SPEAKERS CONTENTS INSERTS Tables
Page 1 TOP OF DOC
94–505PDF
2005
A PARENT'S WORST NIGHTMARE: THE
HEARTBREAK OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTIONS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
JUNE 22, 2004
Serial No. 108–156
Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations
Page 2 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois, Chairman
JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa
DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska
CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey,
Vice Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELTON GALLEGLY, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida
CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina
DANA ROHRABACHER, California
EDWARD R. ROYCE, California
PETER T. KING, New York
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
AMO HOUGHTON, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
ROY BLUNT, Missouri
THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado
RON PAUL, Texas
NICK SMITH, Michigan
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia
Page 3 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
MARK GREEN, Wisconsin
JERRY WELLER, Illinois
MIKE PENCE, Indiana
THADDEUS G. McCOTTER, Michigan
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida
TOM LANTOS, California
HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York
ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American Samoa
DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey
ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey
SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
BRAD SHERMAN, California
ROBERT WEXLER, Florida
ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts
GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
BARBARA LEE, California
JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York
JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania
EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon
SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada
GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California
ADAM B. SCHIFF, California
Page 4 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM SMITH, Washington
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota
BEN CHANDLER, Kentucky
THOMAS E. MOONEY, SR., Staff Director/General Counsel
ROBERT R. KING, Democratic Staff Director
KIRSTI GARLOCK, Counsel
MARILYN C. OWEN, Senior Staff Associate
C O N T E N T S
WITNESSES
The Honorable Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Consular Affairs, U.S. Department of State
The Honorable Daniel J. Bryant, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, U.S. Department of Justice
John Walsh, Television Host of America's Most Wanted and Co-Founder, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
Tom Sylvester, Parent of Abducted Child, Carina Sylvester
Page 5 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Honorable Dennis DeConcini, Chairman of the Board, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
The Honorable Henry J. Hyde, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, and Chairman, Committee on International Relations: Prepared statement
The Honorable Maura Harty: Prepared statement
The Honorable Daniel J. Bryant: Prepared statement
John Walsh: Prepared statement
Tom Sylvester: Prepared statement
The Honorable Dennis DeConcini: Prepared statement
APPENDIX
The Honorable Dan Burton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Indiana: Prepared statement
Responses from the Honorable Maura Harty to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Diane E. Watson, a Representative in Congress from the State of California
Page 6 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Responses from the Honorable Maura Harty to questions submitted for the record by the Honorable Henry J. Hyde
Responses from Department of Justice to questions submitted for the record to the Honorable Daniel J. Bryant by Members of the Committee on International Relations
Response from Tom Sylvester to question submitted for the record by Members of the Committee on International Relations
Letter submitted for the record by David L. Levy, J.D., President of the Children's Rights Council, dated June 22, 2004
A PARENT'S WORST NIGHTMARE: THE
HEARTBREAK OF INTERNATIONAL CHILD
ABDUCTIONS
TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 2004
House of Representatives,
Committee on International Relations,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 3:01 p.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry J. Hyde, (Chairman of the Committee) presiding.
Page 7 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Well, I would like to apologize for the worst of all circumstances. We have a hearing set for 2 o'clock and they called for votes at 2:00, all of which were prolonged, so I apologize for trespassing on your time.
I understand that Assistant Secretary Harty must leave at 3:20 for the White House, and we sure do not want to keep them waiting, so we will proceed with both your statement and Attorney General Bryant's statement before we make opening statements. So Assistant Secretary Harty will—first let me introduce you. Do we have an introduction?
We open today's hearing with the distinguished panel of witnesses from the Administration. First, let me welcome a frequent visitor to our Committee, Assistant Secretary Maura Harty of the State Department's Bureau of Consular Affairs.
