. 

But I am appealing to you in the position that I have to say we 

need help. We can’t move the Cypriot Government. We have used 

every law that we can. They are completely ignoring it. They are 

denying any kind of help for this woman and these kids. And it is 

an honor for me to actually just be able to sit here and have engaged in a conversation with you just to try to get your help, because you know what? 

And, you know, my point earlier to you—and, again, for the 

record, is, you know, we are—I am not a believer in domestic violence. I have fought domestic violence my entire life, all over the 

7

globe, not just my district but in places like Eastern Europe and 

Romania where my husband and I were missionaries. 

And back to the chairman’s point, these are American kids. This 

is a mother of two kids who has lost access to these kids, has no 

help whatsoever from the Government that she is trying to comply 

with. We have gone through every channel possible, and there is 

police reports filed of this estranged husband coming back, perpetrating violence on her, there is violence being perpetrated on these 

kids, and they are American citizens. 

And I just would implore you and am grateful to you, so thankful 

that you are here today, thankful that I am allowed the opportunity to make this case, but just wanted to make you aware of it. 

And I am definitely going to follow up, but just asking for your help 

on behalf of these constituents in the State of Indiana. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

I would like to now introduce our distinguished Ambassador, 

Susan Jacobs, currently serving as Special Advisor in the Office of 

Children’s Issues at the State Department. 

Ambassador Jacobs has a long and distinguished career in the 

Foreign Service, in which she served around the world, including 

in Papua New Guinea, where she served as U.S. Ambassador. She 

has also held a number of senior positions with the State Department in Washington, including serving as liaison to both Congress 

and the Department of Homeland Security. 

Ambassador Jacobs, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SUSAN S. JACOBS, SPECIAL 

ADVISOR FOR CHILDREN’S ISSUES, BUREAU OF CONSULAR 

AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you very much. I am going to put on 

my glasses, so I can see. 

Chairman Smith, Acting Ranking Member Bera, and distinguished members of the subcommittee and their guests, thank you 

for the opportunity to address you again regarding international 

parental child abduction, or IPCA, and the implementation of the 

Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act, or ICAPRA. 

I ask that my full written statement be entered into the record. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. 

Ambassador JACOBS. First, I want to say to the families that we 

really feel for you, that your pain is our pain, and we really are 

working very hard to resolve these cases with all the resources that 

we have available. I want you to believe that because it is the 

truth. 

In that regard, ICAPRA represents a joint effort by the Congress 

and the executive branches both to resolve these difficult and painful abduction cases and to prevent their occurrence. 

I would like to speak about the steps that the Department of 

State has taken to implement ICAPRA in the past 7 months. A 

team of over 80 dedicated employees chartered initiatives that built 

on the best practices that we and the parents have developed as 

we work to resolve these cases. The Office of Children’s Issues, 

which acts as the U.S. Central Authority under the Hague AbducVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:46 Jan 13, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\_AGH\032515\93916 SHIRL
8

tion Convention, helped resolve 781 international abduction and access cases last year. 

We continually look for ways to improve the service we provide 

to abducted children and left-behind parents. ICAPRA provided an 

opportunity to improve our procedures and increase our effectiveness. Many of our initiatives are driven by the annual reports, new 

data requirements, for collecting information on all countries. Ours 

is a work in progress, but we have realized improvements in case 

management and data analysis, and after the report is published 

we welcome your feedback. 

We also focus on education and prevention. We regularly train offices about abduction issues, and the Department instructs its diplomatic missions to engage with host governments about the Convention and to promote it through public diplomacy. 

We continue to work with the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security and the Federal Bureau of Investigation on Operation Prevent Departure. I chaired the first interagency working 

group meeting last October, and we are having another meeting in 

April. And we have invited the Department of Defense to join our 

next meeting, so that we can include them in the planning that we 

do on this important issue. We have also met with the U.S. Navy 

Judge Advocate Generals corps and the Director of DOD’s Office of 

Legal Policy to provide an overview of the law and its impact on 

the military community. 

Judicial outreach is an essential part of our strategy to prevent 

and resolve abduction cases. We educate the broader community of 

judges in the United States by providing information directly to 

judges hearing a Convention case, and we have updated and enhanced information on our Web site. There are four U.S. judges 

who serve on the International Hague Network of Judges, and they 

assist domestic and foreign judges to resolve many Convention 

cases. 

In the past year, U.S. officials, including me, have traveled to 

over 25 countries for bilateral discussions on resolving IPCA cases 

and promoting the Hague Abduction Convention. Our diplomatic 

efforts increase the likelihood that our future and current treaty 

partners will meet their responsibilities under the Convention. 

We have begun to identify countries as candidates for bilateral 

arrangements and to evaluate whether non-Convention countries 

have demonstrated patterns of non-compliance as defined by the 

law. Department officials regularly engage with foreign governments of non-Convention countries to encourage those countries to 

become parties to the Convention and to address pending abduction 

and access cases. 

One example is our decade-long effort to secure Japan’s ratification of the Convention, and we are working to improve our relationships with the Japanese Central Authority and the Japanese 

Foreign Ministry, so that we can resolve all outstanding cases. We 

continually advocate for left-behind parents and support Japan’s 

own development of resources for resolving cases. 

The Convention also provides an excellent platform for multilateral diplomacy. In 2014, we hosted a regional symposium on the 

Convention in Jordan and participated in regional meetings sponsored by the Hague Permanent Bureau in Beijing and in Kuala 

9

Lumpur. The Kuala Lumpur conference specifically addressed the 

compatibility of the Hague Abduction Convention with Sharia law 

codes and included presentations from several predominantly Muslim countries. 

We have made maximum use of a few short months to begin implementing ICAPRA’s requirements. We are building on a strong 

foundation of good practices. Your support remains essential to our 

success in maintaining IPCA resolution and prevention as resources in our bilateral relationships and advocating for membership in the Hague Convention. We are committed to achieving our 

shared goals to increase the number of children returned to their 

habitual residence and to create safeguards that will minimize the 

occurrence of international parental child abduction. 

Thank you very much for the opportunity to be with you today, 

and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ambassador Jacobs follows:]

10


93916a-1.eps
11


93916a-2.eps
12


93916a-3.eps
13


93916a-4.eps
14


93916a-5.eps
15


93916a-6.eps
16


93916a-7.eps
17


93916a-8.eps
18

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Madam Ambassador. If I could 

begin, again, in your testimony just a moment ago, you talked 

about how the USCA has assisted in the resolution of 781 abduction and access cases. Can you tell us how many of those cases 

deemed resolved were actually returns? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I do not have that number, but I can get 

it for you. I mean, because resolved cases to us are returns, either 

voluntary or court ordered or the case has been closed either by the 

parents or because the child has aged out and has become a different kind of case for us. It is not that we are forgetting about 

them. 

Mr. SMITH. Oh, no. I ask that because even like an aging out 

issue at 16 for Hague countries, for example, what they tried and 

have done to so many of the abducted parents globally, including 

those whose children were taken to Japan, David Goldman’s case 

was—they were running the clock on that one to try to get Sean 

to 16. It would be, and I would hope the press would take note of 

this, it is wrong to talk about that as resolution without delineating how many of those children came home. Could you—maybe 

someone could——

Ambassador JACOBS. I am going to——

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. Get that to us before the hearing is over? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I can get you that number probably tomorrow or Friday. 

Mr. SMITH. Any chance of getting it now, you know, somebody 

back at headquarters? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I don’t think we have it. I am sorry. I didn’t 

know that you were going to go into the numbers. 

Mr. SMITH. Well, that is all-important, because the headline of 

781 resolved cases does sound very efficacious and very encouraging. But, again, when you talk about aging out or a parent who, 

after a year, hasn’t been in touch with the Department, and he or 

she, the mom or dad, find out that—you know, that they have been 

dropped, we have been very concerned, and we hear from the parents that there is some concern about dropped cases. I want to 

know how many came back. 

Ambassador JACOBS. And I am going to get you that number. 

Mr. SMITH. And none from Japan, as far as you know, right? 

Ambassador JACOBS. As far as I know, there have been none 

from Japan, but there was a court-ordered return just last month. 

Mr. SMITH. You know, on the visitation issues, you point out, and 

properly so, as I mentioned in my opening comments about how 

with Japan, even on the access cases, 31 Convention access applications, none of those have been honored either, and that is—I mean, 

that is outrageous. 

And I sat in that meeting, and the left-behind parents meeting 

with Japanese officials a year ago next week were like the ultimate 

diplomats. I was boiling listening. You know, they were respectful 

on the other side of that table, but it was like, please, you know, 

I have been in this business for too long, 35 years as a Member 

of Congress. Let us talk resolution. And there was talk of endless 

delay. And now, a year later, none of those access cases even have 

occurred. 

19

Ambassador JACOBS. I know that it is frustrating, and we share 

your frustration. And these are issues that we continue to raise 

with the Japanese. We talked to them in September. There was an 

International Visitor Leadership Program in February, and then 

another visit from the Foreign Ministry, and we have raised these 

concerns at every one of those meetings, and we plan to go back 

in June. And I talked to Ambassador Kennedy yesterday, and she 

is energized and she is ready to launch. 

Mr. SMITH. If I could ask you, in terms of the return, if you could 

give us that information for each country.

20

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE SUSAN S. JACOBS TO QUESTION

ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH


93916i-1.eps
21


93916i-2.eps
22

Mr. SMITH. I mean, Japan, India, I mean, it was the NCMEC—

the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children—that said 

the number is 64. Bindu Philips, who will testify, sitting right directly behind you, almost 7 years. 

Matter of fact, she not only has had her children kidnapped, as 

Eamon Blanchard, who is a police office who is with her today, as 

the Plainsboro Police have documented, there has been one violation of her rights, money was taken, all the furniture was cleared 

out, loans—I mean, it was a very high level fraud, in addition to—

I mean, she was broke after this happened by the abducting father. 

And back in India she is being frustrated beyond words. 

And, as you know, and this goes for Japan, it goes for any country, Section 201 makes clear that determination of action by the 

Secretary of State for each abduction or access case related to a 

child whose habitual residence in the U.S. that remains pending or 

is otherwise unresolved on the date that is 12 months after the 

date on which the Central Authority in the U.S. submits such a 

case to a foreign government, the Secretary shall determine whether the government of such foreign country has failed to take appropriate measures and that he is then, as expeditiously as practicable, told, admonished, delineated in law, to take one or more actions described in Section 202, which are the sanctions provisions. 

It seems to me you have a textbook engraved invitation to be serious in implementing this law to say, ‘‘Japan, we could take any 

one of these cases.’’ Paul Toland, he served in Yokohama in the 

Navy, and he is the only surviving parent, not unlike David Goldman, because his wife had passed away. And he, like the others, 

live in agony over the loss of their child. She is I think now 11, 

his little daughter. 

That is a textbook case for us to say, ‘‘Section 201, Japan, we are 

going to use this.’’ Because, again, the access cases should be a 

clear suggestion, if one is needed, that Japan is not living up to the 

letter or the spirit of comments that have been made, as well as 

signatories to the Hague Convention. In their case, they are excluded and not included in its implementation by definition. 

