U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

66–530PDF 2011

INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION:

BROKEN LAWS AND BEREAVED LIVES

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, 

AND HUMAN RIGHTS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 24, 2011

Serial No. 112–72

Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida, Chairman 

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey 

DAN BURTON, Indiana 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

DANA ROHRABACHER, California 

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois 

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

RON PAUL, Texas 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina 

CONNIE MACK, Florida 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

TED POE, Texas 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio 

BILL JOHNSON, Ohio 

DAVID RIVERA, Florida 

MIKE KELLY, Pennsylvania 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

JEFF DUNCAN, South Carolina 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

RENEE ELLMERS, North Carolina 

VACANT 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York 

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American 

Samoa 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

BRAD SHERMAN, California 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey 

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia 

THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida 

DENNIS CARDOZA, California 

BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky 

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York 

ALLYSON SCHWARTZ, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

FREDERICA WILSON, Florida 

KAREN BASS, California 

WILLIAM KEATING, Massachusetts 

DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island 

YLEEM D.S. POBLETE, Staff Director 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Democratic Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman 

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

ANN MARIE BUERKLE, New York 

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

KAREN BASS, California 

RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

Page

WITNESSES 

Mr. David Goldman, father of child abducted to Brazil and returned in 

2009 ....................................................................................................................... 6

Ms. Sara Edwards, mother of child abducted to Turkey ...................................... 26

Mr. Carlos Bermudez, father of child abducted to Mexico ................................... 32

Mr. Michel Elias, father of children abducted to Japan ....................................... 52

Mr. Joshua Izzard, father of child abducted to Russia ......................................... 59

Mr. Colin Bower, father of children abducted to Egypt ....................................... 67

Ms. Patricia Apy, attorney, Paras, Apy & Reiss, P.C. .......................................... 80

Ms. Kristin Wells, partner, Patton Boggs LLP ..................................................... 94

Mr. Jesse Eaves, policy advisor for children in crisis, World Vision ................... 109

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Mr. David Goldman: Prepared statement ............................................................. 13

Ms. Sara Edwards: Prepared statement ................................................................ 29

Mr. Carlos Bermudez: Prepared statement ........................................................... 35

Mr. Michel Elias: Prepared statement ................................................................... 56

Mr. Joshua Izzard: Prepared statement ................................................................ 64

Mr. Colin Bower: Prepared statement ................................................................... 70

Ms. Patricia Apy: Prepared statement ................................................................... 86

Ms. Kristin Wells: Prepared statement ................................................................. 102

Mr. Jesse Eaves: Prepared statement .................................................................... 112

APPENDIX 

Hearing notice .......................................................................................................... 126

Hearing minutes ...................................................................................................... 127

The Honorable Ted Poe, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

Texas: Prepared statement .................................................................................. 128

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

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

Health, and Human Rights: Material submitted for the record ...................... 129

(1)

INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION: BROKEN 

LAWS AND BEREAVED LIVES 

TUESDAY, MAY 24, 2011

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH, AND HUMAN RIGHTS

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 o’clock p.m., in 

room 2203 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H. 

Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will come to order, and I want to 

thank each and every one of you for joining us this afternoon to 

focus on the deeply troubling and growing problem of international 

child abduction, which occurs when one parent unlawfully moves a 

child from his or her country of residence, often for the purpose of 

denying the other parent access to the child. It is a global human 

rights abuse that seriously harms children while inflicting excruciating emotional pain and suffering on left-behind parents and 

families. 

International child abduction rips children from their homes and 

lives, taking them to a foreign land and alienating them from a 

left-behind parent who loves them and whom they have a right to 

know. Their childhood is disrupted, in limbo, or sometimes in hiding as the taking parent seeks to evade the law or to conjure legal 

cover for his or her immoral actions. Abducted children often lose 

their relationship with their mom or their dad, half of their identity, and half of their culture. They 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. As adults, they may 

struggle with identity issues, their own personal relationships, and 

parenting. 

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

Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction to try to address 

this serious issue. The Convention creates a civil framework for the 

quick return of children who have been abducted and for rights of 

access to both parents. Under the Convention, courts are not supposed to open or reopen custody determinations, but rather decide 

the child’s country of habitual residence—usually where the child 

was living for a year before the abduction. Absent extenuating circumstances, the child is to be returned within 6 weeks to his or her 

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

enforce any previous custody determinations. This framework is 

2

based on the premise that the courts in the country where the child 

was living before the abduction have access to evidence and witnesses and are the appropriate places for custody determinations 

to be made. However, even though more than 80 countries have 

signed the Hague Convention, the return rates of American children are still devastatingly low. In 2010, 978 children were abducted through Hague Convention signatory countries, and 360 

children were returned. That is only 38 percent. 

Some Hague signatories are simply not enforcing return orders. 

The State Department’s 2010 Hague Convention compliance report 

highlights 15 countries, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Costa Rica, 

France, Germany, Honduras, Hungary, Israel, Mexico, Romania, 

South Africa, Spain, Switzerland, and Turkey, for failing to enforce 

return orders. Many other countries, Bermuda, Brazil, Bulgaria, 

Burkina Faso, Honduras, Mexico, the Bahamas, and St. Kitts, and 

Nevis, are failing to abide by the Hague Convention provisions concerning the central authority charged with implementing the Convention, the performance of their judiciaries in applying the Hague 

Convention, and/or the ability or willingness of law enforcement to 

ensure swift enforcement of orders issued under the Convention. 

Some taking parents will try to drag out proceedings for so long 

that the child reaches the age where a court will consider the 

child’s wishes regarding a return. And David Goldman, certainly, 

and others have experienced that very infamous tactic. Tragically, 

abducted children are often the victims of parental alienation, 

where the taking parent has filled the child’s head with lies about 

the left-behind parent. If the child was not of an appropriate age 

to be heard when the child was abducted, the taking parent should 

not be enabled to drag out proceedings or motivated to psychologically manipulate a child, harm a child, or manipulate that child 

to testify that he or she does not want to return to the left-behind 

parent. Countries that permit these practices encourage the child 

abuse known as parental alienation. 

In 2010, the United States lost 523 children to countries that 

have not signed onto the Hague Convention and received back 228 

of those kids, a return rate of some 45 percent. Japan has by far 

the worst record of all. It has not issued and enforced the return 

order for a single one of the more than 321 American children abducted there since 1994, when the recordkeeping began. Japan is 

currently protecting the abductors of 156 American children under 

the age of 16. You will hear from some of their left-behind parents 

at this hearing. 

Japan announced this week that it is introducing legislation 

needed to ratify the Hague Convention. However, I am very concerned that Japan will add exceptions and reservations to its ratification that would render its ascension to the Convention meaningless. And, tragically and unbelievably, Japan has already indicated 

that its approval of the Convention will be meaningless to the 156 

American children already abducted to Japan. The Hague Convention is not retroactive unless Japan makes it retroactive. 

I and members of this committee strongly urge Japan not to ignore the abducted children already within their borders. Just this 

year, the United States lost 31 more children to Japanese abduction. I can assure Japan that the hundreds of left-behind American 

3

parents whose children are in Japan are not going away if Japan 

signs the Hague Convention. Japan will not move past its reputation here in the Congress and elsewhere as a safe haven for child 

abductors until Japan returns all abducted children. These 156 

American children are bereaved of one of their parents. They cannot be ignored, nor will they be forgotten. 

In the last Congress, I introduced legislation to impress upon 

both Hague and non-Hague countries alike that the United States 

will not tolerate child abduction or have patience with countries 

that hide abductors behind the Hague Convention. Yesterday I reintroduced a bill, the International Child Abduction Protection and 

Return Act of 2011. The new bill, H.R. 1940, will empower the 

President and the Department of State with new tools and authorities to secure the return of abducted American children. 

Under this new proposed law, when a country has shown what 

we call a ‘‘pattern of non-cooperation’’ in resolving child abduction 

cases, the President will be able to respond decisively with a range 

of actions and penalties, 18 in all. I included penalties that we included back in 2000 in the Trafficking Victims Protection Act. I am 

the prime author of that legislation. It has worked in combatting 

human trafficking. It will work in combatting international child 

abduction. 

We also included language taken right from the International 

Religious Freedom Act, enacted in 1998, which went through my 

committee. It was a bill that was sponsored by our good friend and 

colleague Frank Wolf. That, too, has worked to promote international religious freedom by having a penalty stage, without 

which we can admonish all we want, but we have to have something, carrots and sticks, in order to ensure compliance. 

Based on past experience, as I said, we know that penalties get 

the attention of other governments, and we know that they work. 

Also reflecting my anti-trafficking legislation, H.R. 1940, will 

raise the profile of the international child abduction issues by appointing a new Ambassador-at-Large for International Child Abduction to head a new office charged with helping left-behind parents secure the return of their children and to collect detailed information and report on abducted children in all countries. This has 

to be taken to a much higher level, and we have to put the full 

force of penalties and the ambassadorial rank of this new position 

behind that effort. 

The growing incidence of international child abduction must be 

recognized for the serious human rights violation that it is. And decisive, effective action is urgently needed. Our hearing this afternoon will help us all to understand better the impact that child abduction has on children, parents, and entire families and provide 

us with the opportunity to explore the actions needed to end it. 

I would like to now yield to my good friend and colleague Don 

Payne, the ranking member of our subcommittee, for any comments that he may have. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. Let me begin by commending 

you for calling this timely hearing. As many of us know, tomorrow 

is National Missing Children’s Day. And it is fitting that we examine a problem of child abduction in an international context. 

4

Losing a child is a terrifying experience for any parent, regardless of where they live, anywhere in the world. Unfortunately, reported cases of international child abduction are on the rise. In 

fact, the number of cases involving a child kidnapping kidnapped 

out of the United States into countries that signed the Hague Convention doubled since 2006, 2 times more in simply 5 years. 

The troubling trend of increased international child custody disputes is likely to deteriorate as our society becomes more interconnected and mobile. These heart-wrenching cases warrant congressional vigilance and action. Currently the Hague Convention 

on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, with 85 participating countries, is a principal mechanism for enforcing the return of abducted children. 

Though imperfect, the Convention has successfully resolved 

many abduction cases and pressed signatory countries to properly 

return children to their rightful residence. Through the Convention, for example, the United States Government successfully returned 262 children, abducted to or wrongfully retained, in the 

United States in 2010 alone. 

Nevertheless, as all of our witnesses will testify today, key challenges remain. For example, the Convention’s available remedies 

do not apply to non-signatory countries, which leave parents, like 

my witness Colin Bower, with limited legal resources and support. 

Colin, I thank you for being here and willing to share your distressing personal story and providing us with insight on the hardship and difficulties of regaining children abducted to Egypt, a 

country that chose not to participate in the Hague Convention. 

Many here in Congress are concerned with your case, including 

my friend Congressman Barney Frank, who is here in the audience—and I’m sure the chairman will invite him to come forward 

and sit on the panel if he chooses—who along with my colleague 

Mr. Smith introduced a resolution calling on Egypt to return your 

children. 

I want to thank all of the parents here today for sharing their 

stories with us. Furthermore, the Convention promotes the prompt 

return of abducted children. Long delays are often and still too 

common. We are not satisfied. And often parents of abducted children still face protracted legal battles with potentially prohibitive 

legal costs. 

Although international parental child kidnapping is a Federal 

crime in the United States, the Convention also fails to impose any 

criminal sanctions on the abducting parent, despite the serious 

danger such action poses to the mental well-being of the child. 

The International Parental Child Abduction Deterrence Act of 

2009, introduced by my colleague from New Jersey, Representative 

Rush Holt, which I co-sponsored, is designed to deter potential foreign national parental child abductors by increasing the potential 

penalties associated with such abductions. Proposed penalties 

against the parental abductors including freezing financial assets 

of foreign nationals within the United States’ jurisdiction, and revoking or denying their visa eligibility to the United States. 

Ms. Wells, I look forward to your analysis of the Convention, the 

opportunity for improvement, including U.S. legislative options. 

5

As we reflect on the risks abducted children face internationally, 

I would like to further draw special attention to Africa, where at 

times we governments through our legal and judicial systems and 

widespread poverty prevent adequate response to child abduction 

and trafficking cases and leave children especially vulnerable. 

Globally children in conflict, post-conflict, and natural disaster crisis are especially at risk for child abduction or its pernicious counterpart: Child trafficking. 

In some African countries, like Sudan and regions in that area, 

such as the Sahara countries in northwest Africa, abduction into 

slavery remains a horrendous practice. Child abductions between 

ethnic factions in the Sudan conflict, and especially of Dinke and 

Nuba children to the North from the South, speak to the enhanced 

vulnerability children face during conflict. As a matter of fact, 

many of us got involved initially in the Sudan crisis, even before 

war really broke out, because of the abduction of children. And 

they were being sold into slavery. 

In other conflicts, such as those in Somalia and Central African 

Republic, amongst others, children are still at risk for abduction 

and forcible conscription as child soldiers. Scandals, such as the 

case of French aid workers from Zoe’s Ark, attempting to remove 

Chadian children, whom they falsely claimed were often Sudanese 

refugees when arranging for adoption abroad, for that of the Americans from the Southern Baptist missionary, who attempted to remove Haitian children 2 weeks after the devastating earthquake, 

also false claimed to be orphaned, remind us of the need to ensure 

that children are protected in poor and especially in post-conflict 

and post-disaster areas. 

Mr. Eaves, I look forward to your testimony on the risks children 

face in such situations and how we can work to protect children 

from abduction and trafficking when they are in the most vulnerable states. 

And so I look forward to hearing the witnesses. And, with that, 

I will yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

We have two rollcalls on the floor. So we are going to take a very 

brief—we are almost out of time on the first. So we are going to 

run over, vote, vote on the second one, and come right back and 

reconvene the hearing. So we stand in recess pending the outcome 

of those votes. 

[Brief recess.] 

Mr. SMITH. The subcommittee will resume its sitting, and I 

would like to introduce the witnesses to the subcommittee, beginning with Mr. David Goldman, who is the father of Sean Goldman, 

who was born in the Red Bank in 2000 and was abducted to Brazil 

in 2004. Mr. Goldman spent 5 arduous years devoting enormous 

amounts of time and financial resources and had a great number 

of people supporting him in the community to secure the return of 

his son. 

In December 2009, I had the extraordinary privilege of being 

with David and Sean when they were finally able to return to the 

United States. Mr. Goldman recently published a book about his 

ordeal entitled ‘‘A Father’s Love: One Man’s Unrelenting Battle to 

Bring His Abducted Son Home.’’

6

Mr. Goldman has been a trailblazer in opening the eyes of our 

country to the agony endured by left-behind parents, and I would 

say the human rights abuse of child abduction, obviously we have 

all known about it. We have worked on it, many of us, for many 

years. It wasn’t until David Goldman opened the eyes of Members 

of Congress and hopefully other policymakers around the world 

that they realized just how the Hague Convention is often gamed 

by countries, in this case Brazil, where endless appeals can be 

lodged by the abducting family, so-called family, the abductors, the 

kidnappers. And, frankly, that process can be carried on week after 

week, month after month, year after year, precluding the return of 

an abducted son or sons or daughters or family members. He has 

really refocused and revitalized a human rights movement that he 

launched by his leadership. And I want to thank him for it. 

All of the other left-behind parents have been tenacious and courageous in their own right. But David’s case, the breakthrough case 

I think, will help everyone else. And that is our, I think, the subcommittee’s sincerest hope. 

Secondly, I would like to introduce Ms. Sara Edwards, who is the 

mother of a 3-year-old, Abdullah Eli Kiraz. Eli’s father took him to 

Turkey in March 2010 and has since refused to return him to his 

mother. Ms. Edwards lives and works in Akron, Ohio and is seeking concrete assistance in navigating the obstacles of her fight as 

a left-behind parent. 

We have another witness who is on his way. He is not here yet. 

I would like to now ask Mr. Goldman if he would proceed with his 

testimony as he would like. 

Mr. GOLDMAN. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID GOLDMAN, FATHER OF CHILD 

ABDUCTED TO BRAZIL AND RETURNED IN 2009

Mr. GOLDMAN. Let me take us back in time a little bit. Good 

afternoon, Members of Congress. I am honored for the privilege to 

testify before you today. 

For 51⁄2 years, I walked in the shoes of the left-behind parent. 

I lived in a world of despondency and desperation, with a searing 

pain throughout my entire being. Everywhere I turned I saw an 

image of my abducted child. Sleep was hard to come by and never 

restful. If I smiled, I felt guilt. 

When I saw children, whether it was in the store, a park, or on 

television or even on my charter boat, where clients often take 

their families for a day on the water, it was more than painful. For 

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

members. I couldn’t even be around my nieces and nephews. It was 

too painful. 

Where was my son? Where was my child? He had been abducted. 

He was being held illegally. He was being psychologically, emotionally, and mentally abused. I needed to help him. I needed to save 

him. He needed me: His father. It was our legal, our moral, our 

God-given right to be together as parent and child. 

I did everything humanly possible, leaving no stone unturned, 

but for many years, the result remained the same. Sean was not 

home. 

7

Although I remained determined and hopeful, I must admit, the 

outlook for a permanent reunion with my abducted child often 

seemed bleak, at best. I felt like a dead man walking. The void left 

me a shell of the man I had once been. 

There were orders in place. There were many orders from U.S. 

courts demanding the immediate return of my child. The courts in 

Brazil acknowledged that my child had been held in violation of 

U.S. and international law. However, he remained in the possession of his abductors. 

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

and in my case, the Government of Brazil, allowed to flagrantly 

violate international law with no consequences? Why were my child 

and over 50 other American children still in Brazil, another 80 or 

more in Mexico, and thousands of other American children also 

held illegally in various countries in clear violation of the Hague 

Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction? 

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

work from my attorneys in Brazil and the U.S. (one of whom is 

here today, sitting behind me, Ms. Patricia Apy, who will testify), 

a tremendous amount of political pressure applied publicly and internally, and House, Senate and state resolutions for me to finally 

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

My son had been abducted by my wife and her parents and held 

illegally for over 4 years. It wasn’t until the tragic passing of his 

mother that my son’s abduction became newsworthy. This finally 

brought it to the attention of those who could and would actually 

assist me. 

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

Senator Lautenberg holding up a bill that would have given Brazil 

nearly $3 billion in trade preferences for my son to come home. 

Sean and I are extremely grateful for all of the assistance we received from supporters, elected officials, the Secretary of State, and 

the President of the United States of America. Nevertheless, it is 

extremely rare for a left-behind parent to be the beneficiary of this 

level of help. Yet, every other parent whose American citizen child 

has been abducted deserves the same help that I received. 

This committee must realize that if the system had been working 

properly, our Government would have had the tools necessary to 

bring Sean and all of the other abducted children home years earlier. It should not have required the extraordinary efforts of Congressman Smith and Senator Lautenberg. Senator Lautenberg 

should never have needed to threaten a trade bill with Brazil because that option should have been available to our State Department when countries violate laws and refuse to return abducted 

American children. 

As of today, there are many black and white Hague abduction 

cases in Brazil and other countries where the law is clear that the 

children must be returned. My case was the exception because the 

abducting parent had passed away, but almost always the abductor 

is still alive. These abducting parents and their attorneys manipulate the legal system to their advantage, stalling legal processes for 

years while our children grow up apart from half of their families. 

For these left-behind parents and families, time is the enemy. 

8

With all the assistance and support I received over 4 years and 

then another 11⁄2 years after the death of my son’s first abductor, 

on Christmas Eve 2009, Sean and I were finally reunited and returned home. It was nothing short of a miracle. After 51⁄2 years of 

my son’s illegal retention and documented abuse, he is now home, 

and he is flourishing. 

He will be 11 years old tomorrow, May 25. As Congressman 

Payne pointed out, his birthday, my son’s birthday, is on International Missing Children’s Awareness Day. 

Although the remaining abductors of my son have challenged the 

Brazilian Supreme Court decision that brought him home and continue litigation in Brazil seeking my son’s return, in addition to filing lawsuits in New Jersey courts, he is home. He is happy. He is 

loved. He is allowed to be a child again. And we are father and son 

again. 

One thing my father said when my son and I finally reunited and 

returned home, which will always resonate within me—and that is 

how these parents and families live every day. My dad said, ‘‘Not 

only did I get my grandson back, I got my son back.’’

Our family will always be so very grateful for every ounce of support from wherever it came. It is for this reason that I am here 

today. To do whatever I can to ensure the pleas from the remaining 

families, desperately fighting to reunite with their abducted children, do not fall on deaf ears, as my own pleas did for so many 

years. 

Our foundation is assisting a number of left-behind parents, including nine whose children remain illegally retained in Brazil. 

None of these children have been abducted by someone with great 

influence and power, like those who abducted my child. However, 

the results are the same. The children remain held illegally. 

Other than my son, we are aware of no other child returned to 

the U.S. by Brazil under the Hague Convention. In fact, since 

Sean’s return, two U.S. cases in Brazil received return orders by 

Brazilian first-level Federal courts, which is very good news. However, the rulings were appealed, the children were not returned, 

and the lives of the left-behind parents and their children hang in 

the balance while every day, the abductors live with impunity as 

these cases drag on. Brazil continues to defy international law. 

I would like to note that Ambassador Jacobs recently returned 

from a trip to Brazil where she had gone to discuss international 

child abduction with senior Brazilian officials. Ambassador Jacobs 

reports that the trip was a success and that the U.S. and Brazil 

have established a working group, which will meet this summer to 

discuss how to speed up Hague applications and the adjudication 

of these abduction cases. Hopefully, real change will happen, but 

to be clear, the only way progress can be measured is by the number of American children who are returned. 

Right now, there are zero, zero consequences when a nation flagrantly violates the Hague Convention and refuses to return abducted children to the United States. Nations, including Mexico, 

Germany, Brazil and Japan, which finally appears ready to ratify 

the Hague Convention, discover quickly that the United States is 

all talk and no action. These countries play endless legal and diplomatic games with left-behind parents, frustrating their hopes and 

9

breaking their hearts month after month and year after year 

through endless, bureaucratic maneuverings. The method and the 

excuses may vary from one country to country, but the results are 

almost always the same. Children illegally abducted from the 

United States almost never come home. The current system is broken. 

