Report to the Chairman, Committee on

Foreign Relations, U.S. Senate

United States General Accounting Office

GAO

April 2001 FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Changes to Germany's

Implementation of the

Hague Child

Abduction Convention

GAO-01-423
Page i GAO-01-423 Parental Child Abduction

Letter 1

Appendix I Consular Assistance to Left-Behind Parents 11

Appendix II Scope and Methodology 13

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 14

Tables

Table 1: German Initiatives to Improve Handling of Hague

Convention Cases 4

Table 2: Consular Assistance to Left-Behind Parents (FY 1999-2000) 12

Contents
Page 1 GAO-01-423 Parental Child Abduction

April 10, 2001

The Honorable Jesse A. Helms

Chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations

United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Over the past several years, the United States has been critical of

Germany’s handling of international parental child abduction cases that

have been filed by U.S. parents.1

 Both the executive and legislative

branches of the U.S. government have criticized Germany for not fully and

consistently following the criteria and procedures established under the

1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child

Abduction,

2

 which governs such cases. The primary criticisms include the

inappropriate use by German courts of certain provisions of the Hague

Convention to justify retaining an abducted child in Germany, the length of

time it has taken to adjudicate cases, and the failure to enforce left-behind

parents’ visitation rights. In September 2000, in response to your concerns

about the rights of left-behind parents, we reported on the status and

outcome of cases that U.S. parents have filed with Germany.3

 This second

report identifies actions that Germany has taken or plans it has under way

to reform its handling of international parental child abduction cases and

how these actions may affect U.S. cases. We also obtained information

about what State Department officers stationed in Germany are doing to

assist left-behind parents. This information is contained in appendix I.

To identify German actions and plans and how they may affect U.S. cases,

we met with German government officials, judges, and lawyers in seven

cities in Germany during November 2000. We also interviewed Department

of State officials in headquarters and in Germany. In addition, we reviewed

the status and outcome of the 43 U.S. cases that had been opened after

German authorities began changing their handling of Hague Convention

 1

International parental child abduction occurs when a parent removes a child from the

United States or retains a child outside the United States, with the intent to obstruct the

parental rights (including visitation rights) of the left-behind parent. 18 U.S.C. 1204.

2

29 ILM 1501 (1980).

3

Foreign Affairs: Status of U.S. Parental Child Abductions to Germany, Sweden, and Austria

(GAO/NSIAD-00-226BR, Sept. 8, 2000).

United States General Accounting Office

Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO-01-423 Parental Child Abduction

cases in July 1999. More details about our scope and methodology can be

found in appendix II.

In response to U.S. and other countries’ concerns, German authorities

have pledged their commitment to take steps to improve the handling of

Hague Convention cases, and Germany has taken actions to address two

of the three primary criticisms. Germany has established a task force to

monitor German reforms and active cases, initiated efforts to build

expertise among judges deciding Hague Convention cases, and changed its

processes to accelerate case handling. Our analysis of information

obtained in Germany and case data in Washington, D.C., indicates that

changes are under way that may positively affect case handling. However,

because many of these reforms are recent, we believe it will take time for

case outcomes to fully reflect their effect. Despite these reforms, Germany

has not acted to improve enforcement of visitation rights granted by

German courts. The German courts’ reluctance to enforce visitation orders

is hampering Germany’s efforts to improve its handling of Hague

Convention cases.

The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child

Abduction governs how international parental child abduction disputes

are adjudicated. It requires that party states identify a lead government

agency (called a “central authority”) to serve as a central point of contact

and to initiate or facilitate judicial or administrative proceedings. The

State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues,4

 Bureau of Consular

Affairs, is the central authority for the United States. Germany has

identified the Federal Prosecutor General5

 as its central authority.

The United States and other countries, especially France and the United

Kingdom, have expressed concerns about German authorities’ handling of

Hague Convention cases. In May 1999, State reported to Congress that the

German administrative and judicial processing of abduction cases took 18

months or longer, a period State considered unacceptable.6

 In October

 4

State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues formulates, develops, and coordinates

policies and programs on international parental child abductions.

5

The German Federal Prosecutor General’s office has no counterpart in the United States.

6

Report on Compliance With the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International

Child Abduction (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, May 1999).