So if you could take back, and maybe respond to it now, could 

you use Section 201 for Bindu Philips or for Paul Toland or any 

of the left-behind parents whose children were abducted to Japan? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Absolutely, because we do it now. We 

don’t—we have not waited for that year to run. We raise these 

cases constantly, especially with the countries that you have 

named, in an effort to resolve the cases. 

Mr. SMITH. Can I respectfully——

Ambassador JACOBS. Can I tell you that I share your frustration. 


93916i-3.eps
23

Mr. SMITH. Good. Thank you. Can I just say, and I really believe 

there needs to be a look at—I mean, there are a number of tools 

in the toolbox in terms of sanctions. Look at the sanctions that will 

have bite. I mean, a demarche is a good shot across the bow, but 

that is all it is, and you have done that with Brazil, for example, 

but I think the next step has to be, okay, you have not resolved 

these cases, and you tweeted back in 2011 how you have put together a working group in Brazil. Is there any fruit to that effort? 

Are people coming home? Children? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Let me express my frustration with our 

progress with Brazil. I have made six visits to Brazil, and we have 

had one return, and it isn’t enough. But we have had a breakthrough, and I have been invited to go back and to meet with 

judges to express our frustration, because in Brazil that is where 

the problem is. And we have had—we have invited judges up here, 

we had 10 judges here in September, we are putting together another program for judges, and we are looking at every way we 

can—the Ambassador is very engaged. 

We are trying to work with the Brazil Central Authority, a very 

responsive organization, to get the judges to implement the Convention the way it is written. 

Mr. SMITH. When Secretary Kerry testified on February 25 before our full committee, I asked him specifically about the meeting 

with Prime Minister Modi by both himself in January, and of 

course the President of the United States, Barack Obama. 

And I asked whether or not child abduction cases had been 

raised, and I am not sure he answered it. And I have deep respect 

for the Secretary, but he said, ‘‘Any time that I visit either home 

or go somewhere we meet at high levels, we raise these issues by 

name.’’ I am not sure he raised Bindu’s case or any of these cases, 

but my question to you is, it would be nice to have clarification on 

that. 

But in our newfound relationship with the Modi government, is 

this an issue at the top, along with other issues at the top? I mean, 

if we can’t speak out for abducted children, American children, who 

will? 

Ambassador JACOBS. It is an issue at the top, and let me assure 

you that——

Mr. SMITH. Did President Obama raise it? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I don’t know, because——

Mr. SMITH. Can you get back to us on that for the record?

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE SUSAN S. JACOBS TO QUESTION

ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH

Given the high volume of international parental child abduction cases from the 

United States to India, the Department of State continues to employ a full range 

of diplomatic tools to improve cooperation on resolving these cases. We continually 

work with the Government of India to identify new avenues of cooperation and to 

request assistance in resolving all cases at all appropriate levels and opportunities. 

We refer you to the White House for questions about the President’s meeting with 

Prime Minister Modi.

Ambassador JACOBS. I am going to be really honest with you. I 

don’t know if that information will be given to me. But what I can 

assure you of——

Mr. SMITH. Is that secret? 

24

Ambassador JACOBS [continuing]. Is that when we learn that 

high level people, including the Secretary and the Under Secretaries, are traveling to countries where we have problems with abduction cases, we put something into their briefing book, so that 

they will raise this issue. This is——

Mr. SMITH. And I deeply appreciate that, but the question is, is 

it delivered or is it on page 5 of what they—and they never get to 

it? 

Ambassador JACOBS. It is——

Mr. SMITH. I mean, we found that with David Goldman at first. 

It was—you know, we had—there was pickets out in front of the 

White House to try to get a focus when Lula, the President of 

Brazil, was coming, and finally at long last it was raised. We are 

not sure if it was an afterthought or a real—I mean, foreign leaders, as we all know, look our foreign leader in the eyes and say, 

‘‘Is this of high importance, or are you just putting a little check 

in the box?’’

And I would hope—there is nothing secretive as to whether or 

not the meeting with Prime Minister Modi—and this would go for 

the Prime Minister of Japan and any other meeting—this has to 

be front and center, and now sanctions ought to be utilized. 

If we use sanctions—and I made this point when I did the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, if you don’t use the sanctions, this 

becomes an unimplemented law and a toothless piece of legislation. 

They have to know it is a priority, and the meting out of sanctions—and I mean real sanctions, would immediately cause them 

to wake up and you will have tremendous successes on your hands 

with children brought home. 

Ambassador JACOBS. If I might, I can tell you that I have already 

had some successes in just the threat of sanctions invoking this 

law. In recent meetings in Guatemala and Honduras, where we 

have had very little success on abduction cases, we got their attention and now there is going to be far better cooperation. 

Mr. SMITH. That is encouraging, but those are very small countries that can be more easily persuaded, to use a diplomatic term. 

‘‘Intimidated’’ might be a better word. 

Ambassador JACOBS. No. 

Mr. SMITH. But the big countries, the big countries—Japan, 

India—this has to be far more——

Ambassador JACOBS. Absolutely. They have—I am planning to go 

to India in May, to Japan in June, and to talk about the report. 

The Indians don’t want to be cited, and I do think that public 

shaming is a very good thing for countries that are not doing the 

right thing. 

Mr. SMITH. Can we expect India will be on the non-cooperation 

list? 

Ambassador JACOBS. We haven’t put together the list, but I don’t 

think you will be disappointed. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Also in your testimony you say, ‘‘As we execute 

the new requirement, to inform Members of Congress directly of 

new IPCA cases,’’ let me just say the language is clear that all 

cases should be informed. Is there are more narrow reading of the 

text? 

25

I mean, a new case—I mean, all of the old Japanese cases, some 

of them are 10 years old, it would seem to me—and I have asked 

many Members of Congress, is there anybody in your district that 

you know of? And one after the other, it is a blank stare. ‘‘No, nobody has contacted me.’’ Are you informing all people that their 

Congressman and two Senators could be tremendous advocates for 

the return of their children, or access, or both? 

Ambassador JACOBS. In April, we will begin the notification process to Members of Congress. We have had to work through other 

laws to make sure that we are doing the right thing, and we will 

begin doing that in April. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Ambassador JACOBS. And thank you for that question. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. And it will include old and new cases. 

Ambassador JACOBS. It will include——

Mr. SMITH. Not just since——

Ambassador JACOBS [continuing]. All the cases for which we have 

permission to give them information. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. That is good. So strike that ‘‘new’’ word in 

the—Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. As usual, this is an 

issue that you have championed for many years. I will share with 

my other colleague there, I remember years ago watching the case 

in Brazil, long before I ever knew I would be coming to Congress, 

and then I get to sit next to the person that championed it, so—

along with your leadership for many years. 

I just have a couple of questions. I wanted to know if you could 

describe how our Government is engaging in efforts to prevent 

these abductions from taking place in the first place, and how our 

Government measures the effectiveness of programs to prevent the 

abductions. And then, what actions has the State Department 

taken to encourage mediation as an option for returning children? 

Especially to return children from countries that are not Hague 

Convention participants. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you so much for those questions. We 

have a number of programs to protect children from abduction, 

some of them of longer standing than others. All of them are really 

a part of the Operation Prevent Depart. So we have for children 

under the age of 16 a two-parent consent rule, which means both 

parents have to give their permission for a child to be issued a 

passport. 

And we also have a Passport Alert Program where a parent who 

feels their child will be abducted can notify us, and we will put an 

alert in the system so that a passport will not be issued unless the 

parent who put the hold in is notified. And it is hard to know what 

the success rate is, but it is a deterrent and it works. 

We also work very closely with Customs and Border Protection 

to prevent departures from the United States. We also have the 

prevention working group that I chair with members from Justice, 

Homeland Security, it will include Defense now, and the Federal 

Bureau of Investigation, and we work on new programs. 

This is mandated by the law. It is something that we had started 

doing before, and we do work very closely with law enforcement. 

26

And I think it is effective. As you know, it is easier to prevent the 

abduction than it is to get a child back. 

Ms. BASS. Right. 

Ambassador JACOBS. And so we need to do everything that we 

can, and we look forward to working with you all on strategies that 

will prevent children from being abducted. I mean, that is the big 

thing that we can do. 

Ms. BASS. And I am wondering if some of the procedures that 

you are describing are new. I have to tell you, while you were describing the thing about the passports, there is all of these heads 

behind you shaking no. And so I don’t know if that is a new procedure. 

Ambassador JACOBS. The two-parent consent rule was instituted 

in 2008. 

Ms. BASS. I see. That is relatively new. 

Ambassador JACOBS. It is new, and it is something that we encourage other countries to do. 

Ms. BASS. Have you ever had a situation where you were able 

to—you know, one of the problems with prevention is that it is 

hard to document something that didn’t happen, right? But I am 

wondering if you ever had a situation where you were able to literally stop it versus—do you understand what I am——

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes. Absolutely. In a couple of—we have—

we are fortunate enough to be able to use passport agencies, especially in California, to place prevention officers, so that—and we 

also have officers in Europe. So we have almost 24-hour coverage 

where parents can report an abduction in progress, and last year 

we stopped one in San Francisco. 

Ms. BASS. Oh. While they were trying to board——

Ambassador JACOBS. While they were trying to get into Canada. 

They were trying to get on a plane to get into Canada. 

And I am sure you all read about the case at Dulles where a 

mother was trying to take her child to China, and they turned the 

United Airlines flight around. 

Ms. BASS. No. When was that? 

Ambassador JACOBS. The father—I am sure the other passengers 

were annoyed, but we thought it was a great success. 

Ms. BASS. When did that happen? 

Ambassador JACOBS. It happened last fall sometime. 

Ms. BASS. Wow. Okay. 

I yield back, Mr. Chair. 

Ambassador JACOBS. And you asked about mediation. 

Ms. BASS. I did. 

Ambassador JACOBS. We participate in a mediation working 

group that consists of Sharia law countries and non-Sharia law 

countries, and mediation does work, and it is something that we 

suggest to parents. I don’t think it is a substitute for the legal recourse that is available in the Hague Convention, but it is something that parents should try if they think it will work. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Ms. Bass. 

Mr. Meadows. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Thank you, Ambassador, for being back with us. 

And as I go into this, I want to ask just a couple of questions as 

a follow up of some of the other things that have been mentioned. 

27

And I guess for me, when we talk about open cases, and we talk 

about the breadth of this problem, is it growing, or is that number 

going down? 

Ambassador JACOBS. It is about the same. Now, you have to remember, though, that it is all self-reporting. If somebody doesn’t 

notify us about a case, then we are not going to——

Mr. MEADOWS. You can’t know about it if you are not——

Ambassador JACOBS [continuing]. We can’t——

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. Notified. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Right. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But what you are saying is that we have the 

same number of open cases. It has been flat. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I can get you real numbers. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Which I guess—well, let me ask the logic. If it is 

staying flat, and what is that number? I mean, about what are we 

talking about, how many? 

Ambassador JACOBS. It is about 1,000 cases that are open. 