In the letter inviting me to speak at this hearing today, the 

chairman states that the purpose of this hearing is to explore ways 

the U.S. can help increase return rates of children abducted internationally by a parent. First of all, we can only help increase return rates if we start with a complete understanding of the full 

magnitude of the problem, including the true number of American 

children who were abducted and continue to be illegally retained 

abroad. This is a difficult number to find, and it is not presented 

as part of the annual Hague compliance report submitted to Congress by the State Department. 

We keep hearing that the figure is around 2,800 American children. However, the last three annual Hague compliance reports 

prepared by the State Department show that the total number of 

abducted American children for those 3 years was 4,728. 

These reports also show about 1,200 children were returned, although we weren’t able to find return data for 2010. That would 

account for an increase of 3,528 abducted American children in 

those 3 years alone. And clearly there have to be literally thousands of American children illegally retained abroad whose abductions date back prior to the most recent 3-year period. 

How are returns categorized? How were these children returned 

if they were, in fact, returned at all? Do returns also include cases 

which the State Department has closed for various reasons? If so, 

what are the criteria for closure? 

Things need to change. We need a system by which these abduction cases are registered and monitored by each parent’s elected 

Member of Congress. We need our elected officials to work closely 

with the State Department on these cases to make sure that all resources and additional tools are at their disposal to make it clear 

to these countries that we want our children sent home. 

There is no valid reason for foreign governments to illegally hold 

American children and support international child abduction. This 

statement, however true, defies all logic because there is never a 

valid reason to break the law and support kidnapping. But as I testify before you today, this is exactly what is happening in many 

countries to thousands of American children and their families. 

These countries are breaking the law with impunity. 

The fact is very few left-behind parents will be as fortunate as 

I was in having President Obama, Secretary of State Clinton, Congressmen Smith, and Senator Lautenberg all make my son Sean’s 

return a fundamental foreign policy goal of the United States. Even 

then, Senator Lautenberg had to put a hold on renewal of GSP 

privileges for more than 100 nations, including Brazil, to put the 

final pressure on both Brazil and the administration, which led to 

Sean’s return. 

I wish every left-behind parent could have that kind of support 

in the future, but we all know that few, at most, and possibly none, 

will ever have that kind of leverage and power backing them. What 

10

kind of leverage will these parents be able to wield without the 

kind of personal, high-level support I was so fortunate to receive 

from the White House, State Department, Senate, and House to 

bring their children home? Not very much and, in fact, probably 

none at all. 

The Hague Convention has the force of law, but we all know 

there can be no rule of law if there is no system of justice to punish 

violators. Today Mexico, Brazil, Argentina, and a host of other 

countries face no real consequences for refusing to adhere to the 

Hague Convention requirements that abducted children be returned to the country where they were legally domiciled within 6 

weeks. 

American treasure and our armed forces have safeguarded the 

security of Japan since 1945. Yet, Japan pays no price for refusing 

to return the abducted children of those American service members 

as well as ordinary U.S. citizens whose children have been abducted to Japan. 

This committee and this Congress must pass legislation that 

arms the State Department with real sanctions to exemplify U.S. 

intolerance for other nations which remain flagrant violators. 

Chairman Smith has authored such legislation. I support it, and I 

urge all members to do so as well. 

Similar to our anti-human trafficking laws authored by Chairman Smith, his bill to combat international child abduction provides a real and credible inventory of sanctions to be used to help 

get our kids back. If you arm our negotiators with such sanctions, 

they will immediately be taken more seriously. If the Department 

employs such sanctions against the worst offenders, other nations 

will get the message also, and hopefully start to return our children. 

What I do know is that if all we do today is express outrage and 

vow to do better as committees like this in both houses of Congress 

have done for more than 12 years, but fail to enact Congressman 

Smith’s legislation with real and credible sanctions, our kids will 

not be returned. And we will be back before another committee 

next year with more left-behind families, more internationally abducted children, and no new mechanism of improvement. 

It is worth noting that this is the seventh hearing on this issue 

since 1998. And I respectfully ask this committee to think about 

something at the conclusion of this hearing. What, if anything, has 

changed in those 12 years since we acknowledged the seriousness 

of the problem of international child abduction and realized that 

the system was failing these parents back then? 

When you read the testimony, it is as if we are caught in a time 

capsule and suddenly the dates on the hearing transcripts don’t 

matter. All of these stories could be told today because the reasons 

for the failures are the same. This is as much of a bipartisan issue 

as there could ever be, and I continue to plead on behalf of all the 

suffering families torn apart by child abduction for our Government 

to act now. 

My son Sean and I can never get back the time we lost because 

of his abduction, but now that he is finally home, not a day is lost 

on either one of us. Let us help the rest of the families and begin 

with providing the much-needed tools that the State Department 

11

so desperately needs to apply across-the-board pressure that will 

ensure abducted American children come home. 

I would like to conclude with a letter from the left-behind parents of 117 American children unlawfully retained in 25 countries. 

The letter is addressed to Secretary of State Clinton and was written for the purpose of giving a voice to the thousands of parents 

who were not invited to speak here today. Their presence is felt 

and many of them are here in this room today. If I may, I would 

like to read this letter. And if any of the parents or families would 

like to stand with me? If the room were bigger, you could be assured there would be more families. If this room were bigger, you 

could be assured there would be more parents and families, making 

it even hotter.

‘‘Dear Madam Secretary, we, the undersigned, appeal for 

your help as left-behind parents of 117 American children who 

have been abducted and remain unlawfully retained in 25 

countries. We also represent a number of U.S. service members 

whose children were abducted while serving our country overseas. Some of these countries are signatories to the Hague 

Convention while others are not, such as Japan, where we face 

overwhelming odds trying to reunite with our children. 

‘‘We and our families are devastated emotionally and financially by the loss of our children and seek your assistance in 

ensuring that the U.S. Government is exercising all lawful 

means necessary to return these American children to their 

home country and reunite them with us. 

‘‘The continued retention of our children violates international law, ethical norms, and human decency. Put simply, 

our children have been stolen from us. It is our legal and our 

moral right to be a part of their lives. 

‘‘As our 85 cases demonstrate, there are a growing number 

of countries willfully ignoring or abusing their international 

obligations with regard to international parental child abduction. Each of us has had exasperating experiences seeking justice in foreign courts, where our cases are often treated as custody matters, rather than abduction cases. 

‘‘Oftentimes, victim parents—and court systems of foreign 

country when it is well-known that such action will likely result in a decision with custody of our abducted children being 

awarded to the abducting party. Collectively, we have limited 

or no contact with our children, many of whom have been 

turned against us as a result of parental alienation, a documented form of child abuse. 

‘‘Our children lost half their identities when they were 

ripped from their homes, families, and friends. Like us parents, 

our children’s grandparents, siblings, aunts, uncles, and other 

family members have holes in their hearts left by the abduction of their loved ones. 

‘‘We were encouraged by your July 2010 appointment of Ambassador Jacobs as Special Advisor to the Office of Children’s 

Issues. However, in working with OCI, we have experienced 

little improvement in the quality of service provided by the Department of State and almost no positive results. 

12

‘‘The current system has failed us. While our children remain unlawfully in foreign lands, the number of new child abduction cases from the U.S. continues to grow at an alarming 

rate. There is an urgent need for change, not only to prevent 

more of our nation’s children from being abducted across international borders but also to effectuate the expeditious and safe 

return of our abducted children. 

‘‘International child abduction is a serious human rights violation in desperate need of your attention. In our experience, 

all too often these international child abduction cases do not 

appear to be addressed aggressively because of the State Department’s effort to maintain harmonious, bilateral relations 

with other countries or to pursue other compelling foreign policy goals. 

‘‘The State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual on the 

issue of child abduction highlights this point by instructing 

OCI case workers to remain neutral when handling these abduction cases. This inherent conflict of interest cannot be ignored, and we need to place a higher priority on the welfare 

of our children. 

‘‘We understand the necessity of maintaining strong relations with other nations, but this should not come at the expense of our children. Over the years, both houses of Congress 

have held numerous hearings on the issue of international parental child abduction. Yet, precious little has changed as our 

absent children grow older. 

‘‘On Tuesday, another group of parents will gather in Washington, DC for yet another hearing, as we are today. It is our 

hope that this will be the year that Congress and the administration unite to pass new laws to strengthen our nation’s capacity to help the parent and children victims of international 

parental child abduction. We also hope that the State Department, under your leadership, will embrace these changes to finally end this gross injustice affecting thousands of American 

children. 

‘‘Madam Secretary, we applaud your past efforts and record 

on children’s rights issues, but we are desperate and plead for 

your assistance. It is long past time for this great country to 

show leadership on the issue of international parental child abduction. We cannot grow complacent with each successful return, nor can we forget about all the other children who are 

being wrongfully retained abroad. 

‘‘We are fortunate to have strong support of groups which advocate for victims of international parental child abduction. 

However, we need our Government’s unwavering support and 

determination to bring our children home. 

‘‘Madam Secretary, we would welcome the opportunity to 

meet with you directly to discuss how progress can be made. 

Please help us reunite with our children.’’

And the families and the names of the children are at the end of 

the letter. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

13

Mr. SMITH. Without objection, the letter will be made part of the 

record. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Goldman and the letter referred 

to follow:]


66530a-1.eps
14


66530a-2.eps
15


66530a-3.eps
16


66530a-4.eps
17


66530a-5.eps
18


66530a-6.eps
19


66530a-7.eps
20


66530a-8.eps
21


66530a-9.eps
22


66530a-10.eps
23


66530a-11.eps
24


66530a-12.eps
25


66530a-13.eps
26

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Goldman, thank you for your very powerful testimony, for speaking and articulating the deeply held views of virtually everyone in this room and all of those who couldn’t be here. 

I would note that this is the beginning of a series of hearings. 

We will hear from other left-behind parents in subsequent hearings—we have three panels today—because every single one of 

your situations needs to be aired, needs to have the full backing 

of our subcommittee, which they do, in order to hopefully, God willing, effectuate the return of those left-behind children. 

I would like to yield to Ms. Buerkle for any comments she might 

have, the distinguished gentlelady from New York. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for holding 

this very important hearing on the issue that will benefit from 

more attention and more action from this Congress. 

The testimony of the witnesses is truly heartbreaking. And as a 

mother of six, I can only imagine what the pain is when a child 

is abducted by a former spouse. It is probably the worst nightmare 

divorced parents could face. And I want to applaud the vigilance 

and the persistence of the left-behind parent in your pursuit to get 

your child back. 

Reading through the testimony was eye-opening. And especially 

disturbing was the non-return rate for the signatories to the Hague 

Convention. In 2010, the return rate for signatories to the Hague 

Convention was actually 7 percent lower than for the non-Hague 

Convention countries. Last year alone, the State Department handled 1,501 child abduction American citizen and residents. 

These are our children. We must do better. This Congress will 

do better. And I assure you that with our chairman here, we will 

do better. 

Thank you. And I yield back. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. I want to thank Ms. Bass for 

joining us, a distinguished member of this subcommittee as well. 

I would like to now recognize Sara Edwards. And please proceed 

as you would like. 

STATEMENT OF MS. SARA EDWARDS, MOTHER OF CHILD 

ABDUCTED TO TURKEY 

Ms. EDWARDS. Thank you all for the opportunity today to share 

my son’s story. 

My name is Sara Edwards and I am the mother of a 3-year-old 

boy named Abdullah Eli. Eli is a beautiful, curious, and active little 

boy who gives the most wonderful bear hugs, but I have not held 

him since March 4th of 2010. And on that day, more than 14 

months ago, Eli’s father, my husband, Muhammed Kiraz, took Eli 

to Turkey for a family visit. 

Muhammed and I met while we were both in college, and we 

married in Kent, Ohio in 2003. Our son was born 5 years later, 

while I was in graduate school at The Pennsylvania State University. My family and parts of Muhammed’s family lived in northeast 

Ohio. So when Eli was 6 months old, we moved back there. 

In January 2010, after 7 years of marriage, Muhammed and I 

separated. We drafted an informal shared parenting agreement to 

outline our intentions for raising our son. I believed this document 

was a framework for us to work together as separated parents in 

27

raising Eli. We acted under the plan, which called for equal custodial time of alternating weeks with Muhammed and I each visiting 

2 days a week with Eli during each other’s visitation. 

I fully believed that Muhammed’s participation meant he was 

committed to shared parenting, as I was. Therefore, when 

Muhammed wanted to go forward with a visit to see his family in 

Turkey and take Eli, I did not object. I thought it would be good 

for them to have the support of his family during the separation. 

Muhammed provided me with the round trip tickets of travel 

itinerary and also a signed, notarized statement promising to return with our son. 

Muhammed and Eli were supposed to spend 2 months in Turkey. 

Now 14 months later, Eli is still not home. I certainly did not want 

to be without my son for 2 months. I knew that I would miss him 

more than I had ever missed anything, but I have always felt it 

is important for our son to know his Turkish family and to have 

exposure to that half of his culture. I wanted to be fair. 

I myself had traveled to Turkey five times before Muhammed abducted Eli. On two of those times, Eli came with me. And we also 

stayed for 2 months during the visit. It all seemed routine. 

I drove them to the airport on the day of the travel. And I was 

there as they went through ticketing and security. I blew kisses 

and waved to Eli as Eli waved bye-bye from Muhammed’s shoulders. Excuse me. 

As I hold onto that happy last look at him, I now realize that 

Muhammed actively deceived me from the moment we decided to 

separate. For the first 2 weeks of their trip, I was able to visit with 

Eli daily, but on March 22, 2010, my nightmare began. Muhammed 

told me that he would only bring Eli back to Ohio if I declared myself an unfit parent and gave full custody to him. He told me he 

had already got a divorce and there was not a thing I could do 

about it. 

So the next day, March 23, 2010, I contacted Department of 

State Office of Children’s Issues; National Crime Center, American 

Embassy; Turkish Consulate; and scores of attorneys across Turkey 

and all over the U.S. 

It is certainly now clear Muhammed never intended to bring Eli 

home. He traveled to Turkey on March 6. And on the 10th of 

March, 4 days later, he attended a divorce hearing. One day later, 

March 11, 2010, the domestic court of Nevsehir, Turkey granted 

full custody of our son to Muhammed. Muhammed got full custody 

and divorce in a domestic court in a country where we never resided. 

According to Turkish law, I should have been physically present 

for the divorce hearing. Not only was I not present, I was never informed of the case in any way. I never had contact at all with the 

attorney, Hasan Unal, who was supposed to have represented me. 

I did not even have hard evidence that a foreign case took place 

until Muhammed filed the Turkish court’s ruling as evidence in our 

Ohio custody case. 

To date, Muhammed continues to ignore the Summit County 

court order to return Eli to Ohio. The judge signed the order adopting our original shared parenting plan in June 2010, and 

Muhammed and I are still legally married in Ohio. 

28

My Turkish attorney submitted my Hague petition to the Turkish Central Authority on January 24, 2011. I have learned that the 

Turkish authorities have investigated Muhammed’s and Eli’s 

whereabouts. And just this month, the Turkish Central Authority 

has opened a case on my behalf in Kayseri, Turkey for the return 

of my son. I await updates daily. I await updates desperately. 

Over the past 14 months, Muhammed has permitted me to visit 

with Eli by webcam, sometimes on a regular basis, but he also 

abruptly cuts off access for long periods with no warning. I schedule my daily life around the chance to speak with my only child, 

and my despair or elation turns upon Muhammed’s whim. My son 

no longer understands or speaks English, and I struggle to keep up 

with him in Turkish, but I am so grateful to still have contact and 

maintain our bond. 

Eli was only two when Muhammed took him. And now at age 

three, I see him growing and changing drastically with each visit. 

Every day I wonder, ‘‘Is he thinking about me and missing his 

mother the same way I am thinking about him and missing him?’’

Muhammed threatens to take Eli to Syria, torturing me with the 

reality that each webcam visit could again be the last time that I 

ever see Eli. Excuse me. 

The obstacles I face fighting the abduction of my son are great. 

I am essentially on my own to fight a court battle in a foreign country where I do not know the language or understand the culture. 

I have to be continually vigilant as I learn to maneuver this nightmare of uncertainty that accompanies fighting for my son. Excuse 

me. 

To date, I still do not know whether Eli has been issued a Turkish passport. No one can give me confirmation that Muhammed 

will be questioned if he tries to abscond from Turkey while the 

Hague case is pending. No one can give me confirmation that 

Muhammed will be questioned if he returns to the U.S. to renew 

his legal resident status. These are things we can know. These are 

obstacles that are ahead that need to be avoided. These are things 

we can do. 

I love my son more than anything in this world. And I am ready 

every minute to welcome him home. And I personally ask each of 

you now to commit to do all that is within your power to restore 

the right of our children to have relationships with both of their 

parents. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Edwards follows:]

29


66530b-1.eps
30


66530b-2.eps
31

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Edwards, thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Ms. Edwards, so much for sharing that. 

We now welcome Carlos Bermudez, who is the father of Sage, 

who was born on May 14, 2007. Sage’s mother abducted him to 

Mexico in June 2008. Mr. Bermudez has spent 3 years trying to 

bring his son to Durham, North Carolina. His presence with us 


66530b-3.eps
32

today is testimony to the fact that he continues to do so, just like 

all of the left-behind parents who are so valiantly struggling to reclaim their children. 

Mr. Bermudez? 

STATEMENT OF MR. CARLOS BERMUDEZ, FATHER OF CHILD 

ABDUCTED TO MEXICO 

Mr. BERMUDEZ. Thank you, Chairman Smith. 

Your amazing support of Mr. Goldman and advocacy on behalf of 

all families victimized by international child abduction is something that I respect gratefully. I am sincerely grateful for your efforts and honored to have the opportunity to address this committee. 

My only son, Sage, was born May 14, 2007. Like many parents, 

I spent the months preceding his birth rearranging my priorities 

toward fatherhood and anxiously awaiting his arrival. I knew being 

his father would now be the most important role in my life. 

In 2008, amidst increasing signs that something was amiss with 

my wife, I was having serious reservations about the long-term viability of our romantic relationship. 

I was ultimately at a loss for what to do. While quietly and 

thanklessly maintaining a demanding work schedule to provide for 

my family, I tried not to read the writing that was, in hindsight, 

on the walls, and hoped that our problems would somehow work 

themselves out with time or keep long enough for me to be able to 

find the time and energy to deal with them effectively. 

Time was, however, not on my side. In June 2008, 3 years ago, 

my wife falsely claimed there was a family emergency in Tucson, 

Arizona. The emergency involved her never-before-mentioned cousin, a 12-year-old who had gone missing himself and whose mother 

was scared to go to the authorities for fear of being deported. 

Despite great discomfort, I didn’t object to my wife going to Arizona with our son to see what she could do to help during this dire 

crisis. The only alternative I saw at that time was to take time off 

from my job at IBM to care for our son alone while my wife went 

to help find her endangered cousin. Being the sole provider for our 

family that, regrettably, did not seem feasible to me at that time. 

My wife went to Arizona with our son for what was supposed to 

be a few days. Once there, she turned off her cell phone and only 

sent me occasional e-mail saying she was in Arizona and continuing to work on this family emergency. 

I didn’t know what was really happening. Was my child suffering 

or in danger? The idea that my son might be in trouble forced me 

to stop refusing to ask myself the hard questions about what was 

really going on. 

As my uncertainty and fear grew, I began a frantic investigation 

into my wife’s recent activity, plans, and associations. I traced the 

origin of her e-mails to find out she wasn’t in Arizona at all. She 

was in Mexico. I began to see what she was doing and what her 

intentions were. 

Although my wife has never endeavored to explain to me why 

she did this, before long, I would learn that my wife had been having a long-running affair with one of her friends in her social group 

and had left to live with him in Nogales, Mexico. 

33

After significant effort, I located my son and initiated legal proceedings for his return under the Hague Convention. For good reason, the abduction convention is widely viewed as completely ineffective in Mexico. 

While I could discuss the various problems in Mexico that prevent the effective implementation of the abduction convention 

there, I feel that doing so in this forum misses the forest for the 

trees. In my own sincere opinion, our priorities should not be to address problems in Mexico that we have very little control over. 

Child abduction in Mexico from the U.S. is as much an American 

policy problem as it is a Mexican one. Inasmuch as Mexico is cited 

for failing to take appropriate measures to curb the international 

abduction of children, the U.S. Government is likewise criticized for 

not taking appropriate measures to protect American children or 

support American parents in their efforts to recover their internationally abducted children. 

The proximity and close relationship between the United States 

and Mexico makes the problems of one country the problems of 

both and, by extension, places the responsibility of addressing the 

problem on both countries. This type of bilateral cooperation is part 

of a broadening recognition of the fact that as neighbors, both nations share the responsibility of addressing our problems. 

American parents rightfully complain that they are alone in dealing with foreign courts and legal systems. The U.S. State Department has a virtual monopoly on information in such cases but refuses to share this information or act as a vigorous advocate for 

America’s victimized families. There is an explicit conflict of interest between states’ goal of maintaining pleasant bilateral foreign 

relations and assertive and effective advocacy and assistance on behalf of American citizens. 

Upon being assigned a case worker at the Office of Children’s 

Issues and having a first conversation with him, I remember thinking to myself, ‘‘My God. They have put the Department of Motor 

Vehicles in charge of recovering my son.’’ To my subsequent horror, 

I have come to appreciate just how accurate that initial impression 

was. All of my entreaties for advice, guidance, or practical information on how I should proceed were immediately rebuked with 

claims that they could not provide legal advice. 

When I look back on the way that the Office of Children’s Issues 

orientated me on how to handle the abduction of my son, I have 

very little doubt that they were essentially setting me up for the 

rapid collapse and failure of the Hague application for my son’s return. By not providing me with some very basic and essential facts, 

they were effectively guiding me down a path that would lead to 

the fast resolution of the Hague proceedings but which would also 

inevitably result in the denial of my son’s repatriation. 