Ambassador Harty has held numerous key assignments since joining the Foreign Service in 1981, among which was the Managing Director of the Directorate of Overseas Citizens Service, where she created the Office of Children's Issues. This office, for the first time, focused the Department's attention and resources on the tragic problems of international parental child abduction. So we are greatly looking forward to hearing your comments on this subject at today's hearing, and we, of course, thank you for coming.
Next, it is my distinct honor to introduce and welcome back our next witness, Dan Bryant. Not only do I know firsthand his exemplary service to the House Judiciary Committee, but I believe that our country is even better served with Dan in his position at Justice, where he was confirmed as Assistant Attorney General in 2001.
Page 8 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since moving to Justice, Dan has been responsible for devising and implementing departmental legislative strategy, which includes counsel on congressional initiatives and coordinating congressional oversight. His many other responsibilities have included drafting Federal crime legislation and developing strategies in connection with the national crime agenda. So we are especially looking forward to hearing your views today on the problem of international child abductions, and again we welcome you, Dan.
We will ask you to begin, Ambassador Harty, with a summary of your statement. Your written statement, as well as that of all our witnesses, will be made a part of the record. Ambassador Harty.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Hyde follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Today, we are gathered to talk about one of the most heartwrenching issues we will ever consider: international child abductions. As a parent of four children and four grandchildren, I cannot think of a more terrifying nightmare than one in which one of my children or grandchildren were abducted or killed. The sheer panic, fear, and sickness one must feel has to be paralyzing. I believe in a government that stands up for the rights of all of our citizens. Today, I ask that we remember our most helpless citizens: our children.
While far too many crimes are committed against children by strangers, amazingly enough, some of the perpetrators of the worst types of crimes against children are parents. According to the State Department, more than 16,000 cases of international child abductions were reported in the past two decades.
Page 9 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Although there are diplomatic agreements in place which serve as important tools in the return of abducted children, many countries have failed to take their obligations seriously in making certain that these children are sent home. It is imperative that our government continues to press foreign governments to take seriously their obligations under The Hague Convention, and that we further expose their failures to adhere to international obligations.
For complicated reasons, this is not an easy task. While many countries are parties to international conventions, even more countries do not have any obligation to return abducted children. Still with these seemingly insurmountable obstacles, many have been working tirelessly to make it a top foreign policy objective to bring our kids home. I would like to commend the efforts of Representatives Nick Lampson and my colleagues on the Committee, Tom Lantos and Steve Chabot, for their endless work on these issues and for co-sponsoring H.R. 4347, the International Assistance to Missing and Exploited Children Act of 2004. I look forward to working with the Administration and look for its support of this legislation to gain the additional tools to identify and locate missing children.
The purpose of today=s hearing is to raise awareness of the issue of international child abductions with the public, determine the level of pressure that the United States places upon The Hague and non-Hague countries in seeking the return of abducted children, and solicit the recommendations from experts in the field. It is my sincere hope that by raising these issues once again, we are able to come to workable solutions to bring our kids home—where they belong.
Page 10 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MAURA HARTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Ms. HARTY. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. I do apologize for the need to leave precipitously. I am, however, very grateful for the opportunity to speak today about an issue that is very close to my heart, that of international parental child abduction. You have noted that the Office of Children's Issues was started in 1994. I am extremely proud of what they have accomplished since then and the things that we are continuing to try and accomplish.
Sir, during my tenure as Assistant Secretary of the last 20 months, I have traveled to South Asia, Europe, Latin America, and repeatedly to the Middle East, to discuss consular issues with a special focus on international child abduction.
In 2003, we effected the return of 188 abducted or wrongfully retained children to the United States from 61 Hague and non-Hague countries. Since November 2002, 14 abducted or wrongfully retained children have been returned from Saudi Arabia alone, that over and above the additional 32 non-abducted children whom we helped to depart from Saudi Arabia when they were otherwise impeded from doing so.
In my written testimony, sir, I highlight some of the kinds of abduction cases we deal with to give you a sense of the compelling nature of the work which I know this Committee is already well familiar with. In fact, what I would like to assure you is that we never lose sight of the fact that these are real live people. These are not cases and numbers. This is not clinical. It is our duty, our responsibility, and our privilege to help real live people solve some of the most harrowing circumstances that they may in fact experience in their lives.