Mr. MEADOWS. So if we have about 1,000 cases, and as the chairman was talking about, some of those are aging out and being 

closed, so we have new ones coming in and I guess the same number going out, that is not necessarily a direct result of successes 

within your department. Is that—I mean, what percentage I guess 

is your actions versus just they are growing old or they are closing 

the case or they worked it out on their own? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I would argue that a lot of it is due to our 

actions. I think that membership in the Hague Convention, even 

while it is slow and often frustrating, does provide a legal framework and a way to work with countries, both bilaterally and multilaterally, to get their attention and to get them to enforce the Convention. 

In a lot of countries, like Brazil, we do work with other countries 

to present the same message to the Brazilians that we are giving 

them, and that becomes a strong message. I think laws like 

ICAPRA also help us, and they are—kidnapping is a crime in the 

United States, and I think people often look to a civil remedy rather than a criminal remedy, so that if a taking parent is found out 

of compliance with the law and the child is returned, they would 

still be able to visit their child in the United States under some circumstances. 

So I think that it is a combination of a lot of things, but I think 

that the Hague Convention remains our best tool for helping to ensure the return of abducted children. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So we have some tools. We have the law 

that the chairman has referred to, we have, you know, a department that is committed to this particular issue, we have a number 

of tools that are out there. I am sure you will get to hear from Ms. 

Walorski here in just a few minutes. How do we, as Members of 

Congress, come alongside you to make this a priority? 

Because I am very sensitive to the fact that you have got a difficult job at the State Department, and there are a number of moving parts. And I try to stay out of that as much as I can, even 

though it is a passion. But does it require a few Members of Congress getting on the plane and going down? I mean, would that be 

28

helpful? Or the next trip that you have that we come in and we 

show that it is a priority more than we have. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I think it would be great if when you all 

travel that this is one of the points that you raise with foreign legislators and others that you meet. I think it is an incredibly important issue, and we want to be your partner in resolving these cases. 

So I would welcome that. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But I will say the other side of that, though, Ambassador, is this, that if we had these tools and we never plan to 

use them, then the threats, or their persuasive power you might 

say, becomes a lot less because what happens—a lot of these countries don’t believe that we ever plan to sanction them. They don’t 

believe that we are ever going to cut off foreign aid. They don’t believe that it is really a priority. 

And let me go a little bit further, because one of the concerns I 

have is that when I talk to people in the State Department, regional, bureau, Assistant Secretaries, and people with regional—

they don’t even know that the problem exists, you know, or so they 

claim. So I would love you to respond to that. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Well, if they don’t, then that is a failing on 

our part, because we have certainly done our best to educate them 

about the importance of this issue. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. So do you meet with them regularly and 

give them a list of priorities in terms of people—you know, children 

that have been abducted? Do you have regular meetings with the 

different regional Assistant Secretaries? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I certainly meet with them as necessary. 

And when there are cases that need to be resolved, I pick up the 

phone and I call them. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Yes. But if you are not doing that as a part of 

your regular—here is what happens is you pick up the phone, and 

it becomes a priority for that day. And if you are not coming back, 

just like with you getting prepared for this hearing, the fact that 

you are coming back, I assume that you did a little bit of prep. I 

mean, I may be surprised, but it is the same kind of thing with the 

Assistant Secretaries. 

And what I am hearing is is, you know, from a—whether it is 

the Asia Bureau, or wherever it may be, is they are not hearing 

the priority. And so do we have your commitment that you are willing to start scheduling those meetings in those troubled areas? I 

am not talking about all over the world, but we know where the 

biggest source of the problem is. And if you would have those regular meetings where they say, ‘‘Well, gosh, here comes Ambassador 

Jacobs again. You know, we have got to get some’’—it makes it a 

priority. Are you willing to do that? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I certainly am, and we actually have a 

meeting scheduled with the Western Hemisphere countries on 

April 22. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Okay. Then——

Ambassador JACOBS. But let me—can I just add one more? 

Mr. MEADOWS. Certainly. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Our country——

Mr. MEADOWS. We are looking for solutions, so you add whatever 

you can add. 

29

Ambassador JACOBS. Our country officers in Children’s Issues 

speak with their counterparts on the desk, the regional desk officers, every day. So they know, and this message gets carried up. 

And our Assistant Secretary, our Acting Assistant Secretary, 

speaks out at the meetings that she goes to with the Secretary. So 

this is an issue that everyone is aware of. When we know that the 

Secretary is traveling, we get a point into his briefing book on that 

country. 

Mr. MEADOWS. But having an awareness—and I am following 

your words—having an awareness and making it a priority are two 

different things. I mean, I have an awareness that my feet hurt, 

but until I do something about it, you know, I mean, and that—

and I don’t want to continue to press you on this. And I am——

Ambassador JACOBS. Okay. 

Mr. MEADOWS [continuing]. Trying to take off my oversight and 

be kind and compassionate about this, because I do know your 

heart. But I guess what I am saying is, I don’t want to have another hearing a year from now and us to have a flatline in terms 

of the number of cases. 

Ambassador JACOBS. And I appreciate that. But let me assure 

you that for the Secretary, having been a Senator, he knows how 

important this issue is, as did Secretary Clinton who had also been 

a Senator. And, you know, they truly care about this issue. And so 

the Secretary has made it a priority to resolve cases everywhere 

around the world. 

Mr. MEADOWS. All right. I have——

Ambassador JACOBS. And I promise you that we will hold those 

meetings, and we will do it regularly. 

Mr. MEADOWS. And if you can just give us maybe every 6 

months——

Ambassador JACOBS. I will give you the highlights. 

Mr. MEADOWS. Well, if you will just give us a report of who you 

have met with and the highlights, that will help us figure out if 

we need to get other Members of Congress to follow up on it. But 

thank you so much. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Absolutely. 

Mr. MEADOWS. I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

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

Ms. Walorski. 

Ms. WALORSKI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again. 

Ambassador Jacobs, Marla, Katerina, and Marcus, again, these 

are my constituents. They are in a desperate situation, and I am 

here again on behalf of them, and in my role as well, is basically 

to ask you in your position—and, yes, I know you have done great 

work, and I know that there is, like you have said, 1,000 cases 

open. These two happen to be my responsibility. 

So what is the State Department’s overall strategy in Cyprus? Is 

this a trend? Do you see more of this happening? Are my two constituents and three constituents the only people trapped in this 

whole kidnapped children, desperate situation, violence in another 

country? What is the overall situation in Cyprus that you know of? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I don’t know of any case other than yours, 

but I will certainly check. I know that our counsel there, Steve 

Royster, has been very active on your behalf and on behalf of the 

30

children, and we will continue this pressure. And, as I told you 

when we met before the hearing, I will go to Cyprus. My daughter 

was born there, so I have a special affinity for Cyprus. And I will 

also meet with the Cypriot Ambassador here and impress upon him 

the necessity to resolve this case for Mrs. Theocharides. 

Ms. WALORSKI. I really appreciate it. I am grateful, and they are 

grateful, and I am sure the families are watching today. 

And I know that, again, when it comes to how helpless these 

families feel, and for all the families that are in this audience 

today, about how helpless we all feel when—these are American 

citizens. We would not tolerate this kind of violence in our country. 

And when things become desperate like this, I am just grateful. 

And I will tell you that Ambassador Steve Royster, although I 

have never met him, has taken my call in the middle of the night 

many times. I look forward to meeting him. He has been an incredible help. The State Department overall has been helpful, but it 

just seems like it has just been nothing—in dealing with the Cypriot Government, one roadblock after another after another after 

another. 

So in your position of authority, and based on what we are talking here today, with this issue of being able to sanction, I mean, 

I look at that as an open door that we really have not had before. 

So I appreciate it. 

And I just have one other question. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes, ma’am. 

Ms. WALORSKI. I have another issue that I just want to bring up 

quickly. It is the Democratic Republic of the Congo. On these issues 

where the President suspended the adoptions, I have got also adoptive parents in my district that have a heart of gold that have 

adopted these children. They legally went through. They are 

trapped in the nation. They have shut it down. I have dealt with 

that with Romania before. 

What is the status right now? Is it a Presidential issue? Are you 

working on it? Where are we on this, on the issue of the Congo? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I can’t tell you how frustrating this issue is 

for me. I went to Congo in December to talk to them about this. 

They promised that there would be an interministerial meeting 

that would make me very happy. The government changed 2 days 

later. The meeting never happened, and I am still really unhappy. 

Our Acting Assistant Secretary was there last week. They promised the same thing and nothing has happened. We are reassessing 

what we do. We have bent over backwards to meet some of their 

demands to show them how loving families can make such a huge 

difference in the lives of children that are living under terrible conditions in foster homes and orphanages in the Democratic Republic 

of the Congo, and we are not getting a lot of traction. 

And we have allies in all of the other countries that are seeking 

to help children find permanency. We are hoping that they will attend the Special Commission meeting in the Hague in June, so that 

they can hear from all of us together in person, that adoption can 

be a great thing for a child, and especially for children who are unable to find permanency and a loving family in their own country. 

Ms. WALORSKI. Well, I will just echo—because I have had firsthand experience in the nation of Romania when we were there and 

31

there was a moratorium on adoptions. And I think it is an outrage 

when there are willing parents, and I think it is an outrage as a 

Government to use children as political pawns and tools. We see 

it all over the world for all kinds of different things, but I just 

would echo I guess your frustration as well. 

If there anything—and to my colleague, Mr. Meadows, if there is 

anything we can do as Members of Congress to put additional pressure on these nations to be able to comply and to not use these kids 

a political pawns, you know, they sell them multiple times, they 

never release them, they suspend them, there is so much gimmickry that goes on, I would just appreciate, if there is anything 

else that we could do to assist you, I would welcome it and definitely be an advocate. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Thank you. 

Ms. WALORSKI. Thank you very much. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Ms. Walorski. 

Just a few final questions. What is the number right now of open 

abduction cases, and how many children are we talking about as 

of today’s date? 

Ambassador JACOBS. You are going to be angry with me, but I 

don’t have the number. I am going to get it to you as quickly as 

I can. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Could anybody behind you maybe get that 

from headquarters, too? 

Ambassador JACOBS. We will get it for you. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. You know, again, Jeffery Morehouse, in his 

testimony, and I do hope if you can’t stay to hear it you will take 

it and read it, as well as that of our other distinguished witnesses, 

but he goes through specific cases, including Henrik Teton, who—

a request for interim access to his children under the Hague was 

ignored by the court and goes—I mean, the obstacles that are 

placed in front of these parents are almost insurmountable unless 

our Government establishes, in my opinion, an MOU to finally, at 

long last, have a mechanism that works, that is predictable, that 

is effective, and does not bankrupt the left-behind parent, which 

many of these offending parents know will happen over time because they just can’t—they have run out of money, and their hearts 

are so broken that they collapse with exhaustion. 

Are MOUs being considered? And I have been pushing this. You 

know I went to Japan with Michael Elias’ mother, so I went with 

the grandmother of the two children, Jade and Michael, who have 

been abducted. And the whole pushback was no MOU, no MOU. 

You and others have suggested that this wouldn’t be helpful. 