Because such a result leads to the quick resolution of a potential 

diplomatic incident, they consider such results a form of success 

and view the American children’s loss of their American family and 

heritage as an acceptable level of collateral damage. It was only 

through obsessive focus and efforts on my part that I managed to 

avoid the road that State had laid out for me. 

In 2009, the Mexican family court rendered a decision that blatantly got every issue of fact and law wrong. In contradiction of virVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:11 Dec 01, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\052411\66530 HFA PsN: SHIRL
34

tually every piece of evidence other than my wife’s unilateral testimony, the judge denied my son’s return to the U.S., claiming that 

my wife had been in Mexico since October 2007, rather than the 

actual date of June 2008 and that I had waited too long to file an 

application for his return. 

In order to further prove during my appeal that my wife had provided criminally fraudulent testimony in Mexican courts, I requested that the U.S. State Department obtain copies of her entry 

and exit records to the United States. In the Kafkaesque conversations that ensued, I escalated this issue to the Abduction Unit 

Chief, who claimed they could not give me this information because 

it would violate my wife’s privacy. 

In spite of the fact that we remained legally married and that 

she had criminally abducted our child to a dangerous Third World 

country, when I asked to then have the entry and exit records for 

my son, for whom I am the legal custodial parent, I was told that 

this was not the role that OCI played and that they aren’t allowed 

to give legal advice or assistance. 

Furthermore, they said, the information I am looking for would 

be of no use to me in court because Mexico and the U.S. share a 

land border that allows for the fluid entry and exit of persons between the two countries. Therefore, they claimed, proving she had 

subsequently entered and exited the country would not prove the 

date of the illegal abduction and retention. 

I couldn’t help but wonder if moments after they had just said 

to me for the thousandth time that they couldn’t give me legal advice, why were they now giving me legal advice. So I asked OCI 

if they had a Mexican attorney, to which they replied that they did 

not. Then why were they not telling me that the information I was 

requesting was of no legal use to me in Mexican courts during my 

appeal when it was my own Mexican attorney telling me to obtain 

this information. 

At various points throughout this request, OCI told me something to the effect that a decision had been made in my case, sometimes adding that the appeal is now up to me and my attorney. 

The clear subtext of these statements was ‘‘We consider your case 

closed. We agree with the family court’s decision. And we aren’t 

going to get involved or help you undo what we view as the acceptable resolution of your son’s abduction case.’’ No matter how unjust 

the resolution itself may be, the important thing was that an aura 

of legitimacy had been created around my son’s abduction, and a 

potential diplomatic irritant had been eliminated. 

We cannot continue to offer up our abducted American children 

as sacrificial lambs at the altar of pleasant bilateral relations. The 

U.S. State Department and, by extension, the rest of the U.S. Government’s own willingness to invest even the smallest amount of 

political capital in protecting our children is inconsistent with our 

values as Americans. 

Contrary to the idea that abandoning these children helps us 

achieve our other more important policy goals, our callous indifference to the plight of our abducted children only serves to bolster 

the argument of America’s critics that our foreign policy is dominated by the interest of American corporations, rather than a fundamental respect for justice in human rights. America leads best 

35

when it leads by example. And I hope we can continue to do that. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bermudez follows:]


66530c-1.eps
36


66530c-2.eps
37


66530c-3.eps
38


66530c-4.eps
39


66530c-5.eps
40


66530c-6.eps
41

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Bermudez, thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Bermudez, thank you very much for your testimony. 

Let me just begin the questioning first. And I will start with you. 

I thank you for your very blunt assessment. You know, I have spoken now to dozens of left-behind parents. And one sense that I get 

from some and maybe from many is a fear that if they are too 

strong with the Office of Children’s Issues and with our own Government and even with Congress and Senate perhaps, there is a 

sense of retaliation that might come their way or a lack of 

robustness in resolving their case and somehow the case would be 

mothballed out of fear for that retaliation. And you spared no 

words in expressing your profound dismay over the performance of 

our Government. And I think that has to be taken to heart in a 

very, very meaningful way. 

No child should ever be a sacrificial lamb. You talked about the 

aura of legitimacy, Kafkaesque in terms of your description. And, 

frankly, when it comes to human rights, it has been my experience 

over the last 31 years as a Member of Congress who takes human 

rights very seriously, writes many laws on human rights, that very 

often human rights is demoted to an asterisk when it comes to 

pleasant state relationships. Statecraft somehow looks askance at 

the human rights agenda as, ‘‘Oh that,’’ an irritant, I think, as perhaps you suggested. 

And I am wondering if any of the panelists, and especially you, 

Mr. Bermudez, because you were so strong on this, would like to 

address that issue because I—you know, these are your children 

and all of your children. And to think that you need to walk on eggshells out of fear that all is being done that should be done is done 

is appalling. 

We are here to serve you. All of us see it that way. The members 

who are here believe passionately in human rights. I know that. 

And I think you will see that by their comments. But no one in the 

State Department or here or on staff or anywhere should ever put 

you, any of you, ill at ease that somehow your concerns are not 

front and center and foremost in our minds. 

So, you didn’t sugarcoat one iota. And I think we need to take 

it to heart, learn from that. Your bluntness is well-received, at 

least by this Member. So perhaps you might want to speak to that. 

And let me also ask, because I don’t want to take too much 

time—we have two additional panels. You know, I mentioned the 

diplomatic side very often putting this down at the bottom. We 

heard that at our previous hearing. 

We have heard that before. You know, one of the things that our 

legislation would do on child abduction would be to give the State 

Department serious tools to say, ‘‘We are not kidding.’’ We say to 

Japan, ‘‘We are not kidding. We hold you to account. And we will 

take or impose serious measures of penalty if you continue this pattern of noncooperation and if you lead the left-behind parent astray 

the way you have done so repeatedly.’’ So if you might want to 

speak a little bit further, that is up to you. 

Let me also ask, Mr. Goldman, with regard to so many tactics 

that were used against you. And the other parents might want to 

42

speak to this as well. But the delay is denial. You know, I found 

in your case—and I have seen it elsewhere but especially in your 

case—where you had a Hague-literate attorney using all of what 

should have been done against you—I am talking about the opposition’s attorney—and that is to somehow suggest in the proceedings 

that the child has become so accustomed to their new home, the 

place of abduction, that it would be ill-advised to pull them out of 

that environment. It says to the abductors, ‘‘Hold onto that child 

long enough. And then you can use that, too, as one of your argument points to continue the abduction.’’

The abduction occurs every day. It is called ‘‘retention,’’ but it is 

almost as if the abduction has been done anew each and every day. 

Every 24-hour period, that child has been reabducted. And so if you 

want to speak to that? 

And then, if I could, to Ms. Edwards, I wonder how helpful our 

Embassy in Ankara has been for you, whether or not they have 

stepped in and made this an important issue. You mentioned the 

Office of Children’s Issues. If you might want to elaborate on that 

a little further? 

They should be passionate advocates. They may feel ill-advised 

or ill-equipped to provide legal advice, but they have to fight for 

American parents and American children’s human rights. And that 

seems to have not gotten through in the way it ought to. So if you 

perhaps want to elaborate further on that? 

So please, Mr. Bermudez, if you could begin? 

Mr. BERMUDEZ. Yes. And just as an initial response to your comments, you know, you continue to demonstrate an uncanny intuition or knowledge of just really what this issue is about. And it 

really helps bring hope to me that there is someone in our Congress that really understands this and is really working toward addressing this problem. 

I guess to address the various parts of your comments, one concern I have, I have read carefully both pieces of your legislation 

that you have authored related to this issue. One concern that I 

would like to—one overriding concern, rather, that I would like to 

raise is that providing the ability of State to enact sanctions will 

be an empty half-measure if we do not address the fact that State 

has consistently demonstrated the lack of will to use any such 

tools. 

In regards to my comments, I shared the concern that speaking 

out about what I viewed as the American Government’s 

complicitness in the abduction of our children—I was also very concerned that, in doing so, I was going to lose whatever assistance 

they were actually providing me. And, in deep reflection on that 

very idea, I convinced myself that they were doing nothing and 

that, in speaking out about these issues, I was effectively losing no 

assistance whatsoever, though this is something that many parents 

that I have spoken to have also expressed as their concern that, 

you know, if they say anything publicly, there will be a retaliation. 

And, actually, there is some precedent for that. 

Tom Johnson, a parent, left-behind parent and also attorney at 

the State Department; and Patricia Roush, were both denied a seat 

at the various discussions on this various topic after 10 years ago, 

which kind of speaks to the longstanding nature of this program, 

43

10 years ago speaking out against what they viewed as various inadequacies in the State Department’s handling of this issue. 

I think that covers all the points I wanted to make. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Ms. Edwards? 

Ms. EDWARDS. My experience has shown that the OCI can be 

characterized as professional but also extremely distant. And what 

that means is they can give an A, B, C set of steps but they won’t 

commit to give me G, H, and I. And I need to know those in order 

to make my plan work properly. So it is almost like they feel like 

they have a role and the assistance is to make it as—I don’t know 

how to word this. I guess I just was not at all satisfied knowing 

how the process would continue and that if I finished one hoop, 

there will be another one waiting. That’s assured. But I didn’t 

know how to make that plan go forward. 

The biggest issue now that my Hague is filed and going forward 

in Turkey is that the communication between the central authority 

there and my case representative in OCI has been less than full. 

So I get in touch with her every couple of weeks to give updates. 

The last time she contacted me, instead of as a response, it was 

because someone in the Turkish media wanted to film our reunion. 

And the news got back to her. And she couldn’t believe that I 

would do that. 

I couldn’t believe that she wouldn’t have had the sense to ask 

me, ‘‘Have you heard about this?’’ I can’t believe in her experience, 

she didn’t know that people come out of the woodwork all the time. 

There are ridiculous amounts of people that have harassed or, I 

should say, approached every single one of us in this situation. 

There is Turkish media who say they know where my son is and 

that if I go on their show, they will assure a reunion. Yes. Well, 

I want them to report where my son is to the Turkish authorities. 

And that is not something that the American Embassy has been 

able to help me with. 

And so I guess that little anecdote kind of fills you in on my side. 

Mr. SMITH. Was there any attempt by the Consulate Office in 

Turkey to do a welfare whereabouts or have they——

Ms. EDWARDS. I have not requested that visit because I still 

have, thankfully, right now webcam access. I kind of have to put 

that on hold. I don’t feel like that is an infinite resource. So I am 

using that when I have to have that. Any time my husband threatens to take my son to Syria, which is a border-sharing country, I 

open the communication again so they know that I am ready to 

have that sent out as needed. 

But no, I have not had a well check ordered so far. 

Mr. SMITH. Now, has our Ambassador in Turkey raised your particular issue with the foreign ministry, as far as you know? 

Ms. EDWARDS. I am completely not aware that that has happened. It is not a request that I put through. 

Mr. SMITH. It’s something you shouldn’t have to ask for. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Yes. No. I am not aware at all if that has happened. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Bermudez, has that happened on your case? 

Mr. BERMUDEZ. Yes. Actually,—and just to make her aware, actually, under ICARA, U.S. legislation that implements the abducVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:11 Dec 01, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\052411\66530 HFA PsN: SHIRL
44

tion convention, parents are entitled to have a welfare and whereabouts visit every 6 months. This is also something that is allowed 

by the Geneva Convention. 

I have had two visits over the last 3 years. The first one they 

did immediately. The second one I had to get my congressman and 

senators involved to get State to actually act on my request to have 

my son’s well-being ascertained. But I have had two visits. 

Actually, I was most recently in Mexico trying to get them to do 

another one and allow me to attend, if at all possible. And that is 

still something that I am working on. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Goldman? 

Mr. GOLDMAN. We all face sort of a feeling like we are marked 

with a scarlet letter initially when our children are abducted. 

There is this guilt. There is this feeling of what we did wrong, people are looking at us. We must have been some terrible people for 

a mom or a dad to run off with our children. Clearly, it is not the 

case. These are oftentimes very badly behaved people. 

There is no real punitive measurement on the actual abductor. 

They can stay within the country that they are living, file for a divorce or separation, like parents do when they separate, couples do, 

or they could say, ‘‘You know what? I’m going to give it a shot. I’m 

going to go to this country, where I know I will have a jurisdictional advantage. And the worst case scenario is I get sent back 

and then have a normal divorce proceeding in the country, which 

I should have started this out to begin with.’’

So I know there have been suggestions of exit control, which is 

great. It wouldn’t have helped me. I drove my wife and son and her 

parents to the airport with love, hugs, and kisses. And she goes to 

this foreign country, applies for custody in the courts of Brazil 

without me even knowing it for many, many months later. So 

that’s how we start. 

If we show anger, if we show like we’re outraged, I think I feel 

like our State Department wants to look for something to dismiss 

us as much as someone who just can’t believe that a parent could 

take a child from another parent without the left-behind parent to 

have done something that deserves it. So we are already starting 

out with this overwhelming feeling that we are behind the eight 

ball with a scarlet letter. 

They are very adept at maneuvering and stalling in the courts. 

As you noted, the abductors of my son were, in fact, lecturing to 

different legal fellow attorneys in Brazil on how the abducting parent can turn the abducted child into an attack missile against the 

left-behind parent, parental alienation. And he also was lectured. 

While they were holding my son illegally in Brazil, this family of 

lawyers was also lecturing on how a clever lawyer can stall the judicial system with endless appeals and motions to keep that child 

in the abducting country for years on end. 

And eventually the courts will say, ‘‘Well, we know the child has 

been held illegally. We get that he has been abducted’’ or ‘‘she has 

been abducted. But now they are adapted. So let’s reward the kidnapper. And let’s be a country that actually rewards child abduction to the abductor.’’ And, again, this is where we need to step in 

with these sanctions to show we’re not going to tolerate this. 

45

There is no real deterrent for these abducting parents. And there 

is no punitive measure for them to face. The first thing a country 

would do is if you filed criminal charges, the Hague Convention, as 

good as it is, abductors use it as a double-edged sword because it 

is a civil remedy. 

If America starts filing criminal prosecution against all of these 

child abductors, which we would in our own country if they took 

them across state lines, then the country where the child is abducted will say, ‘‘Well, we’re not going to return that child back to 

their home state because then the abducting parent will be in jail 

and they won’t be able to see the child.’’

So, I mean, as the left-behind parent, all of these thoughts go 

through your mind and your heart. What do we do? What can we 

do? And it seems to me that the most sensible is to start with these 

sanctions and use them. 

Colin Bower in the back, his sons Ramsay and Noor, they were 

taken to Egypt by an abusive, drug-addicted mother, who forged 

passports. They entered Egypt with different last names on the 

passports than the mother. They entered Egypt. Egypt recognizes 

that they’re held illegally. Yet, they still are in Egypt. We just basically gave Egypt $1 billion. We forgo a debt of $1 bil- lion, and we are going to give them $1 billion more. Glad that they 

are going to be a democracy, glad that Mubarak is out, bad that 

our children are still held there illegally by unfit parents, let alone 

just abducting that should have been returned anyway. 

We have another case—and I believe he is going to be testifying—with Michael Elias. He served two terms in the deserts, 

came back a wounded veteran. The Japanese Embassy in New 

York gave fraudulent passports to the abducting mother of the children. And they are in Japan illegally. There has got to be something we can do. It is outrageous. And it is only getting worse year 

after year. 

As I said earlier, the room is smaller and the crowds are bigger. 

And hopefully we won’t have to be here next year because countries 

will be returning our children. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. Payne? 

[Applause.] 

Mr. PAYNE. Let me say I really appreciate the testimony, those 

of which I heard and those that I’ve read. And I think that you 

probably, through your testimony and the letter to the Secretary 

and also your answering of the questions, have answered the primary questions that I had. 

I would, though, like to review your case. What do you think? 

The primary reasons that you finally got the release of your son 

was through senators or Congressman Smith, the Convention? Because your case is successful—of course, it took a long, long time—

I wonder what advice you would have specifically to other parents 

that you would give right now? 

Mr. GOLDMAN. Well, essentially, I walked in their shoes with my 

pleas falling on deaf ears. I had a very skillful team of attorneys. 

The first order that I received that would call for the return of my 

son, that first order is the most crucial order as you go through the 

process in the legal arena. It needs to be basically as solid an order 

46

as you can get. You only get one first shot. So you definitely need 

an attorney who is very skillful on international child abduction, 

Hague or non-Hague countries, for that first order is paramount. 

Second, what brought it to the attention essentially was the 

media. The media in my case acted as a fourth branch of government. It brought the story. It called people’s attention. For so long 

I had, like many people do, had family members, friends wanting 

to help, but what could they do? They could do little more than I 

could do. And, finally, when it caught the attention of Congressman 

Smith and your colleagues, who could actually do something and 

would do something, that made the difference. 

It began with the media. Ultimately it ended with sanctions by 

Senator Lautenberg. That shows sanctions mean something. These 

countries want our money more than they want our children. And 

it is unfortunate, but that is what it takes. 

We give so many of these countries billions of dollars of aid. And 

if we do have these sanctions ready and waiting, more often than 

not, they will return our children without us having to use them. 

If we use them once or twice on the worst offenders to get our kids 

home, they know we are serious. We shouldn’t be. 

Most of these countries are our friends and our allies. And some 

of them, it is just inherent in their whole domestic system, as 

Japan. They have very archaic domestic laws when it comes to 

child custody to begin with. So they need to start there before they 

can—I can really feel comfortable with them acceding to the Hague 

Convention. 

Mr. PAYNE. Are you able to find attorneys or were you or any of 

the others an attorney in the host country, so to speak, that would 

be willing to fight the red tape in their country, or in other words, 

to take your side against their government, either one of you? 

What was your success or lack of success trying to get a qualified 

attorney to really fight on your behalf against their countries? 

Ms. EDWARDS. I myself am relatively early in the process still. 

So I have a Hague case under investigation. And it is going forward. And the government has opened the case on my behalf for 

my son’s return. And, actually, they had a hearing this morning, 

9 o’clock this morning. 

So in finding the attorney, though, it is a maze to find someone 

who has passible English or to constantly be dealing with a translator. For that person to be versed in the Hague is very rare. And 

for that person to be in the city where you need them is also rare. 

So what you are doing is going through an entire country and trying to find an expert and put them in a location where they can 

serve you. 

And while I would love to have had the money to get the best 

attorney anywhere in Turkey and have that person relocate for the 

course of this case or to pay them a travel for every hearing or 

whatever, those are not the conditions that we live in, you know. 

So you do the best you can. 

And I have an attorney who represents me. And we do work with 

a translator because I decided that her proficiency in English was 

less important than her proficiency in Hague. But these are decisions you have to make. 

47

And you have to also be timely. And then you have to constantly 

have a fear, was that the right choice? How do you know? This person I talk to is on Skype. How do I know that they’re not going 

to take the money and run or how do I know that this person is 

even acting in my interest when clearly a judge and another Turkish attorney went way around the law to grant my husband full 

custody of my son? 

That case I am having overturned in Turkey. And it is going to 

be reheard, not that that should have any effect on the Hague, 

which is pending, but every little bit—I don’t know what my Hague 

judge is going to consider when he sees a Turkish custody ruling. 

But also that I had to put off for a long time because I am always 

concerned about what I do there. How will that have implications 

here? What do I do here that will mess up there? 

I am still married to this man because I was worried that divorce 

would allow him the opportunity to appeal the Ohio custody. So 

there are all of these very intricate things to balance and maneuver. 

So finding the attorney, sure, is an issue. It is just one of many. 

And I would say that the list of attorneys on the State Department’s Web site is not the way to go. You have got to go through 

the social networks and word of mouth. That way it is a whole lot 

of time and money wasted trying to find someone. But they will 

say, ‘‘Yes, you can retain me for $10,000 up front and then $20,000 

when you get your son home.’’ You know, it is a racket. 

Mr. PAYNE. Mr. Bermudez, your experience? 

Mr. BERMUDEZ. Actually, that is a very important question. Attorneys, not for nothing, don’t have the best reputation in any 

country. Mexico is somewhat legendary in terms of not having a 

national way of accrediting attorneys. So there was actually a very 

large number of incompetent attorneys in Mexico. And selecting a 

competent attorney that has all the qualities that Sara just listed 

is essential. 

And initially I asked the State Department if they could just provide me a list of attorneys that had previously handled these types 

of cases so I knew I had someone with experience. And they refused to give this to me. They flat-out said, ‘‘We can’t provide legal 

advice. We can’t make any kind of recommendations.’’ And I think 

that is atrocious. I think this is the very least they can do. 

And, through trial and error and through lots of interviews and 

a massive amount of effort, I have had somewhat some luck in hiring attorneys in Mexico, but I do speak Spanish. And I can really 

relate to the difficulty of finding an attorney in a country where 

you do not speak the language. So it is unfortunate. 

Australia is a great example where they handled this much better. There is financial assistance provided directly to parents to 

hire an attorney and to locate one. So that is one of many things 

that I think can be improved upon in the United States’ handling 

of child abduction cases. 

Mr. PAYNE. So in your opinion, probably the tactic is people 

would expect you to be worn down eventually and——

Mr. BERMUDEZ. Absolutely. 

Mr. PAYNE [continuing]. And quit. 

Mr. BERMUDEZ. Absolutely. 

48

Mr. PAYNE. I mean, it’s frustrating. You know it’s your child. 

Number one, finances becomes an issue. Number two, delays, bureaucracy, postponements. And they figure they will just—time is 

on their side. They will win just by inertia of inaction. Is that what 

you think your goals are? 

Mr. GOLDMAN. One hundred percent. One hundred percent. Time 

is our enemy. And they are adept at stalling and manipulating and 

keeping these cases going for years until we are emotionally, financially, physically bankrupt. And then we just walk as a dead man 

walking forever. And it is a terrible pain to deal with and to live 

with. 