Page 11 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We also work to prevent and disrupt abductions as well, and we maintain a child passport information alert program to let parents know if someone applies for a U.S. passport on behalf of their child without the parent's consent.
We do not always achieve success in our work, sir, as Mr. Tom Sylvester and his daughter Carina illustrate. Despite Mr. Sylvester's and our best efforts, we still have not brought Carina home. His commitment to his daughter's welfare and her right to have a meaningful relationship with both parents is inspirational.
At the highest levels of the U.S. Government we made contact with the Austrian Government to seek Carina's return. We have also contacted the European Committee on Human Rights, which ruled that Austria's actions violated Mr. Sylvester's right to a family life. It is to his credit that despite his anguish, Mr. Sylvester serves as a mentor and as a resource to other left-behind parents, and participated as such in our most recent town hall meeting with left-behind parents.
I am grateful, sir, for the interest and support for children's issues that we have received from the Congress, which has an abiding interest in this subject. I have never failed, sir, to receive support from an individual Member of Congress on those occasions when I have needed assistance.
Since 1995, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) has played a vital role in helping the United States to meet our obligations under The Hague Convention by assisting us to perform our central authority responsibilities for children abducted to the United States from other convention countries.
Page 12 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The NCMEC's expertise in national networks make it uniquely effective in helping us give force to The Hague Convention in the United States, and to meet our obligations under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act, known as ICARA. NCMEC assists parents whose children have been abducted to the United States through the courts as provided under the ICARA. NCMEC's role parallels closely that of the Department of State which works to assist parents to return U.S. citizen children abducted or wrongfully kept abroad to the United States.
The Department's ability to perform its statutory and treaty obligations would be seriously impaired if we could no longer count on NCMEC's assistance. The Code of Federal Regulations, the cooperative agreement between NCMEC and the Departments of State and Justice, as well as clear standard operating procedures specifically articulate NCMEC's vital role in Hague abduction cases.
The NCMEC has expressed concern that litigation risks could jeopardize its ability to perform these functions. We look forward to working with Congress to examine these issues of concern to NCMEC, and to find appropriate solutions.
Mr. Chairman, in closing, we take our responsibilities for American children extremely seriously. Our responsibilities for these children are all the greater for their innate vulnerability and need for protection. I would like to assure you today that we will not rest until all of our children are home with their custodial parents. And I thank you for the chance to testify today, sir.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Harty follows:]
Page 13 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE MAURA HARTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee,
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak to you today about an issue very close to my heart: International Parental Child Abduction. You may know that I started the Office of Children's Issues, back in 1994, when I was Managing Director for Overseas Citizen Services and I am extremely proud of what they have accomplished in the ten years since its creation. I have continued to take a personal interest in Children's Issues, which is why I have traveled to Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, the UAE, Austria, Germany, Sweden, Spain, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Australia, the Philippines, Pakistan, India, Mexico and three times to Saudi Arabia to discuss consular issues with a special focus on international child abduction since I became Assistant Secretary in November 2002. Working closely with our embassies and consulates abroad, our partners in the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC), and with both state and federal law enforcement officials we have been successful in returning children from many countries back to their families in the United States. To help prevent abductions, we also maintain a Child Passport Information Alert Program to let parents know if someone applies for a U.S. passport on behalf of the their child without the parent's consent. In 2003, we returned 188 abducted or wrongfully retained children to their American homes from 61 countries both within the Hague Abduction Convention community and from non-Hague States. Since November of 2002, 14 abducted or wrongfully retained children have been returned from Saudi Arabia
Let me try to give you a sense for the diverse and compelling nature of some of these cases. In one return from South Africa, the child had been abducted by her mother and remained abroad for 20 months. The courts ordered the child's return pursuant to the Hague Abduction Convention. With the cooperation of DHS, we were able to reunite the child with her father. In Turkey, we succeeded in returning a child who was at serious risk. Her father had hidden the child from Turkish authorities. The court was finally able to locate the child after 13 months in an air duct at the father's residence. Because of the work of our embassy in Ankara, the court acted swiftly to remove the child from her father, who had threatened to harm her and had made death threats against the left behind parent and her other children. In an Irish case, two children were sent to visit their father in Ireland. He returned only one of them. Through the Hague process, the wrongfully retained child was returned to his mother in the United States in less than four months from the onset of the case. In Iraq, we assisted a young woman who had been wrongfully retained by her father there for 14 years to return to her mother in the United States. She was set to return just when the war in Iraq began, and finally last month we were able to assist her to depart Iraq. In Mexico, the destination country for the largest number of children abducted from the U.S., but from which only 25 children returned in 2003, we worked with our Embassy, NCMEC and Mexican law enforcement and social welfare authorities to return a child to her mother. This story is particularly compelling, since the mother had given up hope of ever finding the child. A relative, sickened by the father's treatment of the child, contacted NCMEC and we worked cooperatively and quickly to locate the mother and reunite her with her child within a month.