Results in Brief

Background
Page 3 GAO-01-423 Parental Child Abduction

2000, State further reported that the systemic failure of German courts to

enforce contempt7

 sanctions allowed abducting parents to resist

enforcement of visitation orders indefinitely.8

 In addition, a May 2000

congressional resolution cited Germany, along with other countries, for

not meeting their commitments under the Hague Convention.9

 Also, media

in both the United States and Germany have actively reported on this

issue, focusing on a number of high-profile, controversial cases. We

reported that between January 1, 1995, and May 15, 2000, there were 257

cases where U.S. parents sought the return of, or visitation with, their

children in Germany. According to the State Department, there were 17

cases pending German judicial action as of March 1, 2001.

In June 2000, for the first time since both countries signed (and became

states party to) the Hague Convention, discussion of specific cases was

elevated to the presidential level. At that time, President Clinton and

Chancellor Schroeder, the German head of Government, met in Berlin and,

according to the State Department, discussed a number of high-profile

abduction cases among other bilateral issues. Their meeting resulted in the

establishment of a U.S.-German working group on international parental

child abductions. The working group met on June 27, July 24 and 25,

September 25 and 26, 2000, and January 8 and 9, 2001, to discuss the

concerns of each country and to seek solutions.

Since July 1999, Germany has taken steps designed to improve its handling

of parental child abduction cases under the 1980 Hague Convention. The

most significant actions are summarized in table 1. Our analysis of

information obtained in Germany and case data in Washington, D.C.,

indicates that these changes may have a positive effect on current and

future cases. Because most German actions are very recent, however, it

will take time for case outcomes to fully reflect their effect. These changes

may not affect cases already decided by German courts. Although the task

force is working to find acceptable solutions on some closed cases,

German authorities said they will not revisit prior court rulings. State

 7

Contempt is the failure to obey a court order issued for another party’s benefit.

8

Report on Compliance With the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International

Child Abduction (Washington, D.C.: Department of State, Oct. 2000).

9

H.Con.Res. 293. Sweden and Austria were also cited in this resolution.

German Initiatives to

Improve Handling of

Hague Convention

Cases
Page 4 GAO-01-423 Parental Child Abduction

Department officials accepted this position even though they disagreed

with some past decisions.

Table 1: German Initiatives to Improve Handling of Hague Convention Cases

Goal Action Status

Facilitate the resolution of

difficult cases and monitor

reforms.

Establish 5-member task

force within the Ministry

of Justice.

Created in October 2000 and funded through September 2003.

Enhance expertise among

German judges on Hague

Convention provisions and

cases.

Reduce the number of

courts and judges that

hear Hague Convention

cases.

Implement judicial

training programs

sponsored by the Ministry

of Justice nationwide.

Effective July 1999, the number of courts authorized to hear Hague

Convention cases was reduced from 600 to 24.

Courts in Munich and Dusseldorf reduced to two the number of judges

that adjudicate Hague Convention cases in November 2000.

Training seminars conducted in January and February 2001 for 48 family

court judges representing 22 of the 24 German family courts. Additional

training is scheduled for late 2001.

Accelerate case decisions. Reengineer its system for

processing cases and

scheduling hearings.

Central Authority implemented reforms in October 2000.

Source: GAO synthesis of information provided by German officials.

Germany established a special task force in October 2000 to lead German

efforts to improve its handling of Hague Convention cases. The task force

has five members, including a family court judge, a family law specialist,

and two senior-level Ministry of Justice officials who joined the task force

for bilateral discussions on parental child abduction cases with the United

States. Based on our discussions with members of the task force, they

appear to understand Germany’s obligations under the Hague Convention

and the areas in which German reforms may be needed. The task force has

been funded for 3 years, until September 2003. The task force director

explained that improvements in Germany’s handling of these cases should

increase over the life of the task force and that, as a result, there should be

no need to extend the task force beyond that time. The task force has two

primary responsibilities: assisting in the resolution of difficult cases and

facilitating and monitoring reforms in German institutions.

The task force’s influence over difficult cases is limited because German

courts, which enjoy substantial independence under Germany’s

constitution, make the final decisions on abduction cases. Nevertheless,

the director said that there were a number of actions that the task force

planned to take to help facilitate consistent case outcomes. For example,

the task force plans to provide information to the German youth authority

Facilitating the Resolution

of Difficult Cases and

Monitoring Reforms
Page 5 GAO-01-423 Parental Child Abduction

on Hague Convention provisions and to left-behind parents and their

lawyers regarding German legal processes and institutions. The task force

director indicated that it also plans to promote out-of-court, nonjudicial

mediation, especially for long-standing, difficult cases, including cases in

which a court has ruled against a left-behind parent. Because the German

task force had been active for only a few months without having

concluded any of its initiatives, we could not determine whether it could

affect the outcome of U.S. cases. As of March 1, 2001, the task force told

us that they were actively involved with six high-profile cases already

decided by German courts.