In Brazil, it was taking so long for the Brazilian Central Authority to even process my case that I had to hire a private attorney. 

And then the Government of Brazil says, ‘‘Well, no. We’re not going 

to support you because now it is an individual case. You had a private attorney.’’ So you are damned if you do, you’re damned if you 

don’t. They look for anything to keep the kid there. 

Mr. PAYNE. And in your two cases, because both have less publicity than, of course—well, maybe it did, but I am a New Jerseyite. 

So I follow the case very closely. Did they attempt, as they normally would do and as in your case, to turn the child against you, 

I mean, the parents? How did both of your children? And what 

were their ages? How young were they? 

Ms. EDWARDS. Well, my boy is three now. He was two when he 

left. And because I am able to see him by webcam, I know that he 

knows who I am. He calls me ‘‘Sara.’’

He doesn’t have any English. So I learned Turkish to keep up 

with him. We look at picture books. I am constantly concerned 

about losing his attention. I can’t hold him. I can’t play with him. 

I can’t kick the ball. So I am trying to find new ways all the time 

to keep him involved. 

Back to the previous statement, I have not dealt so far with legal 

maneuverings that were uncouth. But I strongly believe that, even 

if I win my case, Muhammed is a flight risk. Then what? He is 

going to go somewhere else. Then what? He goes and hides in a village and the family protects him. 

So the other side of that is some kind of enforcement, some real 

political will to say, ‘‘This person has won her case’’ or ‘‘This person’s case was wrongfully ruled’’ or whatever the case is but to follow through on that because just, like I was mentioning before, 

knowing where to go next, knowing how this step affects the next. 

You have got to be able to see this all the way through. 

I am not going to wait until he leaves to try to find him. I mean, 

I am not going to wait until he leaves to try to prevent it. But, 

thankfully, so far that hasn’t been the case. 

I do not know what he says about me. I don’t know. I only imagine that it is very bad things because his family, whom I have 

known for 8 years and loved closely, turned against me. So clearly 

he is saying something bad. 

I really try to enjoy my time with my son. I really try to only 

focus on those moments we have. So I don’t poke the beast and ask 

his father what he says. I don’t poke the beast and say, ‘‘What do 

you think this is doing to our child?’’

49

I have many questions I would love to ask him, and I don’t have 

that chance because it is much more important for me to see my 

son and to know that Mommy is not crying and we’re happy and 

we’re having a good time because that’s his normal right now. 

This boy doesn’t have a mom. This boy is there completely separate from half of his life. And I don’t want to be continually adding 

to his distress. So it’s eggshells. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay. And, just finally——

Mr. BERMUDEZ. My son was 1 year old when he was taken to 

Mexico. And I hadn’t seen him for 2 years. So parental alienation 

was not a major concern because it’s hard to formulate concepts of 

‘‘That is a bad person’’ in a very young child’s mind. As my son gets 

older, it is a concern that I definitely have. And following these 

cases for years now, it is something that happens all the time. 

I just recently saw my son 3 weeks ago for about 15 minutes for 

the first time in 2 years. And, as Ms. Edwards spoke to, it is—you 

know, we are really concerned about our children. 

We really want to—you know, I didn’t run and grab my son. I 

hadn’t seen him for 2 years. I wasn’t sure. I believed he wouldn’t 

remember me when he saw me. And so I didn’t run and grab him. 

I kind of came up to him, and I said, ‘‘Hi.’’ I said, ‘‘How are you 

doing?’’ And I asked him what his name was. And he looked at me. 

And I was relieved to see that there was a recognition that I was 

someone important, that I was someone he knew, even if he didn’t 

know that I was his dad. And they had been teaching him to call 

his grandfather ‘‘Father.’’ And I believe that is a very serious piece 

of parental alienation that is going to be hard to change. 

So for the time being—I think seeing the reaction my son had to 

me—we played for about 15 minutes. And we both enjoyed ourselves. And I think when they saw that reaction, that empathy that 

we had, that relationship kind of still existed, and the potential for 

it to grow. 

I haven’t been able to see my son since, 3 weeks. I’ve been in 

Mexico for a total of 4 weeks immediately prior to this hearing. 

And I saw my son the first week about 15 minutes. And they have 

been completely unresponsive to allowing me to see him again. And 

I think it is an effort of parental alienation to at some point be able 

to say, ‘‘Look, the child doesn’t know him. He doesn’t respond to 

him. He doesn’t know. You know, he has no relationship.’’ So it’s 

a legal tactic as well as just a form of child abuse, frankly. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Buerkle? 

[Applause.] 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Goldman, in your letter to Secretary Clinton and the letter 

that was signed by the left-behind parents of 117 children, you 

state that, ‘‘In our experience, all too often these international child 

abduction cases do not appear to be addressed aggressively because 

of the State Department’s effort to maintain harmonious, bilateral 

relations with other countries or to pursue other compelling foreign 

policy goals.’’ And, Mr. Bermudez, you alluded to the same thing 

in your testimony, the frustration with the State Department. 

Now, I would like to ask the three of you, if we were the State 

Department, what is it you want to tell them? And what is it you 

50

want us to ask of them and to tell them? So if you could be specific 

with us? What do you see? What do you want the State Department to do? 

Because I disagree with the fact that the State Department 

doesn’t work for the American people because they do. Ultimately 

they are to be representing American people. You are the American 

people. So I would like to hear from you specifically. What is it you 

need and you want from the State Department so we can have that 

opportunity to make those demands of them? We will start with 

Mr. Goldman. 

Mr. GOLDMAN. Well, first, as the former Assistant Secretary of 

State for the Western Hemisphere pointed out at the last hearing 

2 years ago, when there is an Ambassador who is appointed, say, 

to Mexico or Colombia, their first order of business is going to be 

immigration, drugs, arms, economics. 

And that is why we do need to have this special Ambassador-atLarge. 

So those other issues are taking precedent. And our abducted 

children are on the bottom of the totem pole. And we need to make 

them a priority. It is growing. The number of children that are 

being abducted and also the ones that are remaining held illegally, 

it’s just growing and growing. 

So we need to have this Ambassador-at-Large to focus specifically on our abducted children. We need to have some sort of system where Congress, each congressman knows when a child is abducted from their district. And they will be the advocate and get 

involved with the State Department. 

Also, the State Department needs tools. They should be here begging us for help that they need and have needed for so many years. 

It shouldn’t be anything that we have to introduce and then hope 

for votes and then hope that Democrats and the Republicans will 

get together to help our children. The State Department should be 

here begging for us for the help and to give them the tools that 

they so desperately need in their toolbox. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. GOLDMAN. And if it has to go all the way up to economic 

sanctions, it has to go up to economic sanctions. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. BUERKLE. Ms. Edwards, I have the same question for you. 

Ms. EDWARDS. Aside from the points that David mentioned, one 

huge specific is that there should be a way for the State Department to correspond with the central authorities in Hague signatory 

countries, mine specifically the Turkish Central Authority, and 

that they should be able to flag people who are subject to a current 

Hague case and prevent them from traveling outside of the country 

during a current Hague case. This is something that can be done 

and something that should be done, the fact that there is a good 

possibility Muhammed will come back and try to maintain his legal 

residency status, retain his green card status, he can go into any 

port, do that, stay a couple of days, and go home, without my son 

ever coming here, without my son having rights to me. 

I guess those are the specifics that I really, really would pray for. 

Yes. I will leave that. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you. 

51

Mr. Bermudez? 

Mr. BERMUDEZ. The State Department hiring process. I think one 

of the problems we have with our Foreign Service officers might be 

called a form of clientitis. I think one of the things I would like 

them to do in their hiring process is to ask everybody applying for 

a job there to identify the United States on a globe. I think what 

we see is that sometimes there is some confusion as to whether 

they represent foreign interests in America or American interests 

in foreign countries. 

Mr. SMITH. Could you repeat that? 

Mr. BERMUDEZ. Yes. Sure. I think one of the problems we have 

with our Foreign Service officers might be called a form of 

clientitis, where it is unclear whether our Foreign Service officers 

represent foreign countries’ interests in America or American interests in foreign countries. 

I think one thing that would be of value to us is to have each 

applicant at the State Department identify where the United 

States is on a globe to be sure that they know who they are working for. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. BERMUDEZ. The other thing I would really like them to know 

is that, you know, when we want to promote the interests of abducted children, we are not asking for something that is unpopular. 

This is something that we will be respected for. This is not an irritant. This is something that every other country has, this problem. 

You know, we have to look beyond the trees to see the forest. I 

mean, it’s a case where if we could lead on this issue, this is a 

human rights issue. And let’s be very clear about that. Contrary to 

spending political capital, we’ll gain political capital. We will have 

the opportunity to speak with moral authority on other issues. 

And I think that is something sorely lacking. And I think that 

our lack of advocacy on this is detrimental to our foreign policy. I 

think it has a negative effect, rather than——

Mr. GOLDMAN. And we are not asking these countries for any favors. We are just asking them to abide by the rule of law. We don’t 

want favors. It is not a favor to return our abducted children. It 

is abiding by the rule of law. It is simple, should be so simple. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you very much. I appreciate your courage 

to be here today and to all of the folks in the room. Thank you very 

much for your willingness to come out. And I ask you not to be discouraged. 

I understand all of these hearings and this many years later, but 

I think you have a pledge from these Members of Congress that we 

are concerned that we will hold the State Department. We will talk 

with them and certainly hold them accountable. They do work for 

the American people, and we do pay their salaries. 

So thank you all very much for being here. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Marino? 

Mr. MARINO. No. 

Mr. SMITH. I want to thank our very distinguished panel. 

I just want to ask one ‘‘Yes’’ or ‘‘No’’ question. You know, it’s been 

said that if you say you don’t have time, you stated a priority, you 

haven’t stated a fact. I know, David, you have spoken to the U.S. 

52

Ambassador in Brazil. It took a long time. But I wonder, Ms. Edwards and Mr. Bermudez, have you had contact with the U.S. Ambassador? 

Ms. EDWARDS. No. 

Mr. BERMUDEZ. Absolutely not, not——

Mr. SMITH. Anything else you would like to add before we go to 

panel number 2? 

[No response.] 

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

[Applause.] 

Mr. SMITH. We would like to now welcome our second panel. And 

beginning with Mr. Michael Elias, who is currently a Bergen County Sheriff in the State of New Jersey. He is a former sergeant in 

the United States Marine Corps and met his wife while stationed 

in Japan in 2004 to 2005. She abducted their two children, Jade 

and Michael, to Japan in December 2008. 

Through his testimony here, we will hear about the particular 

challenges that parents whose children are abducted to Japan face, 

particularly from when they happen to be military personnel. 

I would note parenthetically that earlier this year, I traveled to 

Japan with Nancy and Miguel Elias, Jade’s and Michael’s grandparents, Michael’s mom and dad. I spent several days there meeting with high officials in the Japanese Government. And it was 

very clear that when they got to make their case, there were very 

empathetic ears, but the question is whether or not those empathetic ears turn into tangible policy that will permit the return of 

children who have been abducted to Japan. 

As I said at the outset, it needs to be underscored with exclamation points if there is a mere ascension to the Hague without resolving the existing cases, there will be a gross miscarriage of justice perpetrated upon those American children and those left-behind parents. So this committee, and I’m sure members of both 

sides of the aisle, will be very emphatic to our friends in Japan—

and they are indeed friends—in the government that they need to 

resolve these cases. 

Next, we will hear from Mr. Joshua Izzard, who is the father of 

Melisande Izzard, who was born in Chicago, Illinois on June 18th 

of 2008. She was taken by her mother to Russia in October 2010. 

Mr. Izzard has not seen his daughter since September of last year 

and has not been allowed to talk to her since January. 

Then we will hear from Mr. Colin Bower, who is the father of 

Noor and Ramsay Bower, ages 10 and 8. Noor and Ramsay were 

abducted by their mother from Boston to Egypt in August 2009. 

Colin remains committed to the safe and swift return of his children. I am pleased to have joined Barney Frank in sponsoring H. 

Res. 193 with regard to their particular case. 

So I would like to now ask Mr. Elias if he would proceed. 

STATEMENT OF MR. MICHEL ELIAS, FATHER OF CHILDREN 

ABDUCTED TO JAPAN 

Mr. ELIAS. Thank you. 

Congressman Smith and distinguished members of the subcommittee, my name is Michael Elias and I would like to thank 

53

you for all your opportunities to share with you my personal experience involving international child abduction. 

I would like to first extend my deepest sympathies to the people 

of Japan affected by the devastation of the earthquake, tsunami, 

and nuclear disasters. 

I am a former sergeant of the United States Marine Corps, from 

August 2003 to November 2007. I am currently a Bergen County 

Sheriff in the State of New Jersey. While stationed in Japan in 

2004 to 2005, I met my wife, Mayumi Nakamura. 

Shortly thereafter, I was stationed in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. She contacted me and informed me that she was pregnant. In 

September 2005, Mayumi relocated to the United States. And on 

October 18, 2005, we were married in Rutherford, New Jersey. Our 

first child, Jade Maki Elias, was born on January 5, 2006, at the 

naval hospital in Camp Lejeune. 

In March 2007, I was deployed to Iraq. On August 2nd, 2007, 

while I was serving my country, my son Michael Angel Elias was 

born at Hackensack Medical Center in New Jersey. This inspired 

new levels of patriotism and responsibility inside of me that were 

matched with love for my family and children. 

While I was deployed, Mayumi and our children lived with my 

parents in New Jersey. During that time Mayumi started a relationship with a Japanese national, Kenichiro Negishi, who was her 

travel agent. 

When I returned from serving my country in Iraq, Mayumi, my 

children, and my extended family were all reunited and living together in New Jersey. Sadly a few months after my return, 

Mayumi and I separated. 

I was then served with a document from Mayumi, headlining, 

‘‘An Agreement for Travel and Residency,’’ stating that ‘‘I, Michael 

Elias, allow Mayumi and my two children to visit Japan without 

any restrictions under any circumstances.’’ If these conditions were 

not met, I would have to surrender any custody rights of Jade and 

Michael to Mayumi. This would also result in a relocation of 

Mayumi and our two children to Japan from the United States if 

Mayumi elects to do so. The document then stated, ‘‘Whether or not 

any actions of Michael Elias is complied with the conditions above 

are determined by Mayumi Elias, and Michael Elias must respect 

her decision at any time. Also, regardless of the courts’ decisions, 

Michael Elias respects and follows the terms stated above.’’

I sought counsel after Mayumi asked me to sign that document 

that she had already signed on September 26, 2008. On October 29, 

2008, before the Honorable Judge Alexander H. Carver of the Superior Court of Bergen County, New Jersey, I was awarded joint custody of my children. On that day, Judge Carver clearly ordered 

three times that the children’s passports, both American and Japanese, be turned over to her attorney, Victor Nezu, because she was 

an obvious flight risk. 

I did everything I could to ensure the safety and well-being of my 

children. I felt confident and had every reasonable expectation in 

our legal system with the ruling of Judge Carver and the strength 

of the United States Government, that my American-born children 

would be protected from being kidnapped to Japan. I was wrong. 

54

Mayumi was an employee of the Japanese Consulate in New 

York City issuing visas and passports. She used her position in the 

Consulate as a tool to carefully collaborate the abduction of our 

children. Mayumi had replacement passports issued in the Japanese Consulate in Chicago, where she and her boyfriend, Kenichiro, 

exited the country through Chicago’s O’Hare airport. 

They carried out the abduction of our children on the Japanese 

Airline flight number 9, bound for Tokyo Narita airport in Japan 

on December 6, 2008. I still have in my possession their original 

passports. 

My family and I are horrified and sickened by Mayumi’s actions. 

We have repeatedly attempted to contact the Japanese Consulate 

in New York, Chicago and Washington DC and continue to receive 

no cooperation whatsoever. 

Shortly after she had arrived in Japan, I was contacted by 

Mayumi, saying she had unilaterally decided that she would raise 

the children in Japan. When explaining to her that she had kidnapped our children, she maintained that, I quote, ‘‘It’s not kidnapping. My country will protect me.’’

Thereafter I was awarded full custody of our children here in the 

United States. The judge also ordered the immediate return of the 

children to the United States from Japan by means of The Hague 

Convention. Unfortunately, the judge was unaware of Japan not 

being a signatory of the treaty and Japan’s lack of accession, something Mayumi seemingly understood. 

To date, no child has ever been returned by the Japanese Government. According to the State Departments statistics, there are 

321 documented cases of abduction from the U.S. to Japan alone. 

If we include numbers of American children abducted while living 

in Japan, statistics would significantly be higher. 

It is no doubt that these heinous crimes will continue and at the 

time of our next State Department meeting, these figures will have 

risen as more children will continue to be unwillingly and unlawfully abducted. 

Since the abduction I have pleaded with Mayumi to return our 

children back to the United States, assuring her that there were 

no criminal charges pending in fear that she will not return under 

those conditions. 

On January 5, 2010, I was granted the privilege to see my children via Skype. It was my daughter’s fourth birthday. Although it 

was very hard to see my children through a monitor, it was very 

satisfying to see them so happy to see me. My daughter, Jade, 

looked at her mother in heartache and said to her ever so softly 

something in Japanese. When I asked Mayumi what Jade had said, 

she replied, ‘‘She wants to be with you.’’ The monitor immediately 

went blank. That was last time I saw my daughter’s face. 

February of this year, my parents flew to Japan. With the assistance of the United States Embassy in Tokyo; Congressman Smith; 

and my attorney, Patricia Apy, they tried to contact Mayumi to ask 

if they could visit their grandchildren. After countless e-mails and 

phone calls were ignored, the U.S. Embassy was able to reach 

Mayumi. And she denied any access for my parents. She also told 

the Embassy she was not accepting any of their calls. Excuse me. 

Needless to say, my parents were devastated, but not shocked. 

55

The sense of longing for my children can be completely unbearable and crippling at times. It does not get better with time. It only 

grows deeper and deeper along with the sense of hopelessness. As 

a father who no longer has his children to hold in his arms, I cannot deal with the sorrow. So I try my best to stay strong and keep 

fighting for their return. 

All my hopes and dreams for their future now lie in the hands 

of others. I am begging our Government to help not only my family, 

but hundreds of other heartbroken families as well to demand the 

return of our American children who are being held in Japan and 

in most cases never seen or heard from again. 

This goes against everything we stand for as Americans and especially for our children’s lives and well-being. This is not just a 

family issue or an international issue. This is a human rights 

issue. 

Our children are too young to speak for themselves. I am expecting our Government to be their voice. 

In conclusion, I would like to read the names of the following 

American children abducted to and wrongfully retained in Japan 

who are unaccounted for since the earthquake/tsunami and ongoing 

nuclear disaster: Kianna Berg; Gunnar Berg; Keisuke Collins; 

Michiru Donaldson; Kai Endo; David Gesselman; Joshua 

Gesselman; Ayako Lucy Greenberg; Shanon Yuda Ishida; Riki 

Ishida; Ricky Kephart; Noelle Kephart; Mary Victoria Lake; Yuuki 

McCoy; ‘‘Mochi’’ Atomu Imoto Morehouse; Rui Prager; Rion Suzuki; 

Tiana Weed; Takoda Weed; and Kaya Wong. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Elias follows:]

56


66530d-1.eps
57


66530d-2.eps
58

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Elias, thank you so very much. And I would like 

to now ask Mr. Izzard if he could proceed. 


66530d-3.eps
59

STATEMENT OF MR. JOSHUA IZZARD, FATHER OF CHILD 

ABDUCTED TO RUSSIA 

Mr. IZZARD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of Congress, 

for inviting me to testify today regarding the ongoing tragedy of 

international parental kidnapping. 

I am Joshua Hannum Izzard, bereaved father and sole and legal 

guardian of Melisande Izzard, my American-born-and-raised 

daughter and only child, who was taken almost 8 months ago to 

Perm, Russia; whose voice I haven’t heard for many long months 

now. 

I have been living for nearly 8 months with a hole in my life, 

while some, like Mr. Tom Sylvester of Cincinnati, Ohio, whose testimony I read during the preparation of my own, and his daughter 

and others like them have lived with that hole for years. Our great 

country must stop this constant bleeding of its most important resource, its children, in the interest of other, may I say, more tangible or natural resources or diplomatic gains. 

As a nation, we need to construct legal mechanisms to facilitate 

resolution of existing parental kidnappings and put in place effective preventative mechanisms to assure that our citizens are not 

subjected to this daily, unbearable sorrow that comes in the wake 

of an international parental kidnapping. 

I was in Rome, Italy when Tatiana Ivleva, my decade-long partner, the love of my life and the wife of 5 years, the mother of my 

daughter, Melisande, called to inform me that she and my little 

blue-eyed angel were in Russia and would never return, that I 

would never see my daughter again. In shock, I nearly collapsed on 

the street. 

I wrote the first of many letters for my daughter while flying 

home, speeding westward away from her to Chicago. My heart 

seemed a spool of thread unwinding, my life unraveling as the distance between us grew. 

At home I opened the door to our Chicago apartment overlooking 

Lake Michigan. Desolation overwhelmed me as the golden afternoon light filtering through the dead silence of our living room 

gently touched on a semicircle of my daughter’s favorite toys, left 

exactly as she had been playing with them. No joyous ‘‘Daddy’s 

home,’’ only silence, thundering silence. 

Initial denial became steely resolve to protect my child, who now 

lives in grave danger, to bring her back to her loving, lawful home. 

Since the kidnapping, my offers of compromise and reconciliation 

have gone unanswered, court orders and decisions ignored, and 

pleas to at least have phone calls with my daughter unheeded. 

A local arrest warrant has been issued for Tatiana. The FBI, 

INTERPOL, Chicago PD, National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, State Department, and congressmen’s offices are 

all involved, though the FBI open case crawls along due to the Office of Children’s Issues’ steadfast refusal to inform the FBI as to 

how they have been contacting my ex-wife. 

I have given interviews to U.S. and Russian media, each time 

imploring Tatiana to simply speak with me, to negotiate a solution. 