We now know that there has been no relief for these parents and 

these children. These are American children, and it seems to me 

that a mechanism that could be invoked to expeditiously bring 

those kids back is—and that goes for India, a non-Hague country. 

If they sign the Hague anytime soon, we will be right in that same 

boat, and Bindu Philips will see 7 years become 8 years become 9 

years become 10 years. 

And, again, I strongly ask you, take her case. Meet with her, 

please. But take her case and use that to invoke Section 201. You 

only need one case, and you only need one case from the folks who 

32

have had their kids abducted to Japan. And then implement the 

sanctions. Until we do sanctions, I do believe, respectfully, they will 

think this is a paper tiger and we are just going through the motions rather than being serious about this. 

And, again, security aid can be sanctioned. While Japan doesn’t 

get a dime, I am sure, of foreign aid because they are a very, very 

mature democracy, and they are a donor of foreign aid to refugee 

causes, another very, very laudable commitment by Japan, but 

they do rely on a security—and, as we know, we have had witnesses here—and, of course, Paul Toland, he had shinken invoked 

against him—and I do hope there is something we are doing to say. 

The sole rights over the child, and in this case Paul’s child, his 

daughter, is in the hands of a grandmother. There is no mother. 

She has passed, sadly, but she has passed. And Paul still now, a 

decade later, has not been able to get his daughter back. 

And I just want to add one other thing. You know, Patrick 

Braden is here. I joined him at Melissa’s birthday party; I believe 

she was four at the time. We couldn’t even get in to see the Japanese leadership or Embassy people at that time. Now that is, what, 

6 years ago. Every one of these wonderful mothers and dads that 

I meet and you meet, they have put through an agonizing process. 

So an MOU and a prioritization, sanctions, and say, ‘‘Look, we are 

not kidding.’’

The Goldman Act—and I don’t call it the acronym you do—it is 

the Goldman Act. You know, once there is more than four letters, 

I usually think, whether it is ‘‘wah-vah’’ or something else after 

that, it is better to go with Goldman Act. It just seems to me that 

the time has come. 

And if we invoke sanctions, name the name, you know, put them 

on the non-compliance, and all three of those countries—Brazil, 

India, and Japan, and there are others—certainly fit the bill for 

that. It is easy to sanction Honduras, frankly. But the countries 

where there is a superpower status, as we have with India and 

Japan, I mean these are very strong countries. That is when you 

say, ‘‘We speak truth to power.’’

And I implore you to do this. And I hope the report will clearly 

name them as offending countries, non-compliant countries, but 

then take that next step with sanctions, and then get the MOUs 

established, please. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Can I tell you that we have 917 open cases 

as of March 17, 2015. 

Mr. SMITH. And that is open abduction cases? 

Ambassador JACOBS. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Abduction and access. Sorry. 

Mr. SMITH. Have you gotten word back perhaps on how many of 

the cases cited in your testimony were resolved with a return? I 

mean, just so members here and the press and all, because, again, 

it sounds like a much better number than it is. 

Ambassador JACOBS. We had 260 returns in 2014. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. So about a third, approximately, of the cases 

were returned. The rest were not. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Right. But they might have been access. I 

don’t have the numbers on the access. 

33

Mr. SMITH. And none from Japan? 

Ambassador JACOBS. No. None from Japan. 

Mr. SMITH. And India? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I don’t think so. 

Mr. SMITH. And Brazil? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I know there were none from Brazil. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Ambassador JACOBS. Let me——

Mr. SMITH. And the numbers, how many children are we talking 

about with abductions? 

Ambassador JACOBS. I do not have that. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Please get back to us as soon as you can. 

Ambassador JACOBS. I will.

34

WRITTEN RESPONSE RECEIVED FROM THE HONORABLE SUSAN S. JACOBS TO QUESTION

ASKED DURING THE HEARING BY THE HONORABLE CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH


93916j-1.eps
35


93916j-2.eps
36

Ambassador JACOBS. But let me assure you that we will do everything we can to resolve all the cases, to help every left-behind 

parent. You have my commitment. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Anybody else have anything to add? No. 

Thank you, Ambassador. Appreciate it. And, again, as you leave, 

I just again will say for the third time, please establish those 

MOUs. The mechanism doesn’t exist to——


93916j-3.eps
37

Ambassador JACOBS. We intend to approach those governments 

to do that. But remember that they have to be willing to negotiate 

with us. We need willing partners. 

Mr. SMITH. Again, I think that is where the sanctions will sharpen the mind and they will say——

Ambassador JACOBS. I hope so. 

Mr. SMITH [continuing]. ‘‘Hmm, the Americans mean business.’’ 

I remember when we did the trafficking bill. It took 3 years to get 

the Trafficking Victims Protection Act enacted into law in 2000, 

and it took 5 years to get the Goldman Act enacted into law. 

I will never forget meeting with members of the Russian Duma, 

and when we told them and showed them the sanctions provisions, 

one of the members who has been outspoken on combatting human 

trafficking in Moscow said, ‘‘Oh, you guys do mean business. And 

will you implement it, though?’’ And I said, ‘‘That remains to be 

seen. It is an executive branch function.’’

But my plea to you is to use the tools in the toolbox, and we will 

get children back, and the custody will be decided at the place of 

habitual residence. 

Ambassador JACOBS. We will implement this law. You have my 

commitment. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you so much. 

Okay. I would like to now welcome our second panel, if I could, 

beginning first with Ms. Bindu Philips, mother of abducted children to India, Albert and Alfred, twin boys, who are United States 

citizens and were born in New Jersey in 2000. Albert and Alfred 

lived in New Jersey, just outside of my district, prior to their abduction to India by their father, who took the family to India on 

the pretext of a family vacation. 

In spite of being granted custody of the children in the U.S. by 

the Superior Court of New Jersey in 2009, Ms. Philips is unable 

to see or communicate with her children. She has been seeking justice in the U.S. and in India, to be reunited with her precious children, for the last almost 7 years. 

We will then hear from Mr. Jeffery Morehouse, who is the sole 

custodial parent in both the U.S. and Japan of his son, who remains kidnapped in Japan. He volunteers much of his time as Executive Director of Bring Abducted Children Home, which is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the immediate return of internationally abducted children being wrongfully detained in Japan. 

Through BAC Home, he works to increase public awareness 

through outreach in the general community, on the crisis of international parental child abduction, and he believes it is important 

for parents of internationally kidnapped children to strategically 

engage in raising the level of awareness of this human and family 

rights crisis. 

We will then hear from Devon Davenport, who is a research scientist from a biopharmaceutical company in North Carolina. But, 

most importantly, he is a left-behind father of Nadia Lynn, who 

was abducted to Brazil by her mother in February 2009. He filed 

a Hague return application immediately, which he won, and which 

has withstood appeals in court. But 6 years later, Nadia is still in 

Brazil. 

38

Although the special appeal at the Superior Court was finally rejected earlier this month, the taking parent continues to use delay 

tactics in order to prevent the inevitable return of Nadia back to 

the United States. 

And then we will hear from Mr. Scott Sawyer, who is a father 

of a child kidnapped to Japan in December 2008. In 2009, he became an officer of the parents organization Global Future, which 

has successfully, safely, and legally brought five kidnapped children back to their lawful homes in the U.S., as well as assisted in 

kidnapping prevention. 

Ms. Philips, if you could——

Mr. MEADOWS. Mr. Chairman, if you don’t mind, I just—just 

briefly, I would just like to say to each of you thank you for being 

here. And I want to apologize ahead of time; I have got to step out 

for another meeting. It is nothing personal. I will be here just for 

a few minutes. I do have staff here who will be monitoring it, taking notes, but I didn’t want you to think that it was out of a lack 

of empathy or concern. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Philips. 

STATEMENT OF MS. BINDU PHILIPS (MOTHER OF ABDUCTED 

CHILDREN TO INDIA) 

Ms. PHILIPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the committee. It is my honor and privilege to testify before 

you today, and I thank you for your time to hear of my plight. 

My name is Bindu Philips, and it is my ardent hope that my 

story will capture your attention today. While I have held many 

roles in life, none has been more meaningful to me than that of 

motherhood. Fourteen years ago, I was blessed to be the mother of 

twin boys, my precious children, Albert Philip Jacob and Alfred 

William Jacob. 

When my children were born, my ex-husband, Sunil Jacob, and 

I made a joint decision that I would stay home with them and be 

their primary caretaker. I was an active and loving mother in every 

aspect of our children’s lives. My children came first in everything 

I did and in every decision I made. 

Tragically, my world, and that of my innocent children, was violently disrupted by my ex-husband, Sunil Jacob, in December 2008 

when he orchestrated the kidnapping of the children during a vacation to India. I would note that the children, my ex-husband, and 

I are American citizens, and the children were born in America, 

which is the only nation they identified with as home. 

Sunil Jacob worked in the financial industry and was terminated 

by his employer, Citi Group, late in 2008. My ex-husband pressed 

me to agree to a family vacation to India during the children’s winter break. My ex-husband was both physically and emotionally abusive to me, and I feared the consequences of refusing him. I had 

seen the return tickets dated January 12, 2009, and I had every 

reason to believe that we would be home in a few weeks to resume 

our life back in the United States. Had I known what would follow, 

I would have never boarded that flight to India. 

On reaching India, I was not only physically and emotionally 

abused by my ex-husband, but also by his parents. I was, finally, 

39

very cruelly separated from my children with no means to communicate with them. 

I could not bear the separation of my children, and on learning 

that my children were admitted to a local school in India I approached the principal requesting that I be allowed to see my children, and I was granted permission. As soon as my husband 

learned about this, he transferred them to anther school and gave 

the school strict orders that the mother or any material relatives 

should not be allowed to see or communicate with the children. 

Unable to communicate with the children, I ultimately returned 

to the United States 4 months later on April 9, 2009. I literally 

came home to an empty house. Our residence in Plainsboro was devoid of all furniture and possessions and both the cars were gone 

from the garage. While in India, my ex-husband had three of his 

friends strip the entire house of everything inside. They took everything, leaving me with not even a single photograph of my children. 

He had not paid the mortgage on the Plainsboro home, nor the 

utilities, or the equity line of credit, which he had transferred to 

India, and left me with this additional financial burden. 

Heartbroken and impoverished, I had to start from nothing and 

survived initially on the graciousness of good people. My neighbors 

allowed me to move in with them briefly, and a local church provided me a car. Shortly thereafter, I found employment, secured an 

apartment, and purchased a car of my own. 

Over the last 6 years, I continue to uncover information that 

shows how deceptive my ex-husband, Sunil Jacob, is. The investigation reports from the Plainsboro Police show that he had 

planned the move to India as early as March 2008. He had communicated his intentions to the principal of the children’s elementary 

school, without my knowledge. 

In November 2008, 1 month before the trip to India, Sunil Jacob 

obtained an Indian visa for him and the children, known as OCI, 

Overseas Citizen of India, that would allow him and the children 

to stay for an extended period of time in India, since the children 

are American citizens, and without an OCI visa they can stay in 

India only for 6 months. 