Regarding the reform process, the task force is monitoring court

proceedings and decisions and collecting data on observations by other

governments and left-behind parents regarding how German authorities

are handling these cases. Using this information, the task force will

determine whether and to what extent it needs to get involved to facilitate

the resolution of specific cases or encourage systemic change. The task

force also serves as a facilitator for the German reforms discussed below.

According to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Secretariat, which

monitors treaties on private international law, a well-trained and

experienced judiciary is key to effectively implementing the Hague

Convention. German government officials and judges told us that lack of

judicial familiarity with the application of Hague Convention provisions

has been a major problem affecting case decisions. German judges told us

that a judge might not be familiar with the Hague Convention because he

or she may not have previously presided over a Convention case.

The Hague Convention requires that, barring extreme circumstances,

children be returned to their country of habitual residence. Once returned,

a court in that country will decide custody. However, German officials and

lawyers indicated that because of limited experience with Hague

Convention requirements, some German judges may view their role

differently. In these cases, German judges may believe that they are

expected to decide the child’s custody, applying German family law, rather

than applying Hague Convention provisions. This could result in a judge

ruling in favor of the abducting parent and denying return. To enhance

Hague Convention expertise, German authorities have limited the number

of courts and judges hearing such cases and have begun training them on

the Hague Convention provisions.

Enhancing Hague

Convention Expertise

Among German Judges
Page 6 GAO-01-423 Parental Child Abduction

To promote judicial expertise in handling Hague Convention cases, the

German parliament enacted legislation in July 1999, limiting the number of

courts with jurisdiction to hear Hague Convention cases from 600 to 24.

This resulted in a reduction in the number of judges with jurisdiction to

hear such cases from approximately 2,000 to 200 judges. This legislative

initiative, supported by the United States, was largely in response to

criticism and pressure from France and the United Kingdom, two Hague

Convention party states with long-standing concerns about German

courts’ decisions on Hague Convention cases.

In September 2000, in addition to the nationwide reductions, the German

State Secretary encouraged further reductions in the number of judges

hearing Hague Convention cases. According to a judge with the task force,

the Ministry of Justice cannot order a reduction; it can only be reached

and made effective by the judges themselves. Family courts in Munich and

Dusseldorf have decided to reduce the number of judges hearing such

cases to two—a primary and secondary judge. Other family courts in

Germany have expressed interest in following the Munich and Dusseldorf

courts but have not yet acted.

According to German lawyers handling Hague Convention cases, the

concentration of Hague cases among fewer judges should improve case

handling. For example, they said that the reduction in the number of

judges hearing cases should result in fewer applications of the Article 13b

exception to the Hague Convention. Under this exception, a party state

can deny the return of a child if the return, in the court’s opinion, would

pose a grave risk to the child’s mental or physical well-being. According to

officials from the Hague Secretariat and the U.S. and German

governments, this exception should be narrowly applied and not liberally

used as a vehicle for denying a child’s return. However, according to the

State Department, some German judges have interpreted the exception too

liberally and made “unconscionably broad” use of the Hague Convention

exception in a number of cases. The German task force acknowledged that

German judges used this exception too liberally in some past cases.

In our September 2000 report on the status of U.S. parental child

abductions to Germany, we reported that, for the 172 closed cases where

the child was not returned to the United States, German courts used the

Article 13b exception 14 times (or 8 percent). Since September, German

courts under the new 24-court system used the Article 13b exception once.

That is, for cases handled under the new court structure, German courts

used the Article 13b exception once in 30 (3 percent) cases, compared

with 14 instances in 172 (8 percent) decided cases under the old structure.