Melisande was torn away from me and everyone and everything 

she had known from birth in one cruel, selfish instant by her mother, Tatiana, and maternal grandmother, Galina, and abruptly 

60

plunged into a strange world of darkness, mental illness, and physical danger. 

Tatiana’s own signed statements declare that she immediately 

moved in with her high school boyfriend in Russia, an abusive individual named Andrey Medvedev, with whom, it has been proven, 

she had been having an extramarital relationship for some time 

prior to the kidnapping. 

Mr. Medvedev is a violent alcoholic, with numerous documental 

citations for public intoxication; drunk driving, for which he lost his 

license; and physical violence, offenses ranging from assaulting a 

bar employee to terrorizing neighbors with his drunken rages to 

purported accusations of child molestation. Both his former wife 

and a long-time live-in partner report that his inability to control 

himself when drinking was a primary cause of the breakup of their 

relationships. He is furthermore reported to be a devoted adherent 

of a cult which advocates the use of psychoactive drugs, engaging 

in ritualistic sexual behavior, and forcing women to submit to dominant males, isolating themselves from society. 

This is precisely what my ex-wife has done. Despite not working, 

Tatiana attended only two court hearings in Russia before signing 

over her full power of attorney regarding all aspects of our divorce, 

including Melisande’s upbringing and custody, to a violent alcoholic, whose decisions will impact my daughter’s life forever. 

The role of the Russian Consulate in the abduction itself and the 

ensuing legal processes has seen Russia make a joke of its own 

laws and flaunt its impunity to the international community. 

To accomplish the abduction, Tatiana turned to the Russian Consulate in Washington, DC, for help. What she said is unknown, but 

she was issued a one-time Russian Repatriation Certificate with 

our American daughter’s name written on it. This document allowed her to abduct our daughter, a U.S. citizen, from U.S. soil and 

transport her directly to a non-Hague country. 

Imagine the situation, please, anyone here who travels frequently: Two nervous Russian women with a bewildered 2-year-old 

U.S. citizen in tow passing through security and boarding a foreign-bound commercial flight at one of America’s busiest airports, 

without passports, without the signed permission of their father. 

Tatiana wrote to thank Russian diplomats Nikolay Teoglot and 

Ekaterina Polozkova for the certificate issued shortly after the kidnapping. This note is in the possession of the FBI. 

To reiterate, TSA officials accepted a travel document in lieu of 

a passport. And the airline they flew with required no further 

checks as to why and how these individuals were boarding an 

international flight with no passports and no written permission 

from the other parent, while at that very moment the father was 

happily scouting shops in Rome for presents to bring back to his 

beloved family. Diplomatic abuse and lack of exit controls and effective screening procedures made this abduction possible. 

I have many close friends in Russia, but, sadly, it is a country 

in which not only international laws and human rights are frequently violated but one which does not follow the letter of its own 

law. 

Consider the fact that since 2003, Russia has unilaterally refused 

to observe its duties under the 1965 Hague Service Convention. It 

61

will not serve its citizens with divorce papers or legal documents 

from the United States of America. Yet, it permits its citizens to 

argue in court that they were not properly served because the papers were not delivered by Hague Service Convention through the 

Ministry of Justice in Russia. 

Despite this, I was able to satisfy both American and Russian 

process service requirements and went on to win the American custody case when we were divorced on December 29, 2010. 

I proceeded to legalize the divorce decision at the Russian Consulate in Washington, DC. And this decision was affirmed by the 

Russian Government’s Vital Records Office in Moscow, who stated 

that the American divorce was valid in Russia from the moment on 

December 29, 2010, that it went into effect. 

Now please prepare yourselves for an entry into a bizarre noman’s land of lawlessness and intrigue. Provincial Russian Judge 

Olga Sherbakova, being in possession of the properly served American divorce petition and divorce decision, translated into Russian, 

allowed Tatiana to initiate a divorce suit with me as respondent. 

The first hearing was on January 20, 2011, nearly a month after 

we were divorced with a decision that the Russian State had already considered valid. 

Maxim Ivlev, my ex-wife’s brother, as former head of the Legal 

Department of the Perm Duma, Senate, is a person with deep political, judicial, and intelligence service connections. 

Within days, a media smear campaign, including primetime specials vilifying me, was undertaken. The media campaign included 

public statements and letters by politicians Pavel Mikov and Ilya 

Neustroev, who both violated Russian constitutional law regarding 

separation of the political and judicial systems. They both approached judges—they themselves publicly declared so—and requested an expedited outcome in favor of the Russian mother. Politician Neustroev, Tatiana’s brother’s former superior, runs a live 

blog, in which he immediately published an entry about my family 

titled, ‘‘I am Against America.’’

I then received serious threats against my life, so serious that I 

won’t travel to Perm, lending credibility to my former wife’s publicized statement that I don’t care enough about my daughter to 

even visit her. 

Please note, Mr. Chairman, there is never mention of the welfare 

of my daughter. Rather, it’s Russia against America and my daughter a disposable political pawn. 

The process leading up to my ‘‘second divorce’’ from my only wife 

on March 24, 2011, was fraught with bias. Legal infractions were 

numerous. The presiding judge met in private with Tatiana’s side. 

Evidence was mysteriously introduced into the court clerk’s files. 

Decisions consisting of several typed pages were ready within minutes or even seconds of the conclusion of the hearings, indicating 

that they had been prepared beforehand. 

At one hearing, it was claimed that 21⁄2-year-old Melisande had 

said she did not wish to Skype with her father, and it was argued 

that it would constitute child abuse to enforce Skype visitation. 

This argument was upheld by Russian courts. 

It was stated that I am currently in Perm, Russia, plotting a 

Rambo-like attempt to bring Melisande home and was, therefore, 

62

forbidden to travel with Melisande. My passport proves I have not 

travelled outside of the United States since I was in Rome. Russian 

Immigration and Border Control or the Russian Consulate here in 

Washington, DC, could confirm that I have not had a Russian visa, 

without which it is impossible to travel there, since 2007. 

On March 24, 2011, I was divorced from a person that Russia 

had acknowledged I was not married to and had not been for the 

preceding 3 months. During the hearing, 20 procedural norms of 

the Russian Code of Civil Procedure or Civil Code were broken. 

Tatiana was awarded full custody and another divorce as well as 

child support, which if applied by Russian standards would require 

a local father to pay 80 percent of his income. 

A complete list of these violations is available upon request, but 

here is a quick sampling in order of their breaking. I won’t enumerate the numbers, they being meaningless. However, a summary 

of them is by violating existing Russian laws, the Russian courts 

provided a legalization of the abduction. 

I was never served with any court documents from Russia. Neither was I allowed to give testimony or present statements from 

scores of witnesses willing to testify for me. My ex-wife’s only witness, Mrs. Kseniya Vorontsova, gave fallacious, mendacious testimony against me, including statements that we had spoken in 

2011, when, in fact, the last time that I had spoken with this individual was 2009. 

I was not given time for translation of the documents. My lawyer 

was denied or given delayed access to case materials. My legalized 

Russian court decision and Russian governmental proof that I was 

already divorced were not taken into consideration. A higher court 

process was ignored by a lower court. And the courts refused to accept and register official evidence. 

The case was tried in a court which had no jurisdiction because 

no evidence was even presented that Melisande could be a Russian 

citizen. 

My daughter and I were denied and continue to be denied contact with each other throughout the course of the proceedings, 

again explicitly violating Russian law. But there is no mechanism 

for enforcement. 

So grievous were the violations that 10 days ago an Appellate 

Court in Russia upheld my viewpoint, overturning the lower court’s 

decision in its entirety, and sending the case back to the same 

lower court but to be retried by a different judge. My ex-wife and 

I may soon have the singular distinction of having been married 

once but divorced three times. 

However, the appeal was reviewed without notification of my 

legal counsel. And the second half of the session occurred without 

him being present, as has happened numerous times. And while it’s 

cited the many infractions the overwhelming reason for the overturning of the previous decision was that no evidence has been presented that Melisande is a Russian citizen. 

And so, to my surprise, in the course of this very hearing, at the 

beginning, I was given a fax, copy of a fax, from the Russian Consulate confirming indeed that my daughter is a Russian citizen 

and, furthermore, with a document, which I have never seen beVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:11 Dec 01, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\052411\66530 HFA PsN: SHIRL
63

fore, that bears my signature giving permission to the granting of 

Russian citizenship to my daughter, very expedient. 

Mr. Chairman, I contend that my daughter and I have the inalienable right to a full and loving parental/child relationship. The 

Russian Consulate’s, courts, and government’s assistance to Ms. 

Ivleva and Mr. Medvedev have facilitated violation of my daughter’s and my right to that most basic human relationship, eroding 

the foundations of law; international diplomacy; and one of the 

most important elements of society, in fact, the fundamental element: The family. The alienation that is likely beginning now will 

have lifelong consequences for Melisande and for me and for 

Melisande’s entire family in the U.S. I can’t imagine doing to my 

daughter what is being done to her. 

I deplore my family’s tragedy being politicized. And I appeal to 

Russia to look beyond political one-upmanship and to acknowledge 

that a horrible injustice is being done to a little girl who needs her 

father, and to a father and family that love her little golden head, 

sparkling eyes, and joyous laugh. 

Americans must take a decisive stance on defending our own citizens, our own inalienable rights to the most basic of relationships 

and bonds that a person has: Those between children and their 

parents. 

I pray that our testimonies might lead to legislation which would 

unite all bereaved parties, which would prevent similar situations 

for other parents and children who might suffer due to selfish decisions of one or the other parent. 

Intervention by government agencies whose hands are tied by incomplete or non-existent laws and enforcement mechanisms can 

lead to one eventuality and one alone. In non-Hague cases and, as 

we see, many Hague cases of child abduction, physical possession 

of the child spells complete control of the situation and of the other 

parent. The situation must be remedied for our children’s future. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Izzard follows:]

64


66530e-1.eps
65


66530e-2.eps
66


66530e-3.eps
67

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Izzard, thank you. 

The Chair recognizes Mr. Bower. 

STATEMENT OF MR. COLIN BOWER, FATHER OF CHILDREN 

ABDUCTED TO EGYPT 

Mr. BOWER. Thank you. 

Chairman Smith, honorable subcommittee members. Thank you 

for inviting me to testify today. Chairman Smith, thank you, in 

particular, for your support of H. Res. 193 with Congressman 

Frank. 

My children, both American citizens, were kidnapped and are 

being held illegally today in Egypt by Egypt. Meanwhile, the 

United States rewards Egypt by giving them billions of dollars in 

aid, $2 billion, in particular, announced last week. 

This is wrong, by any definition. And I call for cessation of any 

aid to Egypt from the United States until they recognize human 

rights, the spirit of their own revolution, and, in doing so, return 

my sons: Noor and Ramsay Bower. 

Noor and Ramsay, now ages 10 and 8, were kidnapped to Egypt 

in August 2009 by the mother, Mirvat el Nady. In light of Mirvat 

el Nady’s condition, outlined in H. Res. 193, I have always assumed 

the parenting responsibilities for my two boys. I woke up with 

them every day, fed them, clothed them, made sure they got to 

school or to an appropriate activity I scheduled for them, and I 


66530e-4.eps
68

brought them to their play dates and parties. I bathed them. I read 

to them. And I put them to bed. 

I changed jobs in order to simultaneously support my family financially and act as a de facto single parent. Before and after the 

divorce, I remained their sole legal and primary custodial parent. 

What I think of today and worry about most is Noor’s and 

Ramsay’s present safety and their future quality of life. I wonder 

what they are being taught. I believe this will materially determine 

what they think and what choices they will ultimately have in life. 

Their futures are being impacted each day they remain parented 

by an unfit mother, remain supported by her government, and enabled by her family from the abduction to the ongoing support of 

parental alienation and child abuse, both financially through their 

family company, Egybelg, and otherwise. My boys are being forced 

to hide from the rest of the world. And I can’t imagine what this 

must be like for them. 

There are several notable issues involved in this tragedy. First, 

this is not a custody battle. There was a 20-month court case in 

Boston completed in December 2008 in which both parties participated fully from start to finish, including Mirvat el Nady being represented by six separate high-powered U.S. divorce attorneys. 

This is a Federal crime. The FBI issued a Federal warrant for 

the arrest of Mirvat el Nady, including the issuance of an 

INTERPOL red notice. 

Third, this involves national security. Mirvat el Nady obtained 

Egyptian passports for the children in false last names. The passports were in false names. The Egyptian passports were real. Passport fraud, which this is, is an extraditable offense under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty, the MLAT Treaty, that exists today 

between Egypt and the United States. False passports, by definition, are used to commit crimes in other countries, just as in this 

case. 

Fourth, this is child abuse. U.S. Supreme Court and other international bodies deemed both child abduction and parental alienation child abuse. This is not debatable. 

The fact that Mirvat el Nady was found to be a long-tern addict 

of schedule 2 narcotics and incapable of to this day anticipating the 

boys’ needs it yet another level of child abuse, which imperils the 

boys today. 

Lastly, this is a state-sponsored crime. The Egyptian Government issued false passports. They indirectly own the airline that 

ignored all the obvious flags by letting Mirvat el Nady kidnap these 

boys to Egypt using Egypt Air. And they provided el Nady security 

through the Egyptian State Security Agency, an agency which is 

now defunct after the revolution for being corrupt. The Egyptian 

Government shut down streets for Mirvat el Nady to travel, something they don’t do for the highest level politicians. 

There are many things we can do immediately to protect our 

children in basic human rights. Because time is limited, I am going 

to focus on five. The first and most obvious given current events, 

before receiving the $2 billion de facto aid package announced last 

week, Egypt must demonstrate through action its commitment to 

human rights. 

69

Even the people of Egypt, who will either benefit or suffer from 

this aid, have spoken about the need to make sure this money does 

not simply continue the power structure that existed under the 

now defunct Mubarak regime. 

By fact and definition, my children’s rights are and have been 

abused for 21 months now. I call on the U.S. Government to ensure 

that the new Egyptian Government is protecting human rights, not 

violating them, and demonstrates this with the return of Noor and 

Ramsay before giving any aid to Egypt. 

Second, before receiving aid, we need to ensure that the MLAT 

is being enforced by our partners and appropriate extradition is 

being carried out. This is a national security issue and one that impacts all of us in the United States. We should not provide aid to 

countries that have enabled crimes to be committed in our country 

against our citizen and who do not implement conditions of the 

MLAT. 

Any agreement can be signed, but if it’s not enforced, it is worse 

than having no treaty as all as it allows purveyors of deceit to fly 

under a false cloak of legitimacy. 

Third, before they receive aid, we need countries to agree to recognized and mirror existing probate orders involving custody decisions reached in residential jurisdictions where both parties were 

active participants and legally represented. 

The country harboring the fugitive should issue a mirror order 

consistent with the existing order in the country of the children’s 

primary residence. These are principles not inconsistent with the 

Hague Convention today. 

Fourth, I call on the Republican Party to stop the moratorium on 

resolutions being heard this Congress and make available the ability of House resolutions to be heard on the floor, including and notably H. Res. 193, which is bipartisan and involves the lives of my 

two little boys. 

Alternatively, I ask for exceptions to be made in cases crucial to 

the lives of American children, including my boys and others in 

similar situations. 

I ask that both parties stand together to send a strong message 

to Egypt and other countries that we support the Egyptian people’s 

goal of obtaining democracy in human rights by assuring their new 

government acts in concert with these values before receiving the 

financial backing of the United States. 

Given the relevant facts, it is not a stretch to say that H. Res. 

193 if acted upon could very well save the lives of Noor and 

Ramsay. 

Fifth, there must be further controls in place to protect against 

the unlawful removal of our children to foreign countries. In my 

case, the divorce judgment did call for a restriction on my ex-wife, 

Mirvat el Nady, to remove the children from the Commonwealth. 

Were such controls in place, this removal would not have happened. 

Subcommittee members, I thank you for your invitation to speak 

today and for your consideration of this most important issue. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Bower follows:]

70


66530f-1.eps
71


66530f-2.eps
72


66530f-3.eps
73

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

[Applause.] 

Mr. SMITH. I thank each of you for your very specific recommendations and for very carefully delineating your individual 

heartache because that helps us to get a better handle on what we 

can do to be, hopefully, positive in our response as well. 

I would again note that this is a panel of non-Hague countries. 

You know, the three of you have had your children abducted to a 

country that has not signed the Hague, unlike our first panel. We 

will have a series of votes, so I will be brief. But on the Office of 

Children’s Issues, if you could tell us briefly how well or poorly 

they have served you. 

And I would encourage you not to worry about retaliation, even 

though that is easier for me to say than you. And if any of you, 

any of the parents, know of an instance where someone copped an 

attitude or worse as a result of your candor, we as an oversight, 

as well as a lawmaking subcommittee, legislative subcommittee, 

need to know that because we all serve you. And I want to say that 

again with emphasis. 

I would like to know if each of you have had a phone call from 

perhaps the Ambassador or any contact with the Ambassador in 

Russia, Egypt, and Japan. And also two of you spoke in Michael 

Elias’ case of a passport being issued under fraudulent circumstances; in other words, the judge took the original passports. 

And then someone at the Consulate’s office in Chicago, Illinois 

falsely issued, either knowingly or unknowingly—we don’t know 

still, but the Japanese Government told you that there would be an 

investigation. What has happened to that investigation? We asked. 

And before you answer, in the case of Mr. Bower, you talked about 

outright fraud, where it’s clear the wrong names in violation, as 

you put, of the MLAT. What has been the response of our Government to you on that issue? 

And then I will yield to Mr. Payne for any questions he might 

have. Please? 

Mr. ELIAS. As far as the Office of Children’s Issues, Congressman 

Smith, I have spoken with them directly. I have not gained or lost 

or anything from them. So there is no comment I could really make 

upon that. 

And as far as the phone call from the Ambassador goes from 

Japan, I have not personally spoken, received a letter, or heard any 

news of good or bad, from him personally. 

Mr. SMITH. Briefly, has somebody from the Embassy called you 

at any time or has it all been OCI or what? 

Mr. ELIAS. There is that ongoing investigation, but for the past 

almost 3 years in December that my children have been gone, I 

have not received anything upon an investigation or call from their 

Embassy directly from Chicago or New York. 

Mr. SMITH. Do you and the other left-behind parents whose children have been abducted to Japan with the G–8 Summit very, very 

shortly to be convened and the anticipated announcement by Japan 

that they may sign the Hague, of course, with reservations—that 

could be catastrophic—how does that make you feel and the other 

left-behind parents whose kids are in Japan? 

74

Mr. ELIAS. As far as them signing the Hague Convention, I don’t 

see it happening personally. And, like we discussed before, even if 

they do, there’s going to be numerous different kinds of language 

in it that would probably prevent me or any other left-behind parent as of right now from being grandfathered in. And it would definitely have to be—I think we should definitely—if we’re getting 

them to sign the Hague Convention, we should sit down and declare what we want in the Hague Convention, not what they see 

as right to be put in just so they can have us off their back and 

say, ‘‘Don’t worry about it.’’

[Applause.] 

Mr. SMITH. In your view, there would need to be a sidebar agreement, country to country, U.S.——

[Applause.] 

Mr. ELIAS. There needs to be a sit-down with them. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you. 

Mr. IZZARD. I would like to answer first the question regarding 

OCI and how OCI has served me. It has been competent. They 

have conducted two welfare and whereabouts visits in Russia based 

entirely on the information which I had to literally spend a fortune 

on to actually locate my wife and daughter via private means. 

However, the Office of Children’s Issues has refused to coordinate with the FBI so that the FBI investigation could move forward because the agent that I had been working with out of the 

Chicago field office obviously has an open case with a number. 

However, because of the unusual circumstances that we were not 

getting divorced when my daughter was abducted, there is a very 

high bar to clear in order for there to be Federal criminal charges. 

However, OCI has not provided the relevant information as to 

how they contact Tatiana so that the FBI could, hopefully, get the 

attaches in Russia to contact her and get her side of the story. 

Regarding contact with the Embassy or the Ambassador, my 

mother actually assisted me greatly in contacting the Embassy in 

Moscow. She was at the time living in Moscow. However, the OCI 

here in Washington discouraged us from continuing to do so because they said that they would like all of the communication to 

be handled directly through the office in Washington, DC, even 

though in my opinion the people on the ground in Russia have a 

better understanding of the very unique circumstances regarding, 

say, the way things are done in Russia. 

I think that is all. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Bower? 

Mr. BOWER. In my case, I have spoken with Ambassador Scobey 

and met with Ambassador Scobey in Cairo a number of times. I am 

in almost weekly contact with the Consul General there. I speak 

directly and communicate directly with Ambassador Jacobs. 

Attention and responsiveness have not been my issue. Really, it 

is ironic in a way that this amount of attention almost takes away 

from the need to act on either party. And I would give up all of 

this attention for one single act, linear move, in the direction of a 

return. And I have not seen that. And I think a lot of the diplomatic speak gets in the way of any activity whatsoever. 

I would also note that, for the record, it is difficult to speak directly about the State Department when you believe that the reVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:11 Dec 01, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00078 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\052411\66530 HFA PsN: SHIRL
75

turn of your children falls squarely into their hands and to think 

about being negative in any which way. 

As a family, as a parent in this situation, you do not in any way 

want to speak out against an entity that could potentially provide 

an avenue for the return of your children. 

Regarding the MLAT, the State Department has filed a request 

for information. The Assistant U.S. Attorney has filed a formal request. Senator Kerry has sent a letter. I have, as is my right according to Egyptian law, filed a request for information regarding 

the passport documents. All have been summarily denied or ignored. 

The Attorney General’s office is continuing to pursue this. They 

have said, the Assistant U.S. Attorney, they have another arrow in 

their quiver. I do not know what that means. 

There has been no precedent set for extradition under MLAT 

from Egypt. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Payne? 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. Thank you all for your testimonies. And 

I just wondered, Mr. Elias, being a military person, do you see 

these issues perhaps even being more prevalent with members 

from our military, regardless of where they are serving? 