An Indian OCI visa is granted to minor children only after the 

approval of both parents. Sunil Jacob obtained the visas by fraudulent means, as I have not signed on any OCI application for my 

children. Sunil Jacob, an American citizen, deceptively abducted 

my American citizen children and is staying in India, out of my 

reach, and that of the Hague Convention, indefinitely. Please note, 

India does not honor dual citizenship. 

I also came to know that he has remarried. In 2013, Sunil Jacob’s family member confirmed with the Plainsboro Police that the 

separation of the children from me was planned well in advance. 

Frustrated, but determined, on May 14, 2009, I filed a petition 

with the Superior Court of New Jersey for the custody of our children. Sunil Jacob tried to delay the matter by arguing that the 

U.S. did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, but the American 

courts, both the Superior Court and the appellate levels, have held 

that the jurisdiction was indeed proper with the Superior Court 

family part. 

40

My ex-husband was in contempt of the court order granting me 

parenting time over the children’s winter break, although he participated in this hearing over the phone. The flight information was 

conveyed to Sunil Jacob. The Honorable Superior Court of New Jersey granted me residential and legal custody of the children in December 2009. The U.S. court order was served to Sunil Jacob by 

the U.S. Court and the Ministry of Law and Justice, New Delhi, 

India. 

The Plainsboro Police and the FBI have issued arrest warrants 

against Sunil Jacob. Please note, in 2007, while Sunil Jacob was 

working at Citi Group, he was involved in an unknown incident at 

his office that resulted in an FBI inquiry on him. His colleague told 

me when I returned that he had an affair with an Indian woman 

at his office. 

Despite having kidnapped our children, Sunil Jacob filed for custody of the children in the Indian courts after the U.S. child custody was filed. The case is currently pending at the Honorable Supreme Court of India. 

In addition to wrongfully keeping the children from me, Sunil 

Jacob has thwarted every effort I have made to speak to our children and let them know I love them. Beyond kidnapping, Sunil 

Jacob continues to file false cases against members of my family 

and me in India and is brainwashing and alienating the children 

from their own mother. He believes that if his campaign for harassment becomes too much for me to bear, we will back away from the 

quest for me to regain custody of our children. He must learn that 

this will not happen. He must be held accountable for his reprehensive actions. 

My children have lost 6 years of their mother’s love and care, 

and I have lost 6 years of my children’s childhood that neither of 

us will ever get back. 

Every day I awaken with the heart-wrenching reality that I am 

separated from my children that I love more than anything in this 

world. I have done everything I can think of to do in this nightmarish situation, and I will never give up on my children. Yet I am 

here because I can no longer fight the good fight on my own. I respectfully request that you, the Members of the Congress, help me 

to make my voice heard in a way that shall be meaningful and 

allow me to be reunited with my children who need the love and 

nurturing of their mother. 

Please help me put an end to the nightmare that Sunil Jacob has 

created for my family. Please help my precious children and me. I 

do not want to know, and cannot imagine, a meaningful life without them. Please act not just on the benefit of two innocent children and their broken-hearted mother. Please think of all of the 

other children and parents caught in similar nightmarish situations due to the hostile-minded parents who abduct children to 

overseas nations. 

I am very thankful to Congressman Chris Smith and his staff for 

working so hard and passing the Sean and David Goldman International Child Abduction Prevention and Return Act of 2014. I 

thank Congressman Chris Smith for being a champion for the 

noble cause of reuniting the children and their left-behind parents 

41

and for being an angel to our children and to us, the left-behind 

parents. 

The Goldman Act was signed into law by President Obama on 

August 8, 2014. Goldman Act instructs the State Department to 

take serious action when the case is pending for over a year, and 

my case has been pending for over 6 years, and I am waiting for 

the State Department to reunite me with my precious children. The 

State Department can also apply Section 201, which is high level 

diplomacy and extradition of my children on my case now, and I 

am hoping and trusting that they will do so without any further 

delay. 

I request the State Department and the Office of Children’s 

Issues to take speedy action, and to please implement the law as 

soon as possible and put a smile back on the faces of our children 

and us, the left-behind parents. 

Thank you from the bottom of my heart for accepting my humble 

request during your otherwise pressing schedules. Thank you so 

much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Philips follows:]

42


93916c-1.eps
43


93916c-2.eps
44


93916c-3.eps
45


93916c-4.eps
46


93916c-5.eps
47

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

your example, which encourages all of us to do more. 

Mr. Morehouse, you are recognized. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JEFFERY MOREHOUSE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BAC HOME (FATHER OF ABDUCTED CHILD TO 

JAPAN) 

Mr. MOREHOUSE. Thank you to the chairman and the committee 

for inviting me here today. I will be summarizing my written testimony for you. 

There have been 400 cases of U.S. children kidnapped to Japan 

since 1994. The Japanese Government has returned zero children. 

On behalf of the 71 kidnapped children listed on the BAC Home 

Web site, who have been rendered voiceless by their abductors, for 

my fellow parents of internationally kidnapped children who feel 

marginalized by the lack of active, engaged, transparent assistance 

from the Office of Children’s Issues in recovering their loved ones, 

I implore Congress to ensure that the Department of State finds 

Japan non-compliant and imposes sanctions under the Goldman 

Act. 

One year ago next week, at the very moment Japan acceded to 

the Hague Abduction Convention, parents joined together to handdeliver with us 30 applications for access under Article 21. This 

was supposed to be an efficient path to see our children again. 

Though we parents may have applied for access under Article 21, 

as we were encouraged to do so by the Department of State, our 

collective cases remain abduction cases. 

Over the past 12 months, the Office of Children’s Issues time and 

again insisted that we must give Japan time. We must wait and 

see. Well, we have waited and we have seen. None of the BAC 

Home parents have received any access to their children. Japan’s 

implementation of the Hague Abduction Convention is an abysmal 

failure. Sanctions under the Goldman Act will provide some of the 

necessary public pressure on Japan to create change in this ongoing human and family rights crisis. 

It is crucial that Members of Congress be made aware of the first 

Hague Article 21 access case to make it through the Japanese family court process. This case is typical of what parents are encountering in their attempts to gain access to their kidnapped children. 

Under Article 21, the central authorities are bound to promote 

peaceful enjoyment of access rights and fulfillment of any conditions to which the exercise of those rights may be subject. 

The central authorities shall take steps to remove, as far as possible, all obstacles to the exercise of such rights. Now, instead of 

removing obstacles, the Japanese Government has erected multiple 

barriers interfering with the exercise of parental rights. These actions are prejudicial and designed to prevent victimized parents 

from gaining access to his or her children. 

The actions by the court in this pioneer case include: One, a request by Henrik Teton for interim access to his children under the 

Hague, which was ignored by the court. Two, the judge walked out 

of the room when the father, who was representing himself, asked 

questions of the court. And, three, the father, who was denied the 

use of his own translator, was forced to use a court-appointed 

48

translator with no ability to ensure that the translations were accurate. Number four, the judge refused to provide his name; therefore, making accountability of his rulings impossible. And, five, the 

judge ruled that no observers, including Embassy officials, were allowed to witness the proceedings. 

In my written testimony, I will also outline what some of the 

other parents have faced in their failed attempts to gain access. 

Now, in consulting with Japanese lawyers, it has become very 

clear to BAC Home that Japan’s implementation provides no reasonable, enforceable means for victimized parents to access or obtain the return of their children. They are simply violating the 

Hague Abduction Convention and non-compliant, as a country, 

under the Goldman Act. 

There are numerous clear-cut cases of abduction, such as Paul 

Toland and Paul Wong. Though they are both the only living parent, the grandparents in Japan are holding their daughters from 

them. There are cases like Randy Collins, whose ex-wife was ordered to surrender the child’s passport to the court, and instead 

she kidnapped him. 

Douglass Berg’s children were kidnapped from their habitual and 

legal residence in the United States in 2009 violating his parental 

rights to access. And Christopher Savoie’s ex-wife violated the divorce decree, State, and Federal statutes, when she kidnapped 

their children. 

Now, in my own case, I was granted primary custody of my son 

in the State of Washington in May 2007. Three years later, in June 

2010, I dropped my son Mochi off to begin a week-long visit with 

his mother. He was 61⁄2 years old. This is where my endless nightmare began. 

Six days later, I received a phone call that no parent wants to 

receive. It was the police. My son and ex-wife had been reported 

missing. I knew immediately what had happened. She had succeeded in what she had intended on doing, which was kidnapping 

him to Japan. In that moment, my life was shattered. My days 

would become consumed with dealing with local law enforcement, 

the U.S. Department of State, Japanese consular officials, and anything I could think of to try and find my boy. 

Now, how could this happen to my child? I did everything I could 

think of to prevent this. There were even passport and travel restraints in the court order, which barred her from leaving the State 

of Washington with him. Well, I came to learn the hard way that 

restraints are only effective if somebody is willing to abide by them. 

For someone intending to commit kidnapping, restraints have true 

little power. 

When the Seattle Consulate of Japan denied my ex-wife’s attempt to obtain a passport, she simply went to the Consulate in 

Portland, and they issued her one in violation of the Ministry of 

Foreign Affairs’ passport issuance policy. 

Some people over the past several years have said to me, ‘‘Well, 

you know, at least you know where he is. He is safe with his mother.’’ But he is not safe. He is at risk. She has willingly and intentionally kidnapped him to a foreign land with the intent of permanently alienating him from me and everyone he knows. 

49

Imagine, just for a minute, being a child and your mother steals 

you away to a foreign country, and tells you your father doesn’t 

want you anymore or that he is dead. Your whole life is now built 

on a foundation of lies. This is not what a healthy parent does. 

This is child abuse. 

Every morning I wake up twice. The first time I have this feeling 

I have to rush out of bed and get my son ready for school, and I 

can hear his voice and he is saying, ‘‘Daddy, can I have toast and 

honey for breakfast?’’ And I have to get him ready for school. And 

then my heart skips a beat, and I wake up for real, and I realize 

he is still missing and that the nightmare continues. 

The last time I held his hand, the last time I heard my son’s 

voice, was on Father’s Day of 2010. 

Last year in my case I won a landmark ruling in Japan where 

the court acknowledged my U.S. custody order and recognized me 

as the sole custodial parent under Japanese law. My ex-wife has 

no legal custody rights there. They also cited her admission of committing illegal acts under Japanese law in order to abduct my son. 

However, they are still not telling me where he is. He is still being 

help captive. 

Private, back room diplomacy has failed. It has failed to return 

my son and any of the other kidnapped American children. Public 

statements by Secretary Kerry, Ambassador Kennedy, and President Obama, could have meaningful effect, but to date we have 

only heard silence. 

It has been Congress that has led the charge on this abduction 

crisis with Japan, and I urge Members of Congress to ensure that 

the Department of State finds Japan non-compliant and that sanctions are imposed under the Goldman Act. Without public consequences, there will be no incentive for Japan to change. It will 

remain a black hole for child abduction. 

Now is the time for Japan to demonstrate they are serious about 

changing course on this ongoing crisis of international parental 

child abduction. Next month, Prime Minister Abe will come visit 

Congress and address Congress here in Washington. In addition to 

non-compliance and sanctions, I am here to ask Congress to tell the 

Prime Minister that it is not acceptable to continue to hold ‘‘Mochi’’ 

Atomu Imoto Morehouse, or any of the 400 kidnapped American 

children, anymore. 