Limiting the Number of Courts

and Judges That Adjudicate

Hague Convention Cases
Page 7 GAO-01-423 Parental Child Abduction

To further familiarize judges with Hague Convention standards and

procedures, the Ministry of Justice coordinated two 3-day training

conferences in January and February 2001.10 The training conferences

were an effort to enhance common knowledge and expertise about the

goals of the Hague Convention among German judges with jurisdiction

over these cases. These conferences focused on the (1) creation and goals

of the Hague Convention, (2) legal jurisdiction and provisions under the

Convention, and (3) return and access rights and their enforcement under

the Convention. Ministry of Justice officials told us that their role was

limited to facilitating and coordinating the conferences while

knowledgeable and experienced judges and lawyers conducted conference

sessions for participating judges.11

In addition, Germany, the United States, and the Hague Secretariat have

discussed plans to convene a conference among a number of Hague

Convention party states in late 2001 to promote consistency in Convention

interpretation and foster closer relationships. This conference would

cover such topics as the intent of the Hague Convention, restricted use of

Convention exception provisions, and enforcement of return and access

decisions.

According to the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Secretariat, prompt

access to the courts is a key factor to the effective implementation of the

Hague Convention. The longer a child remains in his environment, and

bonds with the abducting parent, the less willing a court may be to order

the child’s return. In its May 1999 report, State cited Germany for lengthy

case processing. We reported in September 2000 that German authorities

took a median of 288 days to process Hague Convention abduction and

access cases. Although Germany has not established a specific time limit

for case adjudication, the German task force acknowledged that German

courts have taken too long to adjudicate abduction cases in the past.

 10The January training conference was conducted in Recklinghausen, Germany, for 25

family court judges, and the February conference was conducted in Bad Nauheim,

Germany, for 23 family court judges.

11The U.S. embassy has proposed to support German judicial training by sponsoring child

custody seminars for German family judges. These seminars would consist of three 1-day

events throughout Germany and feature U.S. and German speakers on Hague Convention

implementation issues. Through State’s International Visitor Program, the U.S. embassy

plans to sponsor visits in fiscal years 2001 and 2002 by German judges to the United States

to meet with their U.S. counterparts.

Implementing Judicial Training

Programs Nationwide

Accelerating Case

Decisions Through

Reengineered Case

Application Filing

Procedures and Court

Notification
Page 8 GAO-01-423 Parental Child Abduction

Officials from the central authority in Bonn told us that they have changed

their administrative procedures to expedite case application filing and

court notification. In October 2000, the central authority established a

policy to fully process and forward applications to the competent court

within 7 days of receipt of a complete application. Before October 2000,

the central authority took about 30 days. Only one of the cases we

reviewed was opened after October 2000, when the new administrative

procedures were put in place. This case was originally sent to the German

central authority, which promptly transferred the case to French

authorities upon learning from the U.S. left-behind parent that the

abducting parent had fled to France.

In addition to lengthy administrative procedures, German Ministry of

Justice officials conceded that German proceedings can be too lengthy,

citing some judges’ desire to hear the child’s opinion and to request

lengthy psychological reports from German youth authorities. Obtaining a

child’s testimony and youth reports are standard practices for deciding

domestic custody cases. Collecting and analyzing all of this evidence

before making a decision takes considerable time. According to one

Ministry official, judges will depend less on psychological reports, which

are geared more for domestic child custody cases, as they become more

knowledgeable of Hague Convention procedures and requirements, which

do not require such evidence. According to U.S. and German central

authority officials, Hague Convention cases in Germany are being

processed more expeditiously than before. Of the 43 U.S. cases opened

since July 1999, when the number of courts and judges was reduced, 30

were closed by January 31, 2001. The median duration of cases was 147

days. For cases closed from January 1, 1995, through June 30, 1999, the

median duration case was 304 days.

Despite international criticism, some German courts are still reluctant to

enforce court-ordered visitation rights of left-behind parents. German

Ministry of Justice officials conceded that enforcement remains a problem

and acknowledged that their ministry needs to work with the courts to

change existing practices. The State Department indicated that it is

seeking comprehensive information about German judicial enforcement

practices and exploring options to encourage reforms. State officials told

us that failure to enforce court-ordered visitation undermines the Hague

Convention. We believe that, if this problem persists, the impact of the

reforms being implemented could be undermined.