Page 14 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Pursuant to the provisions of the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA), the President designated the Department of State as the U.S. Central Authority for the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Department sets policy and provides direction for its partner, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC), as it handles casework seeking the return of or access to children brought to the United States from Hague partner countries. When a child is abducted from the United States to a foreign country, the Office of Children's Issues works with NCMEC and United States embassies and consulates abroad to assist the child and left-behind parent in a number of ways.
Regardless of whether or not the Hague Abduction Convention applies to a given case, the Office of Children's Issues works closely with parents whose children have been taken from the U.S. to a foreign country to determine the welfare of the children, provide information about the foreign legal system and work with local authorities to attempt to facilitate recovery of and access to the children.
On average, each year caseworkers are engaged with 1100 families seeking the return to the United States of children abducted or wrongfully retained abroad. The countries with the largest number of cases include Mexico, Germany, the United Kingdom, Egypt, Canada, Jordan, France, Japan, India, Lebanon, Australia, Spain, and Pakistan.
In their work with left-behind parents, abduction case officers in the Office of Children's Issues provide informational tools parents can then use to determine their own best course of action according to the unique circumstances involved in their family's case. We held three Town Hall meetings for left-behind parents in order to share information and elicit parents' views on how we can better support them. Responding to a parent's suggestion, we publish a newsletter called ''For the Parents,'' to provide useful information to left-behind parents.
Page 15 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As the law now requires, this year's Hague Compliance Report includes a new section on access. We use the reporting cycle to actively engage our diplomatic missions in raising compliance issues with their host governments, making the report a more useful tool in our diplomatic efforts.
Our Victims'Assistance Specialists, part of the Bureau of Consular Affairs' Office of Overseas Citizens Services, work with the Office of Children's Issues to identify local, state, and federal benefits available to left-behind parents and their children. As a result, we have made it possible for left-behind parents to travel overseas to recover their children through lawful means. We have ensured that parents and children receive the counseling and support they need upon the child's return. We believe this is a crucial service that we can provide on behalf of parents and children.
On the multilateral level, the Department's Office of Children's Issues continues to work, in collaboration with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, with the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law on ''Good Practices'' guides that will help both new and established Central Authorities develop effective common procedures and practices when handling Hague abduction and access cases. The good practices guides will, we hope, foster greater consistency as Central Authorities handle cases and prevent some of the start-up problems we have seen with new parties to the Convention. Department officers regularly attend Hague Special Commission meetings to communicate U.S. concerns about the Convention's operation and the U.S. maintains an active role in developing standards for Hague Abduction Convention implementation.