Thank you for your time today. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Morehouse follows:]

50


93916b-1.eps
51


93916b-2.eps
52


93916b-3.eps
53


93916b-4.eps
54


93916b-5.eps
55

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Morehouse, thank you very much for your very 

moving testimony. 

I would like to now recognize Mr. Davenport. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DEVON M. DAVENPORT (FATHER OF 

ABDUCTED CHILD TO BRAZIL) 

Mr. DAVENPORT. Hello. Thank you for having me here today. 

In the words of David Goldman on February 27, 2014, at the 

U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Hearing on International Parental Child Abduction,

‘‘My foundation has been assisting a father by the name of 

Devon Davenport of North Carolina, whose daughter Nadia 

was abducted to Brazil in 2009, just a few weeks after her 

birth. Mr. Davenport has fought admirably to bring Nadia 

home. In September 2010, a Federal court first ordered her return to the United States. Since then, the return order has 

been upheld by numerous appeals courts and the legal case is 

effectively over, yet Devon is still waiting, as I did, for Brazilian courts to enforce their own return order and put Nadia 

back on a plane to the United States. Our Government should 

be demanding, not asking, that Nadia be returned.’’

I am Devon Davenport, the 28-year-old father of Nadia Lynn, 

and I still happen to be waiting for justice concerning her illegal 

abduction to Brazil some 6 years ago. 

I believe that it has been made evident in the past via various 

testimonies from left-behind parents and politicians that the issue 

of international child abduction is a great concern. However, it is 

absurd that after the immense effort to pass Chris Smith’s Goldman Act that we must convince the U.S. Department of State, the 

sole governmental department responsible for assisting left-behind 

parents, systematically navigate legally through the Hague Convention Treaty to effectively utilize the rhetoric, equipping them 

with necessary tools to increase resolutions for international abduction cases. 

The U.S. Department of State no longer lacks the necessary tools 

needed in order to optimize and create an efficiently robust pipeline 

for handling Hague cases and distributing pertinent information 

between left-behind parents and central authorities from opposing 

countries. 

Countless times throughout my 6-year legal battle, I have been 

the one to provide updates and ask follow-up questions in hopes of 

obtaining valuable information toward an actual resolution of my 

case. The Department of State is notorious for providing me with 

the exact same information I provide them with. Hardly do I ever 

obtain any new information, and I believe that derives from the 

fact that they are not proactive in their question for justice of behalf of left-behind parents. 

An example is today when you asked how many cases, how many 

returns. They don’t even know this type of information. They will 

get it once you prompt them, but they should have come prepared 

with that type of information. They should know these numbers. 

This is what left-behind parents deal with on a daily basis, dealing 

with the Department of State. 

56

The inability and lack of foresight to initiate constructive yet progressive inquiries to the opposing central authority is not acceptable. Case officers working for the U.S. Department of State should 

not only be able to predict the questions and concerns of left-behind 

parents, but also take appropriate measures in obtaining the answers to those questions and concerns while providing feedback to 

those of us fighting the lengthy battle. 

The reason for this inability is the lack of empathy, initiative, 

and urgency; no longer the tools. Herein lies the issue. Until case 

workers at the Department of State are able to anticipate the next 

steps in a given Hague case based on years of internal evidential 

information from various left-behind parents in each country, then 

there will be no progressive action taken by them to provide information that some parents never think to ask, but deserve to know, 

as we look to the Department of State as a source of information 

and mental solidarity. 

Since birth in August 2008, my daughter Nadia Lynn resided 

with her mother, Larissa Drummond, in Cary, North Carolina. Due 

to parental alienation and prior threats to leave the country with 

my daughter to Brazil, a court order was filed and established August 20, 2008, restricting the removal of my daughter outside of the 

State, as well as confiscation of my daughter’s passport to prevent 

abduction. 

At the same time, a custody order was filed and signed on October 8, 2008, by District Court Judge Walczyk, and went into effect 

on October 14, 2008, notifying each parent that it is a felony to 

transport the minor child outside of the state. The court order also 

states that it shall remain into effect until replaced by another parenting agreement or court order pertaining to custody. 

According to the signed court-ordered visitation schedule between 

Larissa Drummond and I, October 14, 2008, our daughter Nadia 

Lynn was scheduled to have visitation at my residence on Mondays, Tuesdays, and Saturdays. On Saturday, February 7, 2009, 

my daughter was not brought to my residence for visitation scheduled at 8 o’clock a.m. 

At 8:07, I immediately contacted Larissa asking where she was. 

After getting no response, I contacted her mother. I then called the 

Cary Police Department. Upon their arrival, I provided the courtordered visitation, and the officer and I went to Larissa’s residence 

and found the house empty. 

With knowledge of prior threats made by Larissa to leave the 

country with my daughter back to Brazil, we contacted the U.S. 

Department of State to inquire about a possible abduction and 

were informed that I would receive a call on Monday, February 9, 

2009, from the abduction officer who handles cases to Brazil, who 

happened to be Ms. Daisy Cardiel at the time. Soon after, I received from NCMEC a protocol number for my daughter, as well 

as a kidnapping case number for my daughter. 

There was a court order calendared by Wake County Courthouse 

to have my name added to my daughter’s birth certificate. On February 10, 2009, I filed to have an emergency order granting me sole 

legal and physical custody of my daughter Nadia, as well as immediate return of her back to her habitual residence in North Carolina, which Judge Walczyk signed on February 12, 2009. 

57

April 20, 2009, the Department of State emailed me saying, ‘‘The 

Brazilian Central Authority would like me to inform you that your 

case was sent to Interpol on 2009, April 2. Furthermore, despite 

the fact that the child has not been located, the Brazilian Central 

Authority sent the file to the Federal Attorney’s Office in order to 

commence an analysis on your case.’’

April 19, 2009, I receive a message on the Bring Sean Home 

Foundation forum from a 21-year-old law student asking me about 

information on my daughter and the mother. I provided the last 

name, first name, and possible state that my daughter would be in. 

Eight days later he provides me with the address of my daughter 

in Brazil, while it had taken Interpol and the FBI, what, 4 months. 

They still hadn’t found her. 

I provided this information to the U.S. Department of State May 

6, 2009. It took them 3 months later to confirm the address that 

I provided them. 

April 14, 2010, I arrived in Brazil for the first instance hearing 

on the international abduction of my daughter Nadia Lynn. September 14, 2010, I received a favorable ruling, which issued the return of Nadia back to the United States. I was ordered to spend 

a 15-day transition period in Brazil before returning. During this 

transition period, the mother filed an appeal, ultimately suspending the return as well as the transition period between Nadia 

and I, on September 26, 2010. 

November 30, 2011, the TRF Federal Court of Brazil rejected the 

mother’s appeal by a majority panel. She appealed again within the 

Federal Court. March 23, 2012, the Federal judge upheld the first 

instance court order for the return of Nadia back to the United 

States. The mother filed another appeal to the Superior and Supreme courts. 

May 21, 2012, Special Advisor for Children’s Issues, Ambassador 

Susan Jacobs, spoke to the Brazilian Central Authority directly 

and requested that my case be expedited and expressed her concerns on the delays and appeals that my case has received. April 

11, 2013, TRF President rejected the appeal filed by the mother before the STJ and STF. And I was told that the request for the enforcement of my daughter to return back to the United States will 

be filed on April 30. It was not. 

August 14, 2013, Ambassador Susan Jacobs and Scott Renner 

traveled to Brasilia, Brazil, to speak directly with proper personnel 

to have my case expedited and ruled on. However, I received no official report on this meeting. I have no clue what was discussed, 

with whom the discussion occurred, and what the outcome of said 

meeting was, although I was told that I would receive a formal detailed summary within 3 weeks. I was never sent that information. 

August 27, 2013, a hearing at the first instance court in 

Criciuma was scheduled in which the charge of the enforcement 

order would decide the logistics of the return. Instead, they postponed this, and the appeal was dismissed at the STJ Court in Brasilia, Brazil. September 6, 2013, the appeal was dismissed by the 

sitting judge at the STJ Court in Brasilia. Being that it was a monocrotic decision, the mother appealed again. 

September 27, 2013, the Brazilian Central Authority and OAG 

filed a motion on the first instance court for the temporary execuVerDate 0ct 09 2002 10:46 Jan 13, 2016 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 F:\WORK\_AGH\032515\93916 SHIRL
58

tion of the enforcement order. This was a request that the judge 

not wait until the appeals were decided upon. The judge was to formally respond to this motion with a decision. 

October 11, 2013, I was informed that my case would be heard 

on October 17. It wasn’t. October 17, instead of ruling on the appeal, it was removed from the agenda. 

April 14, 2013, the STJ and STF appeals to the return order 

were rejected by the TRF president and were yet again appealed 

only once again to be dismissed by the STJ on September 10, 2013, 

ultimately allowing Nadia to return to the United States once and 

for all following a 15-day transition period in Brazil set to occur in 

2014. 

June 17, 2014, I traveled to Brazil to complete the 15-day transition period with my daughter, with the expectation to return home 

once and for all to the United States. Upon arrival to Brazil, I was 

immediately served with another appeal stating the transition period and the return order had been suspended by a last-minute injunction filed by the taking parent. I was able to have the suspension of the transition period overturned. However, the courts are 

still pending a ruling on the suspension of the return order at the 

STJ. 

December 15, 2014, Minister Rosa Weber of the STF Court ruled 

in a monocrotic decision to dismiss the special appeal. January 23, 

2015, the taking parent filed a motion for clarification on the dismissal of the special appeal, a well-known delay tactic. January 28, 

2015, I called the STF and asked that Minister Rosa Weber decide 

on this case as quickly as possible, and to note the constant delay 

tactics being used by the taking parent. 

On February 11, 2015, I received an email from the Department 

of State stating that the ministers at the STF converted the mother’s declaratory motion to an agravo regimental. According to the 

OAG, this is a good sign, as it shows a tactic from the court to accelerate the process. 

March 4, 2015, the special appeal of the STF was finally rejected. 

However, the taking parent continues to use delay tactics in order 

to prevent the inevitable return for my daughter back to the 

United States by filing yet another motion for clarification. 

I am here today not to ask, but to demand, that my daughter 

Nadia be returned immediately to the United States without delay. 

This case has literally taken its legal course and justice is now 

overdue. 

I want to thank you for your time, and I hope that my daughter 

Nadia will soon be returned to the United States and her habitual 

residence, once and for all. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Davenport follows:]

59


93916d-1.eps
60


93916d-2.eps
61


93916d-3.eps
62


93916d-4.eps
63


93916d-5.eps
64

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Davenport, thank you very much, and thank you 

for going through the process that you have followed. Like our 

other witnesses and so many left-behind parents, you have done it 

all by the book. 

Mr. DAVENPORT. Yes. 

Mr. SMITH. And justice delayed is justice denied. Again, the three 

countries—and there are many others, but especially Brazil, Japan, 

and India—absolutely fit the criteria of non-compliant countries. 