German Courts

Reluctant to Enforce

Visitation Orders
Page 9 GAO-01-423 Parental Child Abduction

In its October 6, 2000, compliance report to Congress, the State

Department reported that German courts systematically fail to enforce

court-ordered visitation, thus allowing abducting parents to resist

enforcement of orders indefinitely. We identified two cases where leftbehind parents in the United States were seeking the enforcement of their

German court-ordered visitation rights. In both cases, German judges

failed to enforce the orders when the abducting parent refused to

cooperate. According to German judges, domestic law does not permit the

use of physical force12 to enforce visitation orders. In addition, they told us

that they are reluctant to employ existing sanctions because they fear that

such actions would have a detrimental affect on the child. For example,

incarcerating an abducting parent, which is one of the enforcement tools

available to German judges, will separate the child from the parent.

According to German judges, this could impact the child psychologically.

State officials are seeking detailed information about Germany’s judicial

enforcement mechanisms and exploring ways to encourage German courts

to change existing practices. They indicated that they have raised this

issue at each of the working group meetings since June 2000. Although

enforcement of visitation orders was not on the agenda for Secretary of

State Colin Powell’s February 20, 2001, meeting in the United States with

Germany’s Foreign Minister Joschka Fischer, the topic was discussed

during a U.S.-German bilateral meeting in the Netherlands on March 29,

2001. State indicated that it plans to continue raising the issue at all future

meetings with German officials on the task force and at the central

authority. State also plans to reserve positions in the International Visitor

Program for German judges to discuss enforcement of visitation orders,

among other issues. According to State, although the United States can

attempt to influence German actions, only German authorities can make

the decision to act.

Germany’s initiatives to enhance judicial expertise and accelerate case

processing are steps that have potential to (1) positively affect German

application of the provisions of the Hague Convention and (2) reduce the

time taken to adjudicate cases. Because the reforms are recent, there are

only a limited number of cases to demonstrate the actual effect of the

initiatives. Germany has not acted, however, to improve its enforcement of

visitation orders. This is a key concern of the State Department. Moreover,

 12Such force would include physically separating a child from the abducting parent.

Conclusions
Page 10 GAO-01-423 Parental Child Abduction

we believe that the failure to address the German courts’ reluctance to

enforce visitation orders could undermine Germany’s efforts to improve

its handling of Hague Convention cases.

We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from the Department

of State’s Office of Children’s Issues, Bureau of Consular Affairs, which

agreed with the report’s conclusion and provided us with technical

comments that we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Honorable Colin L. Powell, the

Secretary of State, and interested congressional committees. We will make

copies available to others upon request.

Please contact me on (202) 512-4128 if you or your staff have any

questions about this report. Another GAO contact and staff

acknowledgments are listed in appendix III.

Sincerely yours,

Jess T. Ford, Director

International Affairs and Trade

Agency Comments

and Our Response
Appendix I: Consular Assistance to LeftBehind Parents

Page 11 GAO-01-423 Parental Child Abduction

The State Department’s consulate offices can provide a variety of incountry assistance to left-behind parents involved in child custody

conflicts. The State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues1

 in

Washington, D.C., can request consular officers to locate and report on the

child’s welfare, conduct home visits, and assist in obtaining case status

information. In addition, the U.S. embassy and consulate offices can

provide left-behind parents with information on attorneys who handle

Hague Convention cases and can contact or refer a left-behind parent to

German agencies that can provide assistance.

According to U.S. consular officials in Germany, a common request from

left-behind parents is to obtain the telephone number where the child can

be reached. In more complicated cases where a left-behind parent has had

no contact with the child, consular officials may be asked to write letters

to various registration offices in Germany to locate the child’s relatives.

Consular officials can also perform home visits with the child when

requested by a left-behind parent and consented to by the foreign parent.

According to State, consular officers conduct most home visits unless

(1) the foreign parent refuses a visit, (2) a child lives a great distance from

the consular office, or (3) the workload of the consular official prohibits a

personal visit. In addition, U.S. consular officials can obtain from German

authorities information about the status of cases and report this

information to both parents. They can also seek clarification as to how a

particular aspect of a case is proceeding.

According to U.S. consular officials in Germany, 97 inquiries about child

welfare and location and 23 home visits were conducted in fiscal years

1999 and 2000 (see table 2).

 1

State Department’s Office of Children’s Issues provides direction to foreign service posts

on assistance to left-behind parents.