Page 16 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Around the globe, we actively engage foreign governments on the issue of international parental child abduction and on individual cases. As I noted at the beginning of my remarks, during the past year alone, I have traveled to countries in the Middle East, Europe, Latin America, and South Asia on trips focused on international parental child abduction. I have also met with foreign officials in Washington from Brazil, Poland, Turkey, Syria, Austria, Germany, Sweden, Saudi Arabia, Mexico, Lebanon, Morocco, and other countries on numerous occasions, often to seek help in resolving individual cases.
We have signed Memoranda of Understanding with Egypt and Lebanon that set forth shared principles of parental and consular access to children, and provide the basis for further communications. These MOUs explicitly state that access is no substitute for the return of an abducted or wrongfully retained child, but is crucial for helping a left-behind parent maintain a meaningful relationship with his or her child. We have initiated discussions and provided draft language for similar MOUs with a number of other countries in the region, including Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Pakistan, and India.
In our view, countries that accede to the Hague Convention should be prepared to meet the obligations they undertake when they become parties. As countries accede, we review the state of their administrative and judicial infrastructure to determine whether they will be able to work effectively with us under the Convention. We recently accepted the accession of Uruguay, the 54th country that we will work with in the Hague Abduction Convention framework.
We are grateful for the interest and support for children's issues that we have received from Congress. Let me now, if I may, address some of the ways in which Congress, and specifically this committee, can continue to help us fulfill this important mission.
Page 17 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Since 1995, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has played a vital role in assisting us to perform our Central Authority responsibilities for children abducted to the United States from other Convention countries. We value our partnership with NCMEC and are committed to continue working closely together to prevent and combat international parental child abduction. NCMEC's expertise and national networks make NCMEC uniquely effective in helping us give force to the Hague Abduction Convention in the United States.
NCMEC helps the U.S. Government meet its obligations under the Hague Abduction Convention and the ICARA. NCMEC assists parents whose children have been abducted to the U.S. to locate and seek their children's return abroad through the courts, as provided under ICARA. Its role parallels closely that of the Department of State, which works with foreign governments to assist parents to obtain return to the United States of U.S.-citizen children abducted or wrongfully kept abroad.
We believe it is important that other governments understand the priority the U.S. government—both the Administration and the Congress—places on resolving and preventing the tragedy of international parental child abduction. The State Department strives to persuade other countries to live up to their Hague Abduction Convention treaty obligations and return children abducted to their countries back to the child's habitual residence in the United States, where custody issues can be resolved. NCMEC's effectiveness in performing this treaty function for children abducted to the United States puts us in a very strong position to persuade foreign governments to do likewise and return children who have been abducted or wrongfully retained abroad. NCMEC's expertise in locating children and its domestic network of law enforcement contacts are immensely important to the Department's ability to apply the Hague Abduction Convention and ICARA effectively in the United States and to insist on its effective application in our partner countries.
Page 18 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Department's ability to perform its statutory and treaty obligations would be seriously impaired if we could no longer count on NCMEC's assistance. The Code of Federal Regulations, the Cooperative Agreement between NCMEC and the Departments of State and Justice, as well as clear standard operating procedures articulate clearly NCMEC's vital role in Hague abduction cases. NCMEC has expressed concern that litigation risks could jeopardize its ability to perform these functions. The Administration looks forward to working with Congress to examine these issues and find appropriate solutions.
We agree with the drafters of HR4347 that it is vitally important that U.S. and foreign judges understand the law of the Hague Abduction Convention and how it operates. In some countries, judges order the return of a child consistent with the Convention but lack the mechanisms to enforce their orders. In some other countries, judges either are not aware of their responsibilities under the Convention, or simply disregard them.
We already dedicate significant resources to providing effective judicial training for U.S. and foreign judges, but believe more can be done. We regularly participate in judicial training programs held by organizations in the U.S. We applaud all efforts to expand and institutionalize such training opportunities. The Department, working in coordination with the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, has also hosted groups of judges and other officials responsible for implementing the Hague Abduction Convention in their countries on visits that allow them to meet and talk to their counterparts about how the Convention is implemented in the U.S. We also contribute to training programs on the Hague Abduction Convention for U.S. and foreign judges. In October 2003, we co-sponsored an international judicial seminar with Germany that involved several European countries and Israel, held under the auspices of the Hague Permanent Bureau. This coming fall, we will co-host a judicial seminar for judges from the U.S., Mexico, and a number of Latin American countries.