Mr. ELIAS. I see it being more prominent in the military, strictly 

because you are subjected to overseas at long periods of time. And 

if I could give anything to that, that question, when you are 

brought overseas, any country that you go to, as being a Marine, 

you are briefed on everything from the number of people that have 

AIDS over there to the amount of robberies. And you are given 

classes on how the ocean comes in and hits the shore. 

Our of all of those classes, I should have been given a class on 

child abduction or at least——

[Applause.] 

Mr. ELIAS. Thank you. 

—had it aware to me because I was so young in Japan. I was 

only 19 years old serving my country in Japan. And I had no idea 

I would be sitting here before any of you today. 

Mr. PAYNE. It seems like that should be a part of the military 

training. Japan has had a relationship with the U.S. military in 

Okinawa and other places that had been strained for a long period 

of time. And it seems like that would be a part of what they would 

be talking about. 

Hopefully perhaps with the great support that the United States 

has been giving with the current tragedy in Japan, perhaps, you 

know, there could be some opening up of dialogue to the Government of Japan about taking a look at the manner in which they 

treat their friends. 

In Egypt also, a country that is going through transition, perhaps 

it may be an opportunity. There is a very close military relationship to the Egyptian military currently in charge. And it might be 

a suggestion to our State Department officials and even the Department of Defense because they were probably the ones that influenced the Egyptians not to fire on the people, Egyptian people, 

military, military kind of relationship they have. And, as we saw 

in other countries, Syria, Tunisia, the military fired on the people. 

They did. 

76

So there could possibly be at this time an opportunity to have 

our Government talk, even if it’s with military, State Department, 

to the Egyptian Government. So I would hope that that might be 

a window of opportunity. 

And, even, actually, in Russia, there is a better working relationship with the Russian authorities and the U.S. They have cooperated with us on Iran, for example, on the proliferation of potential 

nuclear weapons. 

And so I would hope that perhaps one of the moves from our subcommittee would be that we make a special appeal because of the 

changing situation. I mean, it doesn’t apply to everybody in every 

country but, at least your three countries, I think that there is 

some hope, at least, that there could be some dialogue. 

So, with that, I won’t ask you any other questions at this time. 

We have votes coming up. And I will yield to other members of the 

panel. Thank you. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Buerkle? 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to you all 

for being here today. Mr. Elias, thank you for your service to this 

country. 

I will ask three brief questions and allow other members to ask 

their questions and then submit additional questions in writing. 

Mr. Izzard, in your testimony, you mentioned about the two Russian diplomats in the Russian Embassy and your ex-wife worked 

with them. 

Has any follow-up been done? Has anyone held them accountable 

for their part in this? And was there any prosecution? 

Mr. IZZARD. There has been no prosecution. There was a meeting 

approximately 1 month ago between the United States Department 

of State and Russian Consulate employees. The State Department 

declined to tell me with whom they met in particular. I do not believe that it was these two individuals. 

And the Russian Consulate stated that their policy is that any 

person that comes in their front door that can prove that they are 

a Russian citizen, that that person’s word will be taken at face 

value on good faith. And, therefore, they felt that they were justified in doing whatever that they did in issuing whatever, the Repatriation Certificate, which allowed my ex-wife and daughter to 

leave the country without passports. 

Ms. BUERKLE. And so someone from the State Department had 

attended that hearing or that meeting, but you were not involved 

in that meeting? 

Mr. IZZARD. I was not involved in that meeting, and I was given 

very limited information as to what was divulged. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Do you know who the person from the State Department was? 

Mr. IZZARD. I believe it was Ms. Janelle Guest. And I think she 

was accompanied by someone else, but I do not know that individual’s name. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you. 

Mr. Elias, same with regards to you. After the judge ordered that 

the passports be surrendered, you testified that your ex-wife obtained new passports. Has there been an investigation of her acVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:11 Dec 01, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\052411\66530 HFA PsN: SHIRL
77

tions, anyone who may have assisted her, and any outcome to that 

or prosecution? 

Mr. ELIAS. I have my speculations of who assisted her and everything like that. I don’t want to get into that, but there is supposedly an ongoing investigation that I have not received a conclusion for at this time. 

Ms. BUERKLE. And in your situation, is it State Department as 

well? Who is conducting this investigation? Is it the FBI? 

Mr. ELIAS. The actual Embassy of Japan. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you. 

And, lastly, Mr. Bower, you mentioned about the TSA’s role and 

the airline’s role and the fact that they let the children go through. 

Has any further action been taken against the airlines and/or the 

TSA? Have you had a conversation with them and made them 

aware of the situation? 

Mr. BOWER. Yes. As a matter of fact, there is currently a suit 

that I filed against Egypt Air in this matter. And the suit is ongoing. So I can’t speak much about it. So I will leave it like that. 

But yes. We are in discovery about this very issue. 

Ms. BUERKLE. And with regards to the TSA, have they been put 

on notice of what happened? 

Mr. BOWER. Yes, they have. 

Ms. BUERKLE. Thank you. I will yield back my time. Thank you, 

Mr. Chairman. Thank you to our witnesses today. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Marino? 

Mr. MARINO. Chairman, I do not have any questions. I would like 

to make a statement, though. 

First of all, I cannot begin to imagine what pain all of you have 

gone through. You have my deepest sympathies. I know the two 

best wonderful days of my life have been when I adopted my babies. 

Before I was a prosecutor, I was involved in domestic law here 

in the United States. And it can be extremely difficult. I can only 

magnify that by a million times with domestic law or international 

divorce law and custody, but I think where we can start here is because you have answered all of the questions eloquently. 

There is no question that I could ask that would elicit a resolution, but I think I speak for my colleagues. And it has been certainly the chairman has gone down this path once or twice. I think 

the place for you to start is with your representatives, your congressman, your congresswoman, your senators because we deal a 

great amount of time with foreign issues. 

We deal with ambassadors given the fact that we are on Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Homeland Security. These all overlap. And in 

many cases, having a congressman or a congresswoman or a senator involved may to a certain extent expedite the matter. 

I see my colleague to the left of me has been writing down names 

from State Department. And we can make phone calls. We can ask 

for meetings with these people and, if we have to, demand what 

can and should be done. 

And we are talking about international law. We are talking 

about treaties. We are talking about relationships or lack thereof 

with other countries. But I think we can initiate the task that you 

78

have undertaken. And it seems like many of you have undertaken 

these tasks yourselves. 

So the only thing that I can offer at this point is contact us from 

the beginning. We will play a vital role in this, communicating with 

our State Department and our ambassadors. 

I am a new member of the Congress, but I can tell you that I 

have spoken with numerous ambassadors in addressing this specific issue with them. I presented to the ambassadors a situation 

that had nothing to do with why they were visiting me but with 

what the United States had on their mind concerning other issues 

and got their attention rather quickly. 

So perhaps in the future we can assist that way, at the very 

least, and help you through the process until we get this, your particular issue, resolved or until we get this resolved concerning any 

abductions of American children. 

I yield my time. 

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Marino, thank you very much. You know, you 

raised an extraordinarily important point that we can be advocates. 

And I would encourage you, if you haven’t already, to be in contact 

with your individual member and two senators. 

In the last appropriations bill, we wrote language that was included in the bill that admonished, told, instructed the Office of 

Children’s Issues to inform a left-behind parent who files with 

them that a good advocate could be their own individual representative; but because of Privacy Act reasons, they can’t automatically 

say to us—because I would like to know who in my district or in 

my state, for example, who is a left-behind parent. And I am not 

sure how well that is being implemented. 

I ask but don’t necessarily get good answers back, but it does 

mean that we will then be on their backs, just as our constituents, 

rightfully, should be on our backs to do our job. 

You know, we all serve the people and not the other way around. 

So I thank you all. If there is anything else you would like to add 

before we go to panel number three? You have been tremendous 

witnesses. And I agree with my colleagues on both sides of the 

aisle. Our hearts go out to you. And we will do everything we can 

possibly do to keep the pressure on. 

Yes, Mr. Bower? 

Mr. BOWER. Chairman, I would just like to make one point. I understand that the Foreign Services Committee has jurisdiction over 

bilateral aid. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes. 

Mr. BOWER. And I would note that the aid, as announced last 

week in President Obama’s speech, would, therefore, fall under the 

jurisdiction of this committee. And I would ask that you make a 

stipulation that my children be returned before $1 of that aid is 

given to Egypt. 

Mr. SMITH. I thank you. Yes, sir. Your point is well-taken. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. SMITH. Both the Appropriations Committee and the authorizing committees have jurisdiction. So thank you so much for that, 

appreciate it. Anything else you would like to add? 

79

I would also like to say to all of the other left-behind parents 

here and others who couldn’t be here today there will be additional 

hearings. We will focus on the military side, like Michael Elias. 

I did do an amendment to the Department of Defense bill a couple of years back, in 2009, that requires them, as Mr. Payne was 

pointing out so well, to begin educating—and Patricia Apy will 

speak to this, I’m sure, when she testifies—so that people who are 

deployed overseas are not unaware of what the risks are, and also 

so that our JAG corps is much better acquainted with the issue of 

child abduction to better serve those who are deployed overseas. 

So thank you so much, all three, for your tremendous testimony. 

Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

Mr. SMITH. I would like to now introduce our third panel of experts, beginning with Ms. Patricia Apy, who is a partner with the 

law firm of Paras, Apy, and Reiss, who specializes in complex family litigation, particularly international interstate child custody litigation. Her qualifications for testifying for us are impressive and 

extensive. And I will reference only a few of them. 

She has litigated, been qualified as an expert witness, and consulted on international family disputes throughout the world. Ms. 

Apy frequently consults and is regularly qualified as an expert on 

family dispute resolution in non-Hague countries and risk factors 

for child abduction. She has also participated in numerous reported 

decisions on Hague treaties regarding child protection and abduction. She is also a consultant to the U.S. Departments of State and 

Defense on issues involving families and children and the application of treaty law. 

She was also, as we all know, one of the lead attorneys, certainly 

the lead U.S. attorney, for David Goldman, and provided expert advice and counsel in that long, arduous case. 

Next we will hear from Ms. Kristin Wells, who is a partner in 

the law firm Patton Boggs. Ms. Wells provides lobbying services on 

a range of international affairs issues. She is well-known here on 

the Foreign Affairs Committee as she previously served as deputy 

chief counsel to now Ranking Member Howard Berman. 

In that capacity, she worked on international child abduction 

issues with me and with my staff and others, including the crafting 

of H. Res. 125, known as the Sean and David Goldman Resolution, 

which also included Patrick Braden’s case of his abducted child, 

Melissa. 

I introduced this resolution, calling on the Brazilian Government 

to return Sean to his father. It passed the House in May 2009. 

And then we will hear from Jesse Eaves, who is a child protection policy advisor at World Vision right here in Washington. Jesse 

coordinates the advocacy portfolio for issues of child protection. 

That includes child soldiers, exploited child labor, child trafficking, 

and child sexual exploitation. He works with World Vision programs around the world to ensure child protection is integrated 

into programming and international advocacy strategy. Jesse also 

educates and mobilizes Americans to take a stand against abuse, 

exploitation, neglect, and violence toward children. 

Ms. Apy, the floor is yours. 

80

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

REISS, P.C. 

Ms. APY. Good afternoon, Chairman Smith and Ranking Member 

Payne and members of the subcommittee. Earlier in the testimony, 

there was reference by one of the witnesses to the concept of a time 

capsule. And that immediately resonated to the testimony I am 

about to give because, actually, 11 years ago, in May 2000, I was 

asked by the Clinton administration to travel to Japan to begin discussions addressing the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of 

International Child Abduction and to discuss international child 

support obligations. 

Ironically, both of those meetings were—and I have since obviously been to Japan, most recently in the congressional delegation 

headed by Congressman Smith. Both of those meetings and discussions about the Hague Convention were immediately preceding the 

G–8 Summit. 

Now, in 2000, I met with Japanese officials, attorneys, judges, 

American diplomats, and American military commanders and addressed the issues of parental kidnapping, the abduction convention, allegations of domestic violence, and cases involving American 

service members. 

I left the meetings having been told by the Japanese that they 

were considering the protections found in the Hague treaty. And I 

wad told by American diplomats that they were discouraged at 

what appeared to be little more than lip service. 

When I returned with Congressman Smith in February, the topics discussed were precisely the same as the discussions that had 

been held 11 years earlier. 

I am expecting to return to Japan in July to provide on-site 

training to American judge advocates and civilian attorneys serving 

our military families abroad regarding international child custody 

considerations. 

I think that, given that we have had the announcements with respect to the Hague Convention, it is extraordinarily important to 

understand exactly what is being proposed and how it is and is not 

responsive to the issues raised and the extraordinarily poised and 

heartfelt testimony you have heard from left-behind parents. 

Encouraging accession to the Hague Convention is, of course, a 

laudable goal. For one thing, it is a positive step in international 

law to define and recognize parental kidnapping as a wrongful act, 

which, believe me, as we sit here is not appreciated in Japan. 

It ensures that the eventual resolution of a child custody dispute 

will be done in the place where the evidence is located regarding 

what is in the best interest of a child. That is the focus of the Convention. That is the child’s habitual residence. 

However, the moment that the Japanese deposit the accession to 

the Convention and request the accession to be accepted by the 

United States of America, a number of things will happen. And 

those have to be considered and appreciated, particularly by the 

Congress. One is that the people who are sitting behind me with 

children who have been abducted to Japan will be left in a position 

of legal limbo. 

Now, in cases in which we have accessions filed by countries that 

have a family law construct and a type of family law which has a 

81

legal culture that appreciates custody and appreciates visitation, it 

consigns those whose children have been abducted to have to litigate their cases in the country to which the child has been taken. 

That is not what I am talking about. 

In this situation, there is no remedy. Promises that the Japanese 

domestic law is going to be changed are welcome but not responsive 

to the issue that this is an international parental abduction. And, 

of course, it is not responsive to the real issue that is being raised 

here. And that is what happens when we are talking about issues 

parental abduction that rise above the individual cases to a nation 

state’s issue. 

No parent should be in the position of having to become the 

United States Department of State, which is essentially what you 

have heard described to you here today. The treaty provides that 

the Convention will apply between contracting states only to 

wrongful removals and retentions after its entry into force. So as 

an initial preposition, that will cut off all of the individuals, who, 

by the way, you have numbered incorrectly. 

Non-Hague countries are historically under-reported by the 

United States Department of State for good reasons. First of all, 

there are no central authorities in the countries involved which are 

keeping accurate numbers. We keep numbers based on who has applied for assistance through the State Department or applied for 

assistance through a central authority abroad. 

In the case of a non-treaty signator, there is no repository. And 

many of the individuals who have been affected don’t bother to file, 

certainly historically, with the United States Department of State 

because there were no services provided, no advantages to have 

done so. So, as a result, you have a whole host and percentage of 

cases who have simply unreported. 

The second issue is, particularly as it relates to American military members, abductions from our bases in Japan, for example, 

are considered internal domestic abductions and, therefore, aren’t 

considered as international abductions, despite the fact that an 

American service member may have been living on one of our 

bases. 

So if the purpose of this hearing is, in part, to identify how we 

can improve the rate of the return of children, the very first thing 

you have to do is have a legitimate way of identifying how many 

children you have and what the problems are. 

The other issue is that if the accession is deposited as it is expected with extensive reservations, it will be a lot worse than form 

over substance. 

In a recent press account issued in Japan, there were assurances 

that the proposed legislation would specify that returns will be denied in the case of child or spousal abuse and there will be—and 

I will quote here—‘‘no negative effects on the welfare of the child.’’ 

Let me tell you that what that means is that it implies a best interest determination, which is prohibited by the express language 

of the treaty. In other words, it converts it from an abduction case 

to a child custody case. 

And, finally, the chairman of the Japanese Federation of Bar Associations cautioned,—and I will quote—‘‘Urging the government 

not to rush into concluding the treaty, citing the need for thorough 

82

discussion by experts and related parties.’’ Well, as I indicate in my 

written remarks, it would be difficult to imagine, since the dialogue 

regarding the treaty was alleged to have begun before July 2000, 

when the world’s leaders met in Okinawa, and assurances were 

made to President Clinton what further internal discussions could 

be conducted which would do anything other than delay and obstruct the return of abducted children. 

The recommendations, which are included in my written remarks, include as it relates to not just the Japanese issue but any 

offering of an accession to not merely accept the accession without 

some critical analysis, which has been the policy of the United 

States Department of State. We accept the accession. And then we 

worry about how it actually works. 

I must caution it is a dangerous precedent. American judges rely 

on accessions as evidence that if they allow a child to visit grandma in a Hague country like Turkey, that the child will be returned 

in accordance with the Hague Convention, despite the fact that 

there may be no central authority that has been provided, despite 

the fact that there is no political or actual will on the part of that 

country to do so. 

I recommend that in advance of full compliance with the treaty, 

that the United States Department of State encourage the return 

of children through a number of diplomatic mechanisms. One is 

that they enter into a memorandum of understanding, which is 

drafted to include an immediate protocol for the resolution of existing cases involving children alleged to have been abducted to 

Japan, abducted within Japan, as well as Japanese children alleged to have been abducted to the United States. 

By setting this model protocol, issues of particular concern to 

Japanese legislators could be addressed in advance of finalizing the 

language in domestic legislation. So if we are going to start talking 

about issues, for example, of domestic violence, which are genuine 

concerns, and issues of spousal and child abuse, which are genuine 

concerns, by having an MOU, the good faith nature of those concerns, as opposed to what have seen in many, many of these 

cases,—and that is pretext to avoid returns—can be ferreted out. 

And the Japanese legislators, who are dealing with the rewrite of 

their domestic law, can have the benefit of experts in the United 

States who are failed with these issues and create a objective and 

credible mechanism for ensuring that such allegations are seriously 

addressed, protections assured, mutual recognition encouraged, and 

preventing the use of false allegations to reduce the effectiveness 

of the treaty. 

We have to deal with the issues of American service members 

and their families and assist judge advocates and command authority with tools to advise American service members and Japanese 

national family members of reasonable and enforceable resolutions. 

And we have to assess Japan’s genuine commitment to the process of fighting international parental abduction by setting objective 

standards, which can be evaluated and can be addressed critically, 

if necessary. This would provide a template for other countries 

which are considering the steps approaching signing onto the 

Hague Convention. 

83

We have other nations, particularly—and, again, my written remarks will address it. And I know we are short on time, but there 

was comment made about statecraft and the issues of statecraft as 

it relates to this particular problem. 

We have countries like Pakistan. Not only do we have significant 

issues of aid, but we have huge populations of Pakistani-Americans 

who have relationships and travel regularly back and forth. 

The United Kingdom has entered into bilateral agreements with 

the Pakistanis to deal with child abduction issues. We should be 

in that same position. 

Now, again, historically the United States Department of State 

has taken a position that they will not entertain a memorandum 

of understanding because historically it was viewed to dilute the 

global effectiveness of getting everyone on board, if you will, to the 

Hague Convention. 

The problem with that is the countries now, the non-Hague countries, in vast majority that have not entered into the Hague have 

unique issues with respect to the religious and cultural elements 

of their law, which make it necessary, very frankly, to find other 

ways to assure that they can become full reciprocal partners under 

the Hague. 

A memorandum of understanding provides that opportunity. And 

the United States Department of State should immediately engage 

in discussions with judicial and governmental officials in nonHague countries that have indicated that they want to do that, like 

the United Arab Emirates, India, and Pakistan. 

Finally, with regard to reciprocity and the comments that were 

made with respect to the United States Department of State and 

the Office of Children’s Issues and the perception of American leftbehind parents that they’re not being advocated for, there is no 

question that the United States Department of State Office of Children’s Issues has as a client, not the individual parent, but the 

United States of America. That is the reality. 

The problem is not that parents in my experience want them to 

be lawyers or want them to be involved in individual family litigation. They want them to do their job, which is to address the diplomatic issues and efforts, collection of information, and accountability that an individual litigant cannot possibly do. 

In order for them to have the tools to do that, there have to be 

some very concrete things that are done. One is there has to be in 

real time an acknowledgement when a country is not acting in 

compliance with the treaty and cull that out in more than the report form. That is that reciprocity has to be something that an 

American judge and American parents who were formulating settlements of custody disputes can rely upon. 

Legislative efforts in this body and in the other body must provide mechanisms for diplomatic actions that deal with the systemic 

lack of reciprocity. These parents can’t do it themselves. 

The protections outlined in now numbered 1940, the Smith bill, 

provides an objective, transparent process to evaluate reciprocity, 

which is the first step. Is this really a reciprocal relationship anymore? If it’s not, like in Ecuador, where there is no central authority anymore, an American judge in Illinois might want to know 

that there is no way to get a child back because an American parVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:11 Dec 01, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00087 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\052411\66530 HFA PsN: SHIRL
84

ent is going to have to hire three lawyers to be able to do it because 

there is no central authority. 

By way of example, in circumstances in which there are persistent and historical misuse of this process and treaty, other 

American parents and judges who are similarly situated need to 

know that. No one should have to hire experts to appear in family 

courts, which right now they do, in order to get protective orders 

to prevent abductions. 

The work of this body in having resolutions, which addressed 

Brazil and Japan, has been used in hundreds of cases around the 

United States to provide the opportunity for parents and judges to 

formulate protective orders. 

But you shouldn’t have to do that. You should be able to—I 

mean, this body should not have to go to work on every individual 

child abduction case. There should be a process that evaluates that 

a country is not in compliance, enter into, if necessary, an MOU, 

which addresses the deficiency and allows for an objective review. 

[Applause.] 

Ms. APY. A reasonable system of diplomatic consequences must 

be available to the Secretary of State and the President of the 

United States so that no country may engage in the repeated and 

flagrant violation of its treaty obligations with meaningful review. 

In conclusion—and I appreciate the extraordinary amount of 

time that this issue has been given by this committee, and I will 

tell you that the prior committee hearings and commission hearings have made incredible impacts on the operation of domestic law 

in the United States. And so I congratulate the chairman and the 

members of this subcommittee for spending the time that they 

have. 