And if sanctions are not imposed, and significant sanctions at that, 

again, they will take view of that, take the view of that that we 

are not serious about this child abuse, as Mr. Morehouse so aptly 

put it, that is being committed against your daughter and all of the 

other children. 

I would like to now recognize Mr. Sawyer. The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF MR. SCOTT SAWYER, VICE PRESIDENT OF OPERATIONS, GLOBAL FUTURE (FATHER OF ABDUCTED CHILD 

TO JAPAN) 

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ranking Member 

Bass, for your ongoing support in this matter. I ask the chairman’s 

consent to submit my entire written testimony for the record and 

submit additional parents’ testimony as well. 

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, so ordered. And it goes for the others. Anything you want to affix to your testimony, please feel free 

to do it. 

Mr. SAWYER. Thank you. Although his mother and father were 

divorced, my son Wayne benefitted from the Los Angeles Superior 

Court’s orders for equal time with both parents. I dropped him off 

to visit his mother on Sunday, December 14, 2008, expecting to see 

him again on Thursday, and then on the weekend bring him over 

to the 26th Street Park in Santa Monica where we would feed the 

ducks, which was something he enjoyed to do quite a bit. 

But he was kidnapped from Los Angeles and taken to Japan the 

next day at the age of 2 years, 4 months old. I have not been able 

to see him or speak with him since, and intermittent communications with his mother have not produced any change in that status. 

There are other aggravating factors in Wayne’s case, including 

repeated deceptions by Japanese diplomats in the United States 

about the false passport that Wayne traveled under, along with his 

mother’s on-camera confession to ABC News in February 2011, in 

which she chuckled about how easy it was to defeat the passport 

surrender orders of the Los Angeles Superior Court, deceive the 

U.S. authorities, and to get away to Japan. 

The government response to Wayne’s kidnapping represents a 

perfect storm of failure. The L.A. Superior Court’s custody, travel 

ban, and passport surrender orders, designed to prevent his kidnapping, were defeated easily by organized criminal activity. The 

court cannot, in reality, enforce its orders outside of the walls of 

the court. The DHS, TSA, and Customs and Border Protection do 

not have any serious system in place to interdict such kidnappings 

at the airports. 

The State Department has been discussing cases like Wayne’s for 

over 20 years with Japan with no results, even with all of the pressure and attention that this committee has generated over the 

65

years, the last several years in particular. There is, I believe, an 

obvious institutional drift regarding the roles of the Justice Department and State Department in international child kidnappings. 

And perpetrators exploit the absence of an integrated U.S. Government response with little fear of facing justice. 

Let us, for example, contrast the governmental response to domestic interstate kidnappings. There are Amber Alerts, interstate 

police mobilizations, special FBI teams, systematic investigation, 

arrest, and leveraging of accomplices, apprehension of perpetrators, 

and frequent returns of the children. It is an integrated response 

and there are prosecutions and deterrence. 

People would rightly be outraged if the states handled domestic 

kidnappings like the Federal Government and the Hague handles 

the international ones, for good reason. The law says that children 

like Wayne are victims of crime, no different than children kidnapped from California to Texas. On the State level, the Uniform 

Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act says that international child kidnappings are to be treated the same as domestic 

ones across State borders. 

The legislative notes in the 1993 International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act state that the Justice Department should have primacy in international child kidnappings, with the Department of 

State in a subservient role. 

Now, since ICAPRA passed, the defined roles have gradually reversed to the point where the State Department, which is not a law 

enforcement agency, has taken the lead, and the Justice Department has filed fewer and fewer IPCA cases. A 2008 FBI Inspector 

General report found that the IPCA cases declined by half from 

2000 through 2007. 

The FBI has the same affirmative duty under the law to investigate and prosecute international child kidnappings, just as they 

do domestic child kidnappings. But because State, as a practice, 

does not file extradition warrants for IPCA cases, FBI agents are 

disincentivized from working up the cases. 

Now, State has received this quietly surrendered authority over 

the crimes. In addition to that, 11 sections of the International 

Child Abduction Remedies Act, which was the U.S. Hague implementation law, has been removed from the U.S. Code and put 

under the State Department. We should also consider that the 

Hague’s best practices guide states that when there is a new contracting state, the first and primary choice for the Central Authority should be the Ministry of Justice, or its equivalent. 

This opportunity was apparently missed when the United States 

acceded to the Hague and then named the State Department as its 

Central Authority. I believe this might have made a difference in 

the criminal kidnapping cases had the Justice Department, in the 

first place, been there. 

There is also the issue of conflict of interest. And to paraphrase 

attorney Patricia Apy in a previous hearing, the client of the State 

Department is not the American citizen crime victim in the street. 

The client of the State Department is the U.S. Government and its 

foreign policy objectives. 

I suggest that this chamber build on its expertise and its formidable work, and that future legislative goals of this chamber will 

66

be enhanced if it can fuse the successful approaches of the domestic 

kidnapping law enforcement model, and the root principles of 

UCCJEA, IPCA, and Hague best practices, into a rapid response 

whenever a criminal international child kidnapping takes place. In 

kidnapping crimes against children, I believe that the long arm of 

the law has produced more consistent results than the long conversations of diplomats. 

In 2009, I became an officer of Global Future. In 2010, we helped 

bring the two Mendoza children home to New Jersey from South 

Korea. New Jersey law enforcement took the lead, with a very significant assist from the State Department. And, in 2011, we helped 

bring Karina Garcia home to Wisconsin from Japan. She was the 

first kidnapped child ever returned from Japan through the criminal law enforcement process. Since then, we have helped three 

other children return from Asia, Europe, and South America. 

Of course, Japan’s overdue accession to the Hague in April 2014 

was not retroactive, and return applications could not be filed in 

cases like Wayne’s. Since then, parents have been asked to then 

file access cases in Japan’s new Hague courts. And, for me, I find 

this particularly on the offensive side. Wayne would not be in 

Japan in the first place were it not for criminal acts committed on 

U.S. soil and from the mischief of a foreign government. 

The State Department has not demonstrated an inclination over 

the years to serve law enforcement warrants or extradition requests. By accepting this scenario, the U.S. Government has converted crimes against children into civil procedures, and, in effect, 

conceded the criminal acts to the kidnappers. 

The Assistant Secretary of State at the time, Kurt Campbell, 

said a few years ago that talk of extradition made Japan nervous. 

Then by all means, let us start talking about extradition again, and 

have law enforcement and the State Department working lock-step, 

in tandem, side by side. 

Wayne is the victim of a crime with ongoing constitutional rights 

to due process in the justice system, and all departments of the 

U.S. Government should treat him as such. The Constitution entitles him to equal protection under the law. He deserves justice like 

any other crime victim. He is not diplomatic chattel to be traded 

in exchange for unrelated geopolitical considerations. 

The President is also the nation’s top law enforcement officer, 

and I would like to someday hear that all U.S. Government departments are committed to enforcing the laws as a strategy, as one of 

the tools in the box, to return kidnapped children. 

In conclusion, I hope that the committee will take up the suggestion a Congressman made in one of the previous hearings of this 

committee, that the Foreign Affairs and Judiciary Committees 

should have a joint ‘‘no holds barred’’ discussion and develop an integrated, sustained, and timely way to respond to international 

child kidnapping crimes. 

I believe the expertise and knowledge of this committee, and of 

the Judiciary Committee, is vast, separately and together. I have 

every confidence that the two committees working together will 

produce a plan of action that will build on your formidable body of 

work in this area and leave a legacy of fewer and fewer kidnapped 

children for generations to come. 

67

I would add that, of course, we have heard a lot about the parents suffering on this, but I would always remind people that no 

one loses more from these crimes than the children. Speaking for 

myself, I had a childhood. I have fond memories of both parents. 

My son does not have that, because a crime was committed against 

him and so far has gone unanswered. 

Again, I implore both committees to work together, and I look 

forward to great success from both to come. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Sawyer follows:]

68


93916e-1.eps
69


93916e-2.eps
70


93916e-3.eps
71

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

Ms. Bass. 

Ms. BASS. Yes. I am, unfortunately, going to have to leave, but 

I am dying to ask you a question, because, you know, after listening to the testimony of the three individuals and hearing your 

story, I wanted to know if you could please explain how law enforcement could do that. I mean, today, what—you know what I 

mean? You described a couple of cases, but in your case what 

would happen, what would law enforcement do? In Santa Monica, 

they would go over to Japan? I don’t——

Mr. SAWYER. Well, it was something that some of us parents 

talked at great length with Kurt Campbell about when he was the 

Assistant Secretary of State. The problem is that the FBI has been 

disincentivized from working up the cases. 

And what I have heard from the FBI is, if they are going to work 

up a case, they want to see it end with an extradition warrant. And 

if they are going to prepare the warrant and the State Department 

won’t serve it, then why go work up the warrant? And then it is—

and the parents were——

Ms. BASS. Well, why does the State Department have to—because you described—I understand—I think I understand what you 

are saying in the sense that if we go along the track of the State 

Department, then that disincentivizes. You are suggesting that we 

go along the track of the DOJ, and so why would they be 

disincentivized? 

Mr. SAWYER. Well, that is it. They work up the case. The FBI 

agents are busy in these child abductions. They have got domestic 

ones. They have got international ones. And then on the state-tostate abductions, they have vast success with getting extradition 

warrants from another State. 

They prepare a foreign extradition warrant, and the State Department won’t serve them in Japan, and——

Ms. BASS. So what can we go to change—now, you proposed a 

hearing, but beyond a hearing what are you suggesting that we do 

to remedy the situation, to send it on that other track? 

Mr. SAWYER. I think that, then, your committee could bring its 

influence to bear and get together with the Judiciary Committee. 

It is important to communicate that this drift that has happened 

has to be reconciled and brought back under the original intent of 

the IPCA laws and the UCCJEA. The United States has continuing 

jurisdiction in these cases, and our children’s rights as crime victims do not change because they have been taken overseas. 

It is then with the committees working together and basically reminding each other that there is an affirmative duty for law enforcement to execute its duty, and then with those warrants, it will 

be what Kurt Campbell had said; talk of that made Japanese nervous. 

Executing a warrant that is delivery ready, then gets the attention of the foreign government to where you can bargain. And the 

President is also the nation’s top law enforcement officer. He says, 

‘‘I have got extradition warrants out for’’——

Ms. BASS. So new legislation is not necessarily needed; it is just 

a new focus? 

72

Mr. SAWYER. Yes. I think better working together, the players, 

the players on the field work together as a team, and we will get 

better results. 

Ms. BASS. Thank you. Appreciate it. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Ms. Bass. 

Let me just conclude, just a couple of questions. Ms. Philips, first 

of all, Eamon Blanchard is with you from the Plainsboro Police Department. I just would like to recognize him and thank him for the 

wonderful police work that his office and his fellow officers, he himself did, especially at your time of most vulnerability when everything had been ripped off. And not only had you lost your children, 

you had a major act of theft occur against you. So I just want to 

acknowledge him and thank him. 