Page 19 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We actively promote interagency cooperation on behalf of left-behind parents and their children. We could not operate effectively without close coordination by the many agencies—state and local law enforcement, and U.S. federal agencies—who are also involved in these cases. We meet regularly with other federal agencies to discuss our mutual efforts to assist left-behind parents and prevent new abductions. This dialogue has helped identify new areas for cooperation and action.
The Office of Children's Issues and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children's International Division share information about abduction cases that come to their attention and provide joint training on parental child abduction to law enforcement officials both in the United States and abroad. Through participation in the Federal Task Force for Missing and Exploited Children and our active leadership role in the Senior Policy Group and Interagency Working Group meetings that focus on international parental child abduction, the Department of State promotes better communication and cooperative efforts between agencies that respond to international parental child abduction and work to prevent international abductions. A recent example of successful interagency cooperation is worth mentioning. By acting quickly to involve U.S. and foreign authorities in two countries, we successfully thwarted an abduction in progress. This effort—which began one evening and lasted over a tense weekend—involved the Department, the FBI, local airport law enforcement, consular officers and foreign government officials in two foreign countries. The effort succeeded because all involved recognized the importance of stopping an abduction.
The role of consular officers in protecting children is recognized in the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, which now has over 160 countries as parties. We take our responsibility for our children extremely seriously. And I take it personally. Our responsibilities for American citizen children are all the greater for their innate vulnerability and need for protection. We will not rest until all our children are home with their custodial parents. Thank you.
Page 20 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Thank you very much.
Assistant Attorney General Bryant.
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. BRYANT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Thank you for holding this important hearing today and for the invitation to be with you. I will summarize the written testimony presented to the Committee.
We commend your ongoing leadership in the area of international child abduction, but of course, if I might on a personal note indicate that the leadership you bring, Mr. Chairman, to this issue is no surprise to those who know of your work through the years. On a personal note, I would like to indicate my enormous respect and admiration for the Chairman of this Committee. I know of no finer, kinder, more generous Member of Congress than the gentleman who chairs this Committee.
Over the years——
Chairman HYDE. Mr. Bryant, if I had known you were going to go off like that, I would have surely gotten here earlier. [Laughter.]
Page 21 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you.
Mr. BRYANT. Your decades of public service have brought great credit to this institution and to the United States Government as a whole.
While our review of the bill is ongoing, I can preliminarily indicate that the Department believes the bill represents a significant effort to improve on what is currently being done with regard to international child abductions. We support the goal of additional tools and improving old ones to help combat international child abduction.
In recent days, the Justice Department has begun working with your staff on a variety of provisions in your bill and will continue to do so. The Department currently does much to address the problem, but we must do more.
Now, the problem of international child abductions is one of great complexity and profound trauma. It is also an issue that poses very real challenges to law enforcement. The Department of Justice has a number of tools and services available to address the issue of international child abductions, and the focal point for much of that work is the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, known to this Committee as NCMEC.
Ernie Allen, the President of NCMEC is here. I have pages of laudatory discussion of his great work and the great work of NCMEC, but in the interest of time I will just allow the written testimony to speak to that.
At this point, Mr. Chairman, I would like to echo the comments of my fellow witness: The Justice Department is aware of NCMEC's concerns regarding litigation risks as it performs its role in connection with The Hague Convention. We share the concern of this Committee, the State Department, and NCMEC that the ability to perform U.S. statutory and treaty obligations would be seriously impaired if we could no longer count on NCMEC's assistance.
Page 22 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Administration looks forward to working with the Congress, with this Committee, to examine these issues and find appropriate solutions.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would like just to comment on the difficulties of abduction cases and the difficulties that they present to law enforcement. Those difficulties are nowhere more apparent than in connection with the question of whether to file criminal charges.