You are already aware that two of my clients, David Goldman 

and Michael Elias, have offered testimony to you today. I am most 

certainly not the only family lawyer working to see that families 

and children are protected from the scourge of international parental abduction. And I cringed when earlier there was a moment or 

two of concern about the motivation of lawyers, but I need to say 

that the American Bar Association Family Law Section and international sections, in particular, have been asked by the President 

of the ABA at the request of Congressman Smith to review the legislation that has been presented and the issues and to make recommendation on this legislation and other actions of this body. 

Additionally, the American Chapter of the International Academy of Matrimonial Lawyers have also offered their expertise, both 

in evaluating proposed legislation and in providing assistance to 

the United States Department of State. Both the members of the 

ABA and the IAML have given thousands of hours of pro bono assistance in support of the return of abducted children and in advice 

and counsel to our colleagues at the United States Department of 

State. 

I am personally appreciative of the continued willingness of Secretary Janice Jacobs to entertain my concerns and those of my colleagues in attempting to address these complex issues on a caseby-case basis. However,—and this is the take-away—her accessibility is no substitute for a genuine, identifiable, and transparent 

85

process to address issues involving all similarly situated parents 

diplomatically. 

My colleagues continue to provide incredible insight and advice 

and a willingness to work with the Members of Congress to improve the working of the treaty. The comment to contact your Congress person is only part of the step. 

The members of this subcommittee I do not believe are representative of what usually happens. And that is, the people behind 

me contact their Congress person, who contacts OCI, who sends a 

self-serving letter that basically goes through administrative steps 

that have been taken and nothing more. There is no advocacy associated with that. 

My observations during my most recent visit to Japan revealed 

the extraordinary access and contact that Congressman Smith was 

able to achieve, which undoubtedly advanced the serious dialogue 

with the Japanese Government in which we are now engaged. 

I am honored to have been given the opportunity to participate 

in those meetings and to testify before this subcommittee in its efforts to bring every abducted child home. And I thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Apy follows:]

86


66530g-1.eps
87


66530g-2.eps
88


66530g-3.eps
89


66530g-4.eps
90


66530g-5.eps
91


66530g-6.eps
92


66530g-7.eps
93


66530g-8.eps
94

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

And Ms. Wells? 

STATEMENT OF MS. KRISTIN WELLS, PARTNER, PATTON 

BOGGS LLP 

Ms. WELLS. Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Payne, Representative Marino, and members of the subcommittee, I am honored to be here today to share with you my thoughts and concerns 

about the parental abduction of American children to foreign countries. 

I am here today testifying on my own behalf. And in no way 

should any of my comments be attributed to the partnership of Patton Boggs or any of its clients. 

My written testimony provides an overview of some of the policy 

issues around international abduction of children. A number of 

these have been discussed already. So I am going to shorten my 

oral comments today. But my testimony does highlight some issues 

with the Hague Convention. It addresses obstacles associated with 

non-Hague Convention cases, discusses some of the challenges and 

improvements that have occurred at the Department of State, but 

I am going to discuss that a bit more. 

We had highlighted issues relating to abductions in Africa and 

Japan and made some suggestions on some practical actions that 

Congress and other parts of the U.S. Government can take to improve the U.S. Government’s response to abduction cases. 

I will note that my testimony focuses primarily on abducted 

American children. And that, rightfully, is the focus today. But it 

is important to note that the Hague Convention also covers nonU.S. citizen children who are residing in the United States at the 

time of their abduction, irrespective of their immigration status 

here. 


66530g-9.eps
95

And also as a party to the Convention, the United States is 

obliged to help return the hundreds of children who are abducted 

from other countries into the United States each year from around 

the world. And I think this is an issue that the committee and subcommittee should continue to look at. We are rightfully concerned 

about U.S. citizens and U.S. constituents, but we also need I think 

to take a look at how our country is doing in respending to requests 

from other countries. 

The Convention, as we have discussed, is a very imperfect legal 

instrument, but it has successfully helped to resolve a number of 

child abduction cases around the world. And it has returned children to their left-behind parents. And for every parent that has 

gotten their child through the Hague Convention mechanism, I am 

sure they are grateful of its existence, despite its sometimes low 

success rate. 

It does provide a means for countries to communicate with one 

another and identifies authorities in each nation responsible for addressing these cases. 

To clarify some of the internationally agreed-upon values of focusing on the child’s best interest—and I don’t mean, as Ms. Apy 

noted, that other courts should be making that determination, but 

it agrees that that is an important principle and that that principle 

should be best met by the jurisdictional court, where the child habitually resided. It also presses governments to promptly return 

the child. And it embodies promises made by the contracting states 

to assist other countries in locating children abducted into their 

territory. 

Despite these benefits, there are too many cases, as we have 

heard today, where the Hague countries fail to return children to 

their state of habitual residence unless the Hague Convention does 

often fail in its primary objective. 

The unfortunate delays in return and sometimes the complete 

failure to return children result from a number of problems with 

the Convention itself at times. One of the problems, as we have 

heard, is the lack of an effective enforcement mechanism. And I 

think some of the discussions about the use of trade and other 

mechanisms of bilateral power or influence are in response to the 

fact that there is no enforcement process. 

But the Hague Conference on International Private Law, while 

it has no enforcement mechanism, could still continue to discuss 

ways in which enforcement could be further enhanced, not just in 

the interest of the United States but for all nations that are signatories. 

In particular, though, this issue of enforcement is particularly 

complicated when a child is a dual national. And, as we have often 

seen or heard in these cases that were described today, even when 

a child is not a dual national, they often become a dual national 

as part of the abduction and the effort to take or keep them in another country. 

In addition to the issue of enforcement, there is also insufficient 

oversight of the Convention, the mechanism—or I would say I 

would encourage the committee to look at the mechanism by which 

the Hague Conference reviews its own operations around the world, 

not just in the United States, because the truth of the matter is 

96

that while the United States doesn’t have any obligation to oversee 

or make particular comments about these matters, it is in our interest to do so. 

We have as a country tremendous legal expertise and resources. 

And so I think if we can look at ways in which we can also influence the Hague Conference to either take more actions or initiate 

new discussions that might not have been had or continue to help 

progress their—or I shouldn’t say their agenda but issues that we 

think are important, such as oversight and how that oversight is 

then turned into actionable review that can improve the Hague 

system as a whole, I think that is a useful role for the United 

States to play. 

Although the Convention is over 30 years old, a myriad of interpretation issues are also evident in the U.S. case law and in the 

cases coming from other countries. 

The fact that nations and courts interpret the language of the 

Convention differently has dramatic effects on these cases and 

often result in children not being returned. 

There are different interpretations of habitual residence, debates 

about where the child actually was living. There are questions 

about whether the abduction was wrongful, as was noted in one of 

the witness’ testimony, where the abducting spouse said, you know, 

‘‘This isn’t wrong. I’m the parent.’’ And that is a frequent reply, not 

only by the parents but sometimes by foreign judicial systems as 

well. And, yet, the Convention has some clear language on these 

matters, but I guess I shouldn’t clear—make it clear to one reader, 

but then it’s read in so many different ways in different countries. 

This is a problem with the Convention and how we come to some 

standards that can be uniformly accepted by both the Convention 

and then applied by judges around the world. This would help tremendously, but I think it is going to be a long haul. Nonetheless, 

I think it is something for Congress to think about and look at and 

to talk with the State Department and other U.S. Government officials about. 

The critical area of interpretation regarding the Hague Convention is the provision that requires that children not be returned to 

a place where they would be harmed. This is the grave risk of 

harm extension. And it says that they cannot be returned to a 

place where they would be exposed to physical or psychological 

harm. 

This language is very critical in domestic violence cases. And 

there is a fair bit of U.S. case law on this as well but also conflicting case law. 

And so in my more lengthy submission, testimony, I have made 

a suggestion that the Department of Justice be more involved at 

looking at how some of this language is interpreted by U.S. courts. 

So that even if we can’t prevent the fact that some of this language 

might be interpreted differently in the United States and in Senegal and in Thailand, we can at least try to make some uniform 

analysis of how the language of the Convention is interpreted in 

the United States. 

I also need to note that domestic violence is frequently alleged 

and used as a tool, unfortunately, by either the abducting parents 

or some of the government officials that get involved in the case. 

97

There are often concerns of domestic violence raised in cases where 

there is absolutely no evidence of that. The false claim, of course, 

not only hurts those children involved but hurts, takes away attention from cases where domestic violence really is at issue. 

In terms of non-Hague cases, without the Hague Convention, 

left-behind parents face tremendous hurdles. As you, Chairman 

Smith, well know, they might not be able to identify where their 

child is located. They may seek to get a U.S. custody or visitation 

order, recognized in a foreign jurisdiction, but have faced great 

hurdles in doing so. They are often not able to even effectively file 

a case in another jurisdiction or if it’s filed, it may not get heard. 

Sometimes it is difficult to identify who in the foreign government has the ability, power, or desire to either locate or help return the child. And without the Hague Convention as a tool to encourage foreign governments to return the child, custody is most 

likely to be decided to a foreign court order using the child’s presence there. 

As Ms. Apy noted, I wanted to also highlight that the Convention 

is not, however, supposed to be a custody-determining document. It 

is not a regime to decide where the child should live and what is 

the best overall outcome. It is a document to determine what court 

has the jurisdiction to decide the case. And, as you noted in your 

testimony, this seems to be an issue also of great confusion among 

a lot of the states that have signed the Hague Convention. And to 

me, it seems to be a matter of needing substantially additional 

training and guidance that our Government can be involved in, 

other governments might be involved in as well, but that needs to 

be centralized and organized through the Hague Convention in the 

Netherlands. 

I did want to talk about the Department of State. In studying 

this issue over the years, I have heard negative experiences faced 

by left-behind parents and their attorneys. There have also been, 

as you know, a number of changes at the Department of State. And 

I would like to talk about those. 

But I must say, having heard the testimony today, that I am 

very saddened to hear that some of those changes have not impacted these families or that the impact is not as visible as it 

should be. And so I think there is no doubt that this committee, 

the State Department need to continue to do the hard work of trying to figure out how to get this system right. 

Parents are still not feeling that they are being serviced; that 

their needs are being taken as seriously as they ought to be; and, 

as we have noted, that they have an advocate on their behalf. 

I will just highlight some of the structural changes, however. As 

the committee may be aware, the Special Advisor for International 

Children’s Issues has been appointed. And although this is and it’s 

currently held by Ambassador Susan Jacobs, it is also a position 

designed to help elevate this issue, help coordinate between the 

Secretary of State’s Office, the Office of Children’s Issues, and 

other aspects of the State Department. 

I understand, Mr. Smith, that you have a proposal for an even 

higher-level ambassador and potentially a new office. And I am 

happy to look at that. 

98

I think that this initial position has, from what I have been hearing, helped garner attention. And I think this ambassador has been 

able to play a particular advocacy role in the diplomatic community 

that has been important, but there might be enhancements, either 

in changing the position or changing her powers that might be useful as well. 

Case management has also been restructured to some extent at 

the State Department. In the past, there were the last few years 

about 20 Foreign Service officers who handled the heavy caseload 

of about 150 cases a year. That has now changed and they now 

have up to about 100 officers. Not all of them are Foreign Service. 

Some of them are Civil Service. And they now handle no more than 

75 cases. 

We should be seeing improvements in the reports from the families as a result of this. And so I think it is a concern that we are 

not. And I am particularly concerned that this is some of what I 

heard when I was working on the committee as well. 

I think when you meet with the State Department, I believe that 

they are very earnest. I think that the people who are working on 

these cases do understand the importance of what they are doing 

and are putting forth their best efforts for these families, but there 

is a gap to be bridged. 

Because of their perceptions or your perceptions as policymakers 

and as people looking at oversight of the agency, you are going to 

hear different things on one side. And then you are going to hear 

another set of things from the families. 

I would encourage the committee to consider possibly having the 

State Department testify on this issue and be able to explain some 

of their limitations. For example, there are several notes about the 

State Department not providing families information on how they 

contacted the abducting spouse or identified where the child was. 

I suspect that there are limitations on the State Department officers around that. There might be other limitations, as has been discussed under Privacy Act issues. And it might well be that legislation needs to overturn some of that. But I think it would be helpful 

if there is a way in which—and I’m sure that many have been asking for this for years, but if you can still look to bridge this gap 

so that the families feed like they are getting the information they 

need, they understand better the bureaucracy of the State Department, and they also don’t look to the State Department as their adversaries but as their friends, because I think in the end, only by 

working together through the administration at the State Department, Congress, the families, the nonprofit organizations, the attorneys involved, as Ms. Apy noted, there have been tremendous 

strides. And I think more can continue to be done if everyone tries 

to stay on the same team. 

I had a few comments about Japan, which I am going to shorten 

tremendously since I think it has been very well-covered, but I will 

say that I have been told that the Embassy of Japan in the last 

year or so has become more engaged with this issue. 

In fact, the day that I met with them was the day that the Sean 

Goldman story broke on the news while I was in a meeting with 

the Embassy. And at that time—this is several years ago—the concept of how to work on the Convention and what to do was one that 

99

they responded to with some vagaries. And they noted that it was 

being looked at at the Ministry of Justice, but that was the same 

answer that had been given for several years. 

Now I understand that they are more aggressively involved in 

discussions here in the United States about Hague Convention, but 

what I haven’t heard yet is that they are more aggressively involved in discussions about individual cases. 

So I would reiterate what you, Ms. Apy, and others have said, 

that absolutely as they go forward, there has to be a decision 

around the existing cases and there has to be, whether it is in the 

Hague Convention, accession, or in some other document, an agreement. 

And, of course, we have as primary interests the American children, but there are children in many other countries, from many 

other countries, who are in Japan. And so this is an internationally 

concerning issue. 

I will just add that I was asked by Congressman Payne if I could 

make some comments about Africa. And given the committee that 

we are speaking with, I would like to do that. 

Most of the nations in Africa are not signatories to the Hague 

Convention. At present, the United States only has four partners 

to the Convention there: Zimbabwe, South Africa, Mauritius, and 

Burkina Faso. And they face unique challenges there, both in 

terms of identifying where children are; operating with the central 

authorities in those governments; and, in particular, operating in 

governments where there is no Hague partner. 

The road to accession of the Hague Convention is also challenging in some of these African nations, where there are problems 

with inefficient and ineffective government structures that have 

hampered the consideration of the treaty. 

In addition, the Hague Convention does have a project on Africa 

to look at this issue and try to make strides in that region of the 

world. But there has been an identification at least that because 

of the critical role of personal relationships in Africa—and I have 

heard that this is also played in large part in Asia—that having 

a real regional approach that is individually based is important. 

So having a conference in the Netherlands or in Washington, DC, 

is not going to help get countries in Africa to start looking at the 

Hague Convention. It will require a lot of direct outreach on an individual level. 

I will note that children abducted to Africa, the profiles of their 

cases look somewhat different. The Africa cases tend to be of African immigrants who have come to the United States, either temporarily or permanently, where both parents are from an African nation and the child is abducted by one parent, taken back to the 

home country, and is often left with extended family. Grandparents, aunts, uncles, or people living in the United States would 

be considered friends but are very much relatives in the construct 

of an African family. 

And there are a small number but a notable presence of cases 

where female genital cutting is a concern of the left-behind parent. 

As you can imagine, the logistics when a child disappears in countries where there may not be sufficient infrastructure, where telecommunications are still developing, despite the availability of cell 

100

phones, where the Internet might be spare, is a challenge not just 

for the State Department following up on cases but very much a 

challenge for the left-behind parent. And, of course, challenges in 

the weak judicial systems that exist in many of these countries is 

also a problem. 

Also—and this is getting to my last point on this—the left-behind 

parent as African immigrants here in the United States faces challenges because of that status as well. They tend to not necessarily 

live in large communities of African immigrants. It is different 

from, for example, being a Mexican-American living on this side of 

the U.S. border and near the border, where there might be lots of 

Mexican-Americans and lots of resources to help support you and 

learn more about how you can politicize or get media attention for 

your issue. 

So getting attention from law enforcement, getting attention 

from the legal system, and interacting with the political system of 

the United States, Congress, but even at a local level state and 

local politicians is much more of a challenge. And so what I have 

heard and my understanding from speaking with some people in 

the agency is that these cases are not getting that kind of attention, and they’re not getting the kind of advocacy that has, fortunately, been developed around some of the cases in Asia and Europe and other places among the family. 

Lastly, I will just note that I do have a number of suggestions 

of response from Congress. I would just like to note a few. There 

has been a GAO report on this issue. It was done in 2000. I think 

the issue is ripe for a review by GAO, although, in truth, you might 

also—because of the time that GAO takes, you might want to also 

look at an independent report. The State Department has at times 

been given funding to issue a grant and to an independent report 

from an outside attorney or set of attorneys. There might be a way 

to do something like that to really effectively look at this issue of 

communication between the parents and the agency and, really, everything about what the State Department is doing on this. 

But, in truth, I think that, as I have noted, there are areas of 

cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security, areas of 

cooperation with the Department of Justice that are important to 

look at, too, and what we heard today about TSA. 

And we know the problems with the exit system. But there are, 

for example, ways to flag a U.S. passport. Maybe there are ways 

that a U.S. child’s name can be flagged with the airline, regardless 

of what country the passport comes from. That still might be 

thwarted when the name of the child is changed, but as it is right 

now, if an airline brings a person to the United States who does 

not have a visa, the airline has to pay a penalty to the United 

States and has to return that person at the airline’s expense. So 

there is a disincentive for them to allow people on the planes without appropriate passports and visas. 

Maybe there is a similar way to create a list of children who 

should not be traveling internationally. It is very tricky, but I think 

that having some sort of discussion between the State Department, 

the other agencies, and Congress, it is almost more of a working 

group approach involving families and maybe these hearings at the 

beginning of that, where you can start to tease out and work on 

101

how some of these ideas could be brought into policy, they could 

improve the overall operations. 

And my last point would just be that I think the thing that I 

would love to see Members of Congress do more of and that I know 

you’re a master of, Chairman Smith, is to make sure that these 

issues get mentioned to every foreign dignitary that the members 

meet with. 

I don’t necessarily mean every country, but if there is a country—if the committee pays attention to these issues and knows, for 

example, that one of the vast majority of our cases is with Mexico, 

then when the Mexican officials are here, it can be raised. And it 

can be raised by one member or in a larger setting. But I think 

that would help a lot. And, as we have seen, your attention to this 

issue has been a tremendous help for these families. 

So thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Wells follows:]

102


66530h-1.eps
103


66530h-2.eps
104


66530h-3.eps
105


66530h-4.eps
106


66530h-5.eps
107


66530h-6.eps
108


66530h-7.eps
109

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

Mr. Eaves? 

STATEMENT OF MR. JESSE EAVES, POLICY ADVISOR FOR 

CHILDREN IN CRISIS, WORLD VISION 

Mr. EAVES. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 


66530h-8.eps
110

Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member Payne, thank you for holding this hearing today and for inviting me. I, you know, want to 

acknowledge the incredibly generous amount of time you have 

given to this topic. So I will be very brief and summarize my remarks and just ask that my full written statement be made a part 

of the record. 

My name is Jesse Eaves, and I am the Child Protection Policy 

Advisor for World Vision USA. World Vision is a Christian relief, 

development, and advocacy organization serving millions of children and their families around the world, in nearly 100 countries. 

This work includes programs that work to prevent and respond to 

abuse, neglect, exploitation, and violence against children; and advocating for effective systems and laws that can provide a safety 

net for vulnerable populations. 

Today I have been asked to bring a global perspective on child 

protection, especially as it relates to preventing and responding to 

illegal movement of children, particularly in fragile states. 

I want to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in 

working to protect children not only here in the U.S. but around 

the world. You have been behind some of the most important pieces 

of child-focused legislation in our nation’s history, and the child 

protection systems within our country are stronger for it. 

As this hearing has shown, powerfully so, we still have more to 

do. And that is also, sadly, the case for the vast majority of countries around the world. Of particular concern are those countries in 

a post-conflict or post-emergency context where children are often 

found at their most vulnerable state. And informal and formal systems that should protect them have either failed or never existed 

to begin with. 

This hearing provides an important opportunity to address not 

only how the United States can deal with issues like international 

child abduction but also opens the door to put systems in place that 

can prevent and respond to all cases of abuse, neglect, exploitation, 

abduction, and violence against children. 

Governments in fragile states are often unwilling or unable to 

provide the formal services or support the informal mechanisms required to protect their most vulnerable populations. 

The issue of identification documents is of extreme importance. 

In fact, something as simple as birth registration can determine 

whether a child remains in the care of those who love them or slip 

through the cracks, never to be seen again. 

For example, the birth registration rate in Sudan is around 33 

percent. In South Sudan, almost 300,000 people have returned to 

join nearly 10 million Southern Sudanese to take part in the creation of a new country that already has an incredibly low capacity 

to handle such an influx. 

With an estimated 60 percent of returnees being under the age 

of 18, a lack of birth registration and identification documents 

means that unaccompanied and separated children are less likely 

to find a caring home and are extremely vulnerable to abuse. 

We now see homeless child populations increasing in urban centers, particularly in the southern capital of Juba. With no identification and no way to find their families, these children are exVerDate 0ct 09 2002 17:11 Dec 01, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00114 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 F:\WORK\AGH\052411\66530 HFA PsN: SHIRL
111

tremely vulnerable to abuses that include abduction, recruitment 

into armed militias, and sexual or labor exploitation. 

Having proper documentation and officials trained in how to 

identify suspicious behavior is crucial to protecting vulnerable children, especially in fragile states. Since the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti, many organizations including World Vision and 

others, like our partner organization Heartland Alliance, have 

worked to train border guards to prevent the illegal movement of 

children. 