Appendix I: Consular Assistance to LeftBehind Parents
Appendix I: Consular Assistance to LeftBehind Parents

Page 12 GAO-01-423 Parental Child Abduction

Table 2: Consular Assistance to Left-Behind Parents (FY 1999-2000)

Instances

Assistance FY 1999

FY

2000

Inquiries conducted about abducted child’s welfare and location 42 55

Visits requested by Office of Children’s Issues on behalf of leftbehind parent18 28

Residential welfare visits of abducted child conducted 9 14

Visits attempted but denied by abducting parenta3 7

Visits not attemptedb6 7

Inquiries made into case statusc13 17

a

German Youth Authority officials may visit abducted U.S. children when the abducting parent does

not permit visits by consular officials. Also, if an abducting parent denies a consular visit, then

German courts can intervene. However, as explained earlier in this report, German courts may not

intervene; they have been reluctant to enforce visitation orders for left-behind parents in U.S. cases.

b

U.S. consular officers explained that they could not perform requested visits where the child lived a

great distance from the consular office or when the workload of the consular official prohibited a

personal visit.

c

U.S. consular officers made specific inquiries for left-behind parents into the status of their cases.

Source: Information reported by the U.S. consulates in Berlin, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Hamburg, and

Munich, Germany.

In addition to citing specific services they provide to left-behind parents,

U.S. consular officials told us that they have been more closely involved in

helping the Office of Children’s Issues to monitor the resolution of U.S.

Hague Convention cases since U.S. government attention on U.S. children

abducted to Germany heightened in 2000. During our fieldwork in

November 2000, we found that these officials were involved in organizing

meetings and maintaining communication with the German central

authority and Ministry of Justice on the status of U.S. cases. For example,

consular officials in Berlin provided logistical support for U.S.-German

working group meetings held in July and September 2000.
Appendix II: Scope and Methodology

Page 13 GAO-01-423 Parental Child Abduction

Our review focused on congressional concerns about Germany’s handling

of U.S. parental child abduction cases under the Hague Convention. To

gather information for our analysis, we interviewed more than 40 key

officials and representatives from the State Department, the German

government, the Hague Secretariat in the Netherlands, and organizations

dedicated to researching and understanding issues associated with

international parental child abduction.

To identify what actions Germany has taken or plans it has under way to

address U.S. concerns about Germany’s handling of parental child

abduction cases, we reviewed State Department reports from May 1999 to

January 2001 that documented systemic problems with Germany’s

implementation of the Hague Convention and identified German actions

taken or planned. These reports also identified State’s goals and timetables

for Germany to take remedial measures. To confirm and expand our

understanding of information in these reports, we conducted fieldwork in

Berlin, Bonn, Cologne, Dusseldorf, Frankfurt, Munich, and Potsdam,

Germany. We interviewed senior German justice ministry officials, local

family court judges, social workers, and private attorneys in those cities.

We also interviewed officials from the German central authority, U.S.

officials in Germany supporting State Department efforts to resolve

abduction cases, and a French judge, seconded to the German Ministry of

Justice to work on difficult German-French Hague Convention cases.

To determine how Germany’s actions have affected the handling and

outcome of U.S. cases, we reviewed the status, outcome, and other

characteristics of cases adjudicated after German authorities began taking

actions. We reviewed files that State’s Office of Children’s Issues

maintains on cases initiated by left-behind parents from July 1999, when

Germany began to concentrate the number of family courts hearing

international abduction cases under the Hague Convention, through

January 2001. These files included administrative, judicial, and

communicative information related to each case.

We recorded the results of our analysis of State’s files in a database and

subsequently performed independent checks to ensure that data for each

case were accurate. We compared the outcomes of cases opened and

closed from July 1999 through January 2001 with those outcomes from

cases opened and closed from January 1995 through June 1999.

We performed our work from October 2000 through March 2001 in

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix II: Scope and Methodology
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgments

Page 14 GAO-01-423 Parental Child Abduction

John Brummet, (202) 512-5260

In addition to the contact named above, Michael Zola, Janice Villar

Morrison, and Mark Dowling made key contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Acknowledgments

(711569)
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are

$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the

Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also

accepted.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are

discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by visiting:

Room 1100

700 4th St., NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

Washington, DC 20013

Orders by phone:

(202) 512-6000

fax: (202) 512-6061

TDD (202) 512-2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To

receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30 days,

please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu will

provide information on how to obtain these lists.

Orders by Internet

For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email message with “info” in the body to:

Info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web home page at:

http://www.gao.gov

Contact one:

• Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

• E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

• 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Ordering Information

To Report Fraud,

Waste, and Abuse in

Federal Programs