Given that the most important goal is the return of the child, criminal charges may be ill-advised, even counterproductive, especially when the child remains in a foreign country. Criminal charges do not necessarily provide an incentive for return of the child. Parents are often willing to serve prison time if they can return to the foreign country and the children they abducted, having completed their sentence, which is statutorily set at a maximum of only 3 years.
Furthermore, foreign authorities are often reluctant to cooperate with U.S. authorities to resolve child abduction cases if their nationals are liable to criminal prosecution. The likelihood of an extradition request being granted depends on a variety of factors, including whether the United States has a bilateral extradition treaty with the country and whether the treaty partner can or is willing to extradite for the offense of parental kidnapping. Even so, the United States Department of Justice is committed to bringing appropriate prosecutions wherever we can.
Mr. Chairman, the Department is committed to the vital goal of finding and protecting missing and abducted children. We are actively using a variety of tools that the Congress has provided us with over the years, and we look forward to working with you to identify additional useful tools.
Page 23 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Bryant follows:]
94505bu.eps
94505bv.eps
94505bw.eps
94505bx.eps
94505by.eps
94505bz.eps
94505ca.eps
94505cb.eps
Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Bryant.
If I can ask you a question. Apparently the penalty for child abduction is just 3 years. It seems that we should increase that to provide a better disincentive. What is your opinion?
Page 24 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BRYANT. The Chairman is correct. The maximum statutory sentence permitted for international parental abduction is 3 years.
We think that in this area we have to ensure tough sentences, and we think it is fair for the Committee to ask the question of whether or not 3 years is sufficiently tough, and we would be prepared to work with you to ensure it is as the Committee moves forward.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you. We are going to have one question for Secretary Harty, so you can make your 3:20.
What does the National Center do for the State Department that makes the relationship so important? And what would State have to do if the center did not exist?
Ms. HARTY. Thank you for that question, sir. I could probably go on longer than my allotted time, but fundamentally, sir, when the United States entered and became a signatory to The Hague Convention, we took a reservation to article 26 of the convention, which essentially would have encouraged us as a nation to help foreign parents when they come to this country and work through our legal system and pursue their cases.
When we realized that we did not have the resources to address that element of The Hague Convention, we entered into, with the Department of Justice, an incredibly prolific and important relationship with NCMEC by using NCMEC's extraordinary contacts, by using NCMEC's extraordinary name recognition, to provide the kind of access to foreign parents as they come here and work incoming cases, cases where a foreign child has been brought to this country, provide the same kind of access that we would like to see American parents have overseas when they, in fact, attempt to, and we work with them to get their children home.
Page 25 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The NCMEC is our complete partner in how we do this function, meeting a treaty obligation to ensure, I believe, that we are leaders, sir, in this field. If we, with NCMEC's help, as we do together, ensure that foreign parents coming here to attempt to exercise their Hague Treaty rights, treat them as well as we do, we believe that the very same thing will happen overseas, and it does again and again and again. We are complete partners in what NCMEC does domestically so very, very well what we try and do overseas. NCMEC is extraordinarily able and well positioned to do this, since they not only do it for foreign children, but obviously for American children. They are the platform upon which we stand to fulfill a major treaty obligation.
Chairman HYDE. Well, thank you very much.
Because of the encroachment of time, we will not ask either of you any more questions, and I also understand that there is ongoing difficult work ahead to work the language out of this legislation, and that is all to the good, because we will have a better product.
So rather than commit you now, we will ask you to take written questions——
Ms. HARTY. Yes, sir.
Chairman HYDE [continuing]. Which we will submit at the appropriate time, and appreciate an answer.
Page 26 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Yes. Congressman Burton from Indiana.
Mr. BURTON. There is some very involved and far-reaching questions that may not be able to be answered in writing, and I would ask if Ms. Harty at some point in the future might be able to return so we can go into more detail in the questions.