And let me just ask you, you did say that when you contacted 

the American Consulate in India, one of the consulates, they said 

there was little they could do for you without an order giving you 

custody of the children, which you subsequently did get. Was there 

a change of effort on their part, an earnestness of, you know, a vigorous effort to facilitate a resolution to your case after that? 

Ms. PHILIPS. Thank you, Mr. Smith. I did submit the custody 

order to the U.S. Embassy in India, and though they were very 

touched about my case there was nothing they proceeded to do to 

help me get my children back. And I have also visited the Indian 

Consulate in New York and spoken to the Indian Consulate in 

Washington, DC, and they advised me go to the U.S. Embassy and 

seek help from the U.S. Embassy in Chennai to get your children 

back, because all of you are American citizens and we can’t do anything about it. I did forward that letter to the U.S. Embassy, too, 

but I still haven’t got my children back. 

Mr. SMITH. I just want to remind—and I do hope the press captures this, if they include it in their stories, but the idea that there 

are 781 resolved cases. It does convey a false notion of resolved in 

terms of bringing children home. The number that—with the update from Ambassador Jacobs was that there were 261, so that 

means two-thirds of the cases have not resulted in a child being returned home. And we know with Japan it is zero; zero for 400. 

Let me just ask you, all three of the countries that you have had 

your children abducted to, cry out as an engraved invitation for 

sanctions to be imposed after the report, which should be received 

by Congress or issued no later than April 30 pursuant to the law, 

to the Goldman Act. 

What would be your reaction if the countries, like Japan, like 

Brazil, like India, were not so designated and significant sanctions 

not imposed? 

Mr. MOREHOUSE. Mr. Congressman, Congressman Smith, I think 

parents in our organization would be absolutely outraged if Japan 

is not found non-compliant. There has been no progress with the 

cases submitted for access over the past year. There have been significant roadblocks. Even today, when Ambassador Jacobs spoke 

about a return case where she suggested that it was imminent, my 

sources in the case are telling me that is in appeals. And we have 

seen appeals in Japan bogged down for a significant amount of 

time. So until cases are returned, Japan absolutely must be found 

non-compliant. 

73

Mr. SMITH. Yes, Mr. Davenport? 

Mr. DAVENPORT. As far as Brazil is concerned, and I know you 

have a lot of experience with Brazil in helping David Goldman, as 

far as I know no other children have really been returned successfully via the Hague. And we know what it took for Sean to return. 

And when you think about that effort and the immense amount of 

pressure that was necessary to be placed on Brazil for Sean to return, whose mother died, you know, it is crazy to assume that they 

would return a child whose mother is still alive. 

Without the same or more pressure from Congress and the 

United States, I believe that my case—for example, I have gone 

through the entire process, I mean, with every appeal that can be 

filed has been filed. It is essentially over, and my daughter is still 

over there. There is no enforcement. 

So you have a situation where you can win a case, and I am pretty sure the Department of State will call that a resolution or a soft 

case. But the actual child has not literally been returned to the habitual residence. And that is the essential goal of the Hague Convention Treaty, to actually have that child returned. 

And so until children are coming home, and it is still boggles me 

that they don’t know a number, or know no numbers. It is all ‘‘I 

will get back to you.’’ I think that goes to show that there really 

probably aren’t any cases where you can literally say a child has 

traveled from the country of abduction back to the country of origin. 

Mr. SAWYER. If I may, Congressman, sanctions is a fine idea. I 

always believed that hitting Japan in the wallet is going to ultimately help us get further. But it also brings up another opportunity for this committee to work with others. There are a lot of 

outstanding and unresolved issues with Japan over non-tariff trade 

barriers, and the beef, apples, and rice industries are not too happy 

with Japan’s policies in those areas, as are auto makers and electronics makers. 

And after the sanctions, coordinating with other committees to 

focus on trade policy will be yet another lever to get Japan’s attention. 

Ms. PHILIPS. I hope India will treat the child abduction cases as 

a criminal case and not a civil case. I wish the U.S. Government 

could educate the Indian authority and the officials there to have 

a speedy return of the children. And if they are having a case to 

have it held quickly, because, as you said, justice delayed is justice 

denied. And my last hearing was in April 2013, and I am still waiting for the Government of India to help me. 

Mr. SMITH. One of the questions or a series of questions I posed 

in July 28, 2011, to Ambassador Susan Jacobs was about the closure of cases, because always have had trouble with clarity in the 

numbers. Time and time again, I remember when we had meetings 

with David Goldman and Ambassador Jacobs regarding Brazil. We 

got different numbers, always different numbers, and it was hard 

to say, ‘‘What is the number? How many children?’’ And hopefully 

the report will be very clear on the numbers issue. 

But I think it needs to be underscored, and for the record I will 

put with this answer from the Office of Children’s Issues into the 

record, that closure of cases follow when a child turns 16 in a 

74

Hague case. That has certainly not been any positive resolution. It 

just means the child aged out, and, as we all know, that is what 

many of the abducting parents do through their endless appeals 

like you are going through, Mr. Davenport, and all of you. 

The child turns 18 in a non-Hague case, the child is returned to 

the country of habitual residence, that would be a positive outcome 

for sure. But as number 3 on the list, maybe there is no reason for 

the juxtaposition, but it is number 3. 

The left-behind parent notifies the Office of Children’s Issues 

that assistance is no longer required. The child or the left-behind 

parent is deceased. After multiple attempts, the Office of Children’s 

Issues is unable to locate or communicate with the left-behind parent in order to obtain updated information or confirm that our assistance is still required. 

You know, so there—you know, cases drop off the table because, 

again, a child turns 16 and ages out. When it is presented in an 

aggregated form, it would be very easy to have a takeaway, oh, the 

cases are going down, or these have been resolved successfully, 

when that is absolutely not the case. 

Let me also just say that I think, again, all three of your cases, 

absolutely your individual cases, not the larger numbers which you 

all represent, Section 201 could be applied to every one of them, 

and ought to be. I mean, this is a serious attempt, the Goldman 

Act, to hold countries to account. 

Unfortunately, we have four votes pending. I am going to have 

to end the hearing very shortly. Your comments, Mr. Morehouse, 

about Henrik Teton’s case, that the judge refused to provide his 

name. I have had 15 hearings on human rights in Northern Ireland, on policing and on Diplock courts. I can’t think of another instance in a country, particularly Japan, a mature democracy, where 

a judge will not utter his name in his own courtroom. 

I mean, in the Diplock courts, they used to shroud the judges so 

nobody knew who it was that was deciding a case. Here in Japan, 

Mr. Teton had to put up with the five points you made, which were 

devastating, one of which was the judge was refused to provide his 

name. That is outrageous. That is almost laughable, but it is certainly not funny. 

So if any of you would like to provide any further comment before we have to close down. I do want to just acknowledge, first of 

all, that David Goldman is here. David Goldman, as I said at my 

opening, has been a tenacious, like you, father, mother, who cares 

so much about his son or sons or daughters that he fought and, in 

his case thankfully, yielded fruit, and Sean is doing extraordinarily 

well. 

I meet with him all the time, as well as with David. He and 

Mark DeAngelis are both here, and Mark has spent so much time 

volunteering and doing work for the Bring Sean Home Foundation. 

And, Mr. Davenport, as you know, they have been helpful to you, 

so I want to thank them. 

Patricia Apy, who is not here, but a lawyer who helped us with 

many of the finite details of the bill, particularly as related to 

DOD, and she had extraordinary expertise to bring to bear on that. 

David Feimster, and Gail, his wife, who were successful. Sometimes a Foreign Service Officer is dogged, and that was the case 

75

in Tunisia. And I just want to acknowledge that we are grateful for 

the work that their Foreign Service Officer did, Mr. Sweeney, Michael Sweeney, I did talk to him on the phone a few times and he 

was absolutely locked onto the case, and those kids came home. 

So I want to thank all of you for—oh, let me conclude, and then 

you all will have the final word. At one of our hearings in 2009, 

Bernie Aronson, the Assistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs between 1989 and 1993 provided some very powerful 

testimony. But one of his points which I thought was just so telling, here is a man, Assistant Secretary, sat in that very important 

influential position with U.S. Department of State and he said, let 

me quote in pertinent part, ‘‘Let me be blunt. A diplomatic request 

for which there are no consequences for refusal is just a sophisticated version of begging. And there are no consequences today for 

Brazil’’—and, I would add, for these other countries as well—my 

own addition—‘‘or any other nation which refuses to return American children.’’

Those words are no less true today, but now we have the Goldman Act where there can be, and must be, significant consequences 

for refusal. And to end the sophisticated version, as Bernie Aronson 

put it so eloquently, begging. 

Final comments, very briefly if you could, and then the hearing 

will adjourn. 

Bindu? If you would like. If you don’t, that is fine. 

Ms. PHILIPS. Yes. I would like to thank you so much for helping 

us. And I would like to request the Indian Government to please 

help us get reunited with our children, and to understand our pain, 

and to understand that the little and helpless children have no 

choice but to listen to the abductive parent, because that is the 

only family they know and they can’t do anything against the abductive parent, so to please help us. And the same with all the 

countries where the children have been taken. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Bindu. 

Ms. PHILIPS. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Morehouse? 

Mr. MOREHOUSE. Yes. I would like to just reiterate for the committee that although we have applied for access, our cases do remain abduction cases. There have been no children returned. And 

until they are returned, they are still kidnapped. 

Mr. MOREHOUSE. Thank you. 

Mr. Davenport. 

Mr. DAVENPORT. I would just like to say that sanctions are absolutely necessary, especially for countries that are non-compliant. 

And the risk of diplomacy is definitely necessary to apply that to 

these countries in order to bring the children back. 

One instance will set an example, and maybe threats from there 

on out will be enough. But you have to make good on a sanction, 

at least one time, at least bring a child home. Sean Goldman is the 

only one I know of. 

Thanks. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Davenport. 

Mr. Sawyer. 

Mr. SAWYER. I remember Mr. Aronson’s testimony quite well, too. 

That was really outstanding. 

76

I would say, speaking of consequences, sanctions are terrific. I 

would say with sanctions and with the coordination with law enforcement serving extradition warrants, those two things together 

are mutually supportive of each other. You will get more bang out 

of whatever sanctions diplomatically, by enforcing extradition warrants, and vice versa. I think it is a really terrific idea. And putting 

those two together will really get Japan’s attention. 

And as far as extradition warrants, we saw that legal extradition 

process work in the Karina Garcia case in Milwaukee, and that is 

a model to build on. And I look forward to those two departments 

cooperating. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. This is the first in a series of hearings, 

so I want to thank you for your extraordinary testimony, love for 

your children, and we will never quit in trying to bring your children home. 

The hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(77)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

78

f


93916n.eps
79

f


93916m.eps
80

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


93916f-1.eps
81


93916f-2.eps
82


93916f-3.eps
83


93916f-4.eps
84


93916f-5.eps
85


93916f-6.eps
86


93916f-7.eps
87

f


93916f-8.eps
88

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


93916g-1.eps
89

f


93916g-2.eps
90

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


93916h-1.eps
91


93916h-2.eps
92


93916h-3.eps
93

Æ


93916h-4.eps