There have been several documented cases where trained and 

alert Haitian officials were able to stop children from being taken 

illegally across the border. In one case, a 13-year-old girl was found 

with a man who could provide no proof of relation. The girl was 

placed in the family-tracing system. And her mother was able to 

come and provide proof that she was indeed related to the girl and 

had not intended for her to be taken anywhere, let alone out of the 

country. 

In this and in so many other cases, the importance of documentation and officials implementing protection policies have meant the 

difference between a happy reunification and a life cut tragically 

short. 

Just to conclude, the U.S. can and should play a central role in 

encouraging countries as they work to protect their most precious 

resource of their children. 

Mr. Chairman, last year you introduced a bill that is a prime example of how the U.S. can take a systems-strengthening approach 

in its engagement with other nations. The Child Protection Compact Act aimed to foster partnerships between countries and 

strengthen the very institutions that are crucial to the protection 

of all children. 

Legislation like the CPCA can play a crucial role in providing a 

safer world for children. And we look forward to seeing similar legislation in the future. We also look forward to working with you to 

ensure that every child can live life in all its fullness. 

So thank you again for your leadership, Mr. Chairman and 

Ranking Member Payne. And I’ll be happy to address any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Eaves follows:]

112


66530i-1.eps
113


66530i-2.eps
114


66530i-3.eps
115


66530i-4.eps
116

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Eaves, thank you very much for your testimony 

and the great work you and your organization do. 

Let me ask just a few questions and maybe on Japan, to be very 

specific. I only note parenthetically that we plan on having a 

Japan-specific hearing because I do think that it is not—I can’t say 

that it is likely, but it is very possible maybe that in anticipation 

of the G–8, maybe a day before, a week before, Japan will announce that they are going to sign the Hague. And, of course, the 

big question will be, what are the conditions, the terms and conditions, the reservations? 

And, as I think, Ms. Apy, you said so eloquently, you know, there 

needs to be an MOU drafted which includes an immediate protocol 

for resolution of existing cases involving children alleged to have 

abducted to Japan and abducted within Japan as well as Japanese 

children alleged to have abducted to the United States. 

You and I, when we were in Japan, made that argument repeatedly. We have done it here. You made it, like I said, very eloquently. I wonder how our other witnesses might feel about that, 

because my deepest fear will be Japan gets all of the accolades, 

praises heaped upon them by the other G–8 leaders for its commitment and then when it comes time to implement, all of the existing 

families are left behind and that which is agreed to becomes Swiss 

cheese, so to speak, because it is riddled with loopholes. 

Ms. Wells, would you want to start or would you want to start 

on that, Ms. Apy? It seems to be absolutely basic in my opinion. 

Ms. APY. Right. I think that there is a genuine concern given 

what I have seen as projected reservations that if there is not some 

dialogue immediately generated and some objective assistance and 

criteria provided that, first of all, this process will go on without 

having a meaningful treaty relationship, if we accept their accession given the number of reservations that it appears will be there, 

it will effectively be different than the protections afforded by the 

treaty. 

I think that there are legitimate issues that the Japanese have 

to address in their own domestic law that are so daunting that the 

advantage of carving out an opportunity in an MOU bilateral 

agreement so that some of those issues can be worked through will 

not only benefit the United States relationship but in the meeting 

that we had—and this would be what I would close with—the 

meeting that we had included representatives of other countries to 

Japan, including the Pacific Rim and Europe, all of whom were 

wildly positive on the concept of using an MOU in this context in 

order to set forth reasonable criteria and approach that on a multilateral level. 

So, again, I think that by using that type of protocol, it could actually narrow the number of reservations that the Japanese would 

have to take and strengthen the possibility of true reciprocity. 

Mr. SMITH. Ms. Wells? 

Ms. WELLS. I agree, as I noted earlier, that absolutely there has 

to be some agreement to handle existing cases. And, in truth, when 

any country joins the Hague Convention, that is what we would 

want to see. And we know, in particular, because of the challenges 

in Japan and how intractable those cases have been, it is particularly important. 

117

I think that I should add that in the past I have testified that 

I thought the notion of doing MOUs with countries where we were 

having trouble making agreements was a good idea. I have since 

heard that the State Department has thought that some of those 

MOUs have not been as effective as they should have been. So I 

would urge the committee to look at that question of what makes 

the MOU effective. 

And if we can get an MOU—and it might be the right vehicle—

how do we ensure that it is one that will have the force and will 

secure the rights of these left-behind parents and ensure that their 

children are covered as we wanted to because if we can’t get sufficient assures through the Hague process, that the Government of 

Japan may go through—you know, if it’s something that they don’t 

want to agree to until they really want to agree to it, they can do 

another agreement that doesn’t really have the force that we want 

it to have. 

So I just think it’s a matter of—and, you know I would certainly 

defer to Ms. Apy’s view because she certainly—I haven’t seen, for 

example, the potential reservations. And she is much closer to this 

issue. 

That might be the right way to go. I just think that we should 

look at how MOUs are working for the State Department and what 

would it take to make this particular MOU effective. 

Mr. EAVES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no comment. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me ask all of you, or first, Ms. Wells. You mentioned dual nationals, children who happen to be dual nationals, 

might be a more complicated factor. Maybe you can elaborate on 

why that is the case. 

You also mentioned that the Hague Conference—that there 

needs to be, perhaps, additional oversight in improvements. Do you 

have any specific ideas, Ms. Apy? I mean, three decades into the 

treaty, hopefully there is a lessons learned area where upgrades 

could be made. 

I would just point out parenthetically that I would agree that the 

State Department people at OCI and the consular officials in country after country are earnest. It is not a competence issue. They are 

very smart. To be FSOs, obviously, they need to be very intelligent. 

And they are well-trained. I would argue that the problem is primarily the fact that they don’t have the requisite toolbox to do the 

work. 

One of the reasons why our legislation, H.R. 1940, has been introduced is to take a lessons-learned from all of the other human 

rights issues where we had been very effective—trafficking, and 

certainly on religious freedom—and take those tools, those penalties, if necessary, and apply them to countries. So it’s a countryto-country fight, not an individual versus an indifferent or an enabling country or worse, actually, you know, very much on the side 

of the abductors and to make it an issue where you can get resolutions. 

And I have found that 31 years in human rights work, you don’t 

get compliance without penalties. It doesn’t happen. So you might 

want to speak to that end of it as well. 

Ms. APY. I would. Let me talk about a precise example. In the 

David Goldman case, the case was brought before the Supreme 

118

Court of Brazil because there was a lawsuit filed by a political 

party, which sought a preliminary injunction preventing any child 

from any country being returned under the Convention. That was 

completely stopping all of the processes. 

The United States Department of State took the position initially 

that the Hague Conference should respond because of the issues of 

enforcement and some of the issues that were raised in my colleagues’ testimony that they are a more appropriate global body to 

review the issues of enforcement. 

I had my doubts. And, in fact, what ended up—because the 

Hague Conference has never taken the position that they will act 

as an arbiter of reciprocity, they were opposed to looking at enforcement in the context of global reciprocity issues, and not as distinguished from enforcement in individual cases, and additional 

language, where we have treaties already that have already been 

drafted. 

And so we waited. There was a 42-hour window in which the 

Hague Conference had to provide briefing in support of not just the 

David Goldman case but all similarly situated children from all 

countries. With less than 12 hours before the filing, they declined 

to file a brief. 

Now, happily, having anticipated this as a possibility, we prepared a brief with the able assistance of the Consul General of the 

United States in Brazil. And that brief was filed by the United 

States of America. 

However, it is a good example of the reticence because of the policymaking and educational components of the Hague Conference. I 

respectfully believe that reciprocity is not going to be evaluated 

substantively by the Hague Conference. I think they do not see 

that as their role. And I don’t think they are going to take it on. 

I think if we in the United States develop an objective template 

in order to assess and inform on the issues of reciprocity, that will 

be endorsed and joined by other nations. Very frankly, no one 

wants to act in a way that is not cooperative or can’t we all just 

get along, but the truth of it is that somebody has to take the step 

to lay out and call out the issues of reciprocity. 

Our report on this subject is the only one issued by any country 

in the world right now. 

Mr. SMITH. Yes? 

Ms. WELLS. I certainly wouldn’t argue with that. I think that she 

makes excellent recommendations. And my comments about oversight were mainly in response to some of the research and reading 

I have done on this issue. 

There are various suggestions on how to solve it, but I think the 

practicality of how the conference actually works and this issue of 

our country possibly being the one that needs to take a lead and 

possibly having other countries then agree once they see our country taking that leadership role, that might be the most effective 

way to do it. 

I mean, there are also ideas of having an office that would do 

oversight within the Hague or that you could potentially have 

something like an ombudsman. I think all of those are areas that 

just need to be examined further. And I just wanted to certainly 

raise them to the subcommittee’s attention. 

119

On the issue of dual nationals, you know, as I noted, most of 

these cases become one of dual nationality. Often other countries, 

as the United States, will recognize and give national citizenship 

to a child of a parent born in that country. So if it doesn’t happen 

before the abduction, it happens later. 

I think part of the issue that has come up in some of the testimony and that I certainly had heard about before is the issue of 

the Embassies giving new passports. And that is a real challenge 

for the State Department. In truth, it is a challenge for us as a 

country because we do need diplomatic relations with other countries of the world. 

And we can’t have a situation where the United States can absolutely tell some country, ‘‘You are not allowed to issue passports. 

You are not allowed to issue visas.’’ They will do the same to us. 

And then we won’t be able to do the things we do outside of our 

own borders. 

But I do think that that is something again for the committee to 

look at and discuss with State Department and other agencies. 

How can we talk to these Embassies better about their own processes? And how can we either explain or urge to them that, you 

know, if we can prevent these cases from becoming cross-border 

cases in the first place, we can work with their governments to 

come up with a fair resolution. 

So, you know, especially if it’s a Hague country, you don’t necessarily have to issue a false passport. You know, if the courts, if 

our courts, review it appropriately and that child’s habitual residence is in the foreign country, that court will be given the jurisdiction to decide the case. 

So on the toolbox issue, I did want to just note one thing where 

I think one of the witnesses noted that the State Department 

should be coming to Congress saying, ‘‘Here is what we need.’’

I would only highlight, I guess, as a former staffer that I know 

sometimes that can be very complicated for the agency. As you 

know, the way our bureaucracy works, especially at a time of budget cuts and challenges, part of what we are all talking about here 

is making sure that this issue gets elevated. But there are a lot of 

things that the State Department has to come to Congress for. 

I think that one of the benefits of the way our system works is 

that as members and as staff, your staff can raise ideas in meetings and they can get filtered and bounced around. And sometimes 

whether they like to or not, they might be the right thing to do. 

I do think that the nature of the communications between Congress and the State Department might make it hard for some of 

the people in the agency who know what they need to be able to 

come forth and say, ‘‘This is it exactly’’ because it is a lengthy process they would have to go through to get that clear. 

Mr. SMITH. Let me just conclude and ask unanimous consent to 

include a brochure from BACHome, Bring Abducted Children 

Home. Paul Toland, who has testified at one of our previous hearings, makes a number of points, he and the group, ‘‘Japan must immediately return the stolen children. Japan must provide unfettered access to our precious children. Number three, Japan must 

enact retroactive laws.’’

120

They have a very good series of recommendations with regards 

to Japan’s Hague implementation legislation, it must meet the 

spirit of the Hague and really come down very hard on the fact 

that allegations of domestic violence must be accompanied by rules 

of evidence, that hearsay has no place in denying a child even access to his left-behind parent. 

‘‘Japan must unambiguously define the best interests of the 

child.’’ And, then, very importantly—they’re all important—‘‘Japan 

must immediately locate our missing children.’’ And they list 

names, as was mentioned earlier. 

There are a number of American children who have been abducted and wrongfully retained who are unaccounted for and whose 

present location is unknown since the earthquake, tsunami, and 

the ongoing nuclear disaster, adding incredible pain and agony to 

existing pain and agony. They don’t know what has happened to 

their children. 

Mr. Payne? 

[Applause.] 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you. 

Ms. Apy or Ms. Wells, either one of you, I wonder if you can tell 

us what impact, if any, has United Nations Convention on the 

Rights of the Child or its optional protocol, on the sale of children 

had on preventing international child abductions? And do you 

think the Convention is a valuable mechanism for addressing this 

issue? 

Ms. WELLS. I am going to defer to Ms. Apy on this. 

Ms. APY. So I understood the question, you were referring to the 

United Nations Convention. 

Mr. PAYNE. On the Rights of the Child or its optional protocol on 

the sale of children, which——

Ms. APY. Well, the optional protocol certainly has had an extraordinary impact on international law and customary international 

law. 

Of course, I feel the need to respond. And that is quite a sticky 

question, Congressman Payne, because the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, of course, has not been ratified by 

the United States of America. 

And so I can assure you when I stand in another country, as I 

have often, and begin to litigate a case, if the child is considered 

a dual national, you may be assured that a judge glares at me over 

their glasses and says, ‘‘Now, could you please explain to me why 

the United States Congress takes the position that it does with regard to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child?’’

I will also tell you, having written on this subject and spoken on 

it, that I personally take the position—and this position is a policy 

of the American Bar Association as well—that the United States 

should, in fact, be a signator to the United Nations Convention on 

the Rights of the Child. And this would be yet another example of 

why because I would not want the argument made, as is often 

made, that there are protections associated with the UN Convention that are somehow broader than protections provided under 

United States law. And, as a result, a child should not be returned 

to the United States. 

121

The area of customary international law in child rights issue is 

complex. I will assure you that in the most recent meeting at the 

Hague Conference, which dealt with child trafficking, that very 

issue was raised, particularly as it related to the alternate protocol, 

particularly as it related to child trafficking in the context of adoption. And that again is a sophisticated interplay of international 

legal issues that weigh heavily on countries in Africa and Central 

and South America. 

So, again, I think it is a huge issue, to some extent beyond the 

scope of our discussion today but a discussion that needs to take 

place. 

Mr. PAYNE. Can you tell me what other countries have not ratified the Convention? There aren’t many. 

Ms. APY. This is the second question the judge——

Mr. PAYNE. Even Burma? 

Ms. APY [continuing]. Asks me, by the way. It is equally uncomfortable. It had been Somalia, and that’s it. 

Mr. PAYNE. Okay. Well, we have to be careful about the company 

we keep, right? 

Ms. APY. Indeed, sir. 

Mr. PAYNE. Do you know about the land mines treaty offhand? 

I know we haven’t ratified that. Do you know how many countries 

have not ratified that one? 

Ms. APY. I don’t have that information. Perhaps my colleague. 

Mr. PAYNE. How about combat for children soldiers, the under 18 

military? We haven’t ratified that either. 

Ms. APY. Yes, sir, we haven’t. 

Mr. PAYNE. And there I think is only one other country, too. And 

I just bring that out because we are the land of the free, the home 

of the brave. 

We are the leaders of the world. There is no question about it. 

It is the greatest place in the world. However, we leave ourselves 

open to criticism when we go into national courts. And we haven’t 

even ratified a fundamental thing, protocol like the rights of the 

child. 

Now, I am sure there is some legalistic reason why. Well, first 

of all, many people just don’t like treaties. I was glad that Mother’s 

Day came up years ago because if we had to bring it through Congress, maybe it might not pass because it was international. So we 

do really have to work more on own image as we argue these very 

sensitive issues. 

Our time is running. Votes are coming. Let me just ask, Mr. 

Eaves, have parental abductions of children been documented in 

African countries? And to what extent do you think this is an issue 

for U.S. policy? 

Mr. EAVES. It’s a good question, Ranking Member Payne. 

I am not clear as to the exact statistics. We definitely do see 

cross-border movement. For instance, in countries where you have 

had a refugee population in a particular country, so if you have Sudanese living in Uganda or, say, Sierra Leoneans living in Cote 

d’Ivoire, there have been cases where you see a parent take a child 

across the border, leaving another parent behind. 

122

I am not certain of the role that the U.S. plays there, but we 

know that it does happen. And it is equally tragic there, as it is 

here. 

Mr. PAYNE. Also, we do know that in some countries in sub-Saharan Africa, you do have some traditions in some Sahel countries, 

where you have this hereditary servitude and adoption into slavery, where their practice—this happened in Sudan, as I mentioned 

before, the Dinkas and the Nuba people that were put into indentured servitude by the Khartoum Bashir Government of the North. 

Have you gotten into a discussion in regard to customs of countries where, for example, in Haiti, a person who is very povertystricken may turn their child over to a wealthy Haitian to simply 

work as a servant, which is not abduction? However, it is not nice 

either. Have you dealt with any of those issues? I think they call 

it restavec in Haiti. 

Mr. EAVES. Yes. Yes, we have, in both Sudan and in the Haitian 

example you mentioned, yes. The restavec system has been an incredibly pervasive and harmful practice that we see in Haiti. And 

the main way that we addressed that is working with the families 

that find themselves in such desperate situations. You know, so 

often in cases of extreme poverty, a child can become either a 

source of income or a drain on income. 

And sometimes the parents think they are doing their child a 

favor by delivering them over to a wealthy family, assuming that 

their child will receive education in exchange for doing some kind 

of domestic work. 

Sometimes that is exactly what happens, but far and away, the 

majority of examples show that these children are taken. They are 

kept against their will. They are forced to work long hours, often 

doing dangerous work. And sometimes they are even sexually exploited as well. 

So we work with those poor families to ensure that they have the 

ability to earn an income that can allow them to educate their own 

children and protect their own children because I think, as we have 

heard time and again today, the best place for a child is in their 

parents’ loving arms. 

Mr. PAYNE. Just finally, running out of time, I know there was 

a lot of controversy with the Madonna’s adoption case you recall 

several years ago. And you had people on both sides of that issue. 

Of course, recently actually, about a week or so ago, we had a hearing on China. 

And one of the international organizations said that he would 

urge the ending of adoption of Chinese children because he felt 

that some of them might be abducted or taken away from families 

and, therefore, improperly put up for adoption. 

And so I know this question of adoption becomes very sensitive. 

I hear some people say, ‘‘Well, if they can get a better life somewhere else, well, why not let them go out?’’

Others say, ‘‘Well, if you take them out of their own culture, are 

you really doing it better for them or not?’’

So I just wondered, to what extent are there concerns related to 

international adoptions in your opinion or from any research, for 

example, pertaining to fraud and misidentification of children, 

often selling children to adoption agencies? 

123

Mr. EAVES. Congressman Payne, we definitely believe that adoption could be a very beautiful and wonderful thing to happen. 

One thing, when we’re talking about international adoptions, we 

always want to make sure that, indeed, that that is the only option 

left available to the child. Oftentimes we have found that if there 

is one or more parent still living, working with that family to see 

if they can still care for that child; if that is not an option, looking 

to see if there is another family member that can care for the child, 

then looking toward foster care or domestic adoption. And if that 

won’t be in the best interest of the child, then you look at international adoption, which, like I said, can be just a wonderful thing 

for all parties involved. 

What we have seen is that especially unwittingly on behalf of 

Americans that may adopt, a case of adoption could be a case of 

unknowing abduction. And there can be fraud in the process. And 

so that is why it is so important that those safeguards are in place 

in countries all over the world. 

It is important for those processes to work effectively and efficiently but always looking to ensure that the best interests of the 

child are placed first and foremost and that, wherever they end up, 

they will be in a loving, caring environment that will allow them 

to live out their life in all of its fullness. 

Mr. PAYNE. Thank you very much. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you very much, Mr. Payne. I want to thank 

our distinguished witnesses. I actually have a number of additional 

questions, but there is a vote out and we have 2 minutes to report 

to the floor. And there will be a series of votes. 

I will announce again that we will have a whole series of hearings on this, hopefully a markup in the not-too-distant future on 

H.R. 1940. I can guarantee you I will not cease to support those 

who support the legislation until it is law, no matter how long it 

takes and no matter how much pushback we get. 

I would also note that we will have a Japan-specific hearing, especially surrounding issues of Hague accession and whether or not 

in the small print there is duplicity and especially to address the 

left-behind parents who would be left out, once again, should they 

not be included in an MOU or some other mechanism to provide 

inclusion and resolution of their particular issues. 

Would you like to add anything very quickly before we close? 

Ms. APY. No thank you, sir. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you again for your extraordinary service and 

leadership. 

I would also just ask unanimous consent that additional statements that individuals have requested be submitted for the record 

be made a part of the record. And if left-behind parents who are 

here would like to submit their testimony or statement, we will include that as well, but it needs to be done rather quickly. And it 

needs to be eight pages or less. 

And, finally, we will be reaching out to you again for another 

hearing because this issue has to rise in its visibility and not ebb 

or diminish. Thank you. 

[Applause.] 

[Whereupon, at 6:19 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(125)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

126

f


66530n.eps
127

f


66530m.eps
128

f


66530j.eps
129

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, AND HUMAN RIGHTS


66530k-1.eps
130


66530k-2.eps
131


66530k-3.eps
132


66530k-4.eps
133


66530k-5.eps
134


66530k-6.eps
135


66530l-1.eps
136


66530l-2.eps
137


66530l-3.eps
138


66530l-4.eps
139


66530l-5.eps
140


66530l-6.eps
141


66530l-7.eps
142


66530l-8.eps
143


66530o.eps
144


66530p-1.eps
145


66530p-2.eps
146


66530p-3.eps
147


66530q.eps
148


66530r-1.eps
149


66530r-2.eps
150


66530r-3.eps
151


66530s-1.eps
152


66530s-2.eps
153


66530t-1.eps
154


66530t-2.eps
155


66530t-3.eps
156


66530t-4.eps
157


66530t-5.eps
158


66530t-6.eps
159


66530t-7.eps
160


66530u-1.eps
161


66530u-2.eps
162


66530u-3.eps
163


66530u-4.eps
164


66530u-5.eps
165


66530v.eps
166


66530w-1.eps
167


66530w-2.eps
168


66530w-3.eps
169


66530w-4.eps
170


66530w-5.eps
171


66530w-6.eps
172


66530x-1.eps
173


66530x-2.eps
174

Æ


66530x-3.eps