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, Bureau of Consular Affairs, is the central authority for the United States. Germany has identified the Federal Prosecutor General 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. In October 2000, State further reported that the systemic failure of German courts to enforce contempt sanctions allowed abducting parents to resist enforcement of visitation orders indefinitely. In addition, a May 2000 congressional resolution cited Germany, along with other countries, for not meeting their commitments under the Hague Convention. 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 Department officials accepted this position even though they disagreed with some past decisions. 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.