Chairman HYDE. I think she will, and not only that, she will take your call anytime you want.
Mr. BURTON. Oh, I know she will. She has been very helpful. But I think in a public forum it would be good to get some of these things out, so I would like to urge the Committee, maybe, to have her come back at some point in the future.
Chairman HYDE. Fine, we will try that some time when we do not have votes pending.
Ms. HARTY. Happy to do it in any format you require.
Mr. BURTON. Thank you.
Ms. HARTY. Happy to.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you. You are both excused with our thanks.
Ms. HARTY. Thank you so much, sir.
Page 27 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. BRYANT. Thank you, sir.
Chairman HYDE. I will make an opening statement now before we introduce the next panel, and Ms. Watson, who is sitting in for Tom Lantos as the Ranking Democrat, will also make a statement, and then we will proceed with testimony from the remaining witnesses.
Mr. BURTON. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Yes, sir.
Mr. BURTON. I love you dearly, you know that. But Mr. Chairman, my Committee, I went to Saudi Arabia with a whole host of Congressmen a year before last, and I think there is a couple of things that I would like to say in an opening statement after Ms. Watson, if you do not mind.
Chairman HYDE. Absolutely not.
Mr. BURTON. What do you mean ''absolutely not''? You mean I can or I cannot? [Laughter.]
Chairman HYDE. I mean absolutely I would not stop you.
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, sir.
Page 28 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Okay. Today we are gathered to talk about one of the most heartwrenching issues we will ever consider: International child abductions. As a parent of four children and four grandchildren, I cannot think of a more terrifying nightmare than one in which one of my children or grandchildren were abducted or killed. The sheer panic, fear, and sickness one must feel has to be paralyzing. I believe in a government that stands up for the rights of all our citizens, and today, I ask that we remember our most helpless citizens: Our children.
While far too many crimes are committed against children by strangers, amazingly enough, some of the perpetrators of the worst types of crimes against children are parents. According to the State Department, more than 16,000 cases of international child abduction were reported in the past 2 decades.
Although there are diplomatic agreements in place which serve as important tools in the return of abducted children, many countries have failed to take their obligation seriously in making certain that these children get sent home. It is imperative that our Government continue to press foreign governments to take seriously their obligations under The Hague Convention, and that we further expose their failures to adhere to international obligations.
For complicated reasons, this is not an easy task. While many countries are parties to international conventions, even more countries do not have any obligation to return abducted children. Still, with these seemingly insurmountable obstacles, many have been working tirelessly to make it a top foreign policy objective to bring our kids home.
Page 29 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I would like to commend the effort of Representative Nick Lampson and my colleagues on the Committee, Tom Lantos and Steve Chabot, for their endless work on these issues and for co-sponsoring H.R. 4347, the International Assistance to Missing & Exploited Children Act of 2004. I also would like to commend Congressman Dan Burton of Indiana, who has made this a cause of his and is very diligent in pursuing it. I look forward to working with the Administration, and look for its support of this legislation to gain the additional tools to identify and locate missing children.
The purpose of today's hearing is to raise awareness of the issue of international child abductions with the public, determine the level of pressure that the United States places upon The Hague and non-Hague countries in seeking the return of abducted children, and solicit recommendations from experts in the field. It is my sincere hope that by raising these issues once again, we are able to come to workable solutions to bring our children home, where they belong.
Now I am honored to yield to Ambassador Watson who will make an opening statement.
Ms. WATSON. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, and I make this statement on behalf of Congressman Lantos who has a conflict.
He is a father of two, and a grandfather of 17, and he cannot begin to fathom how excruciating it is for a parent or a grandparent to have a child ripped from their lives and taken to a foreign land, sometimes never to be seen or heard from again. But for many parents this nightmare is an every day reality.
Page 30 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Chairman, sadly, this is not a new problem. Almost 15 years ago he held one of the first hearings examining the magnitude of the crime, and what we could do about it. At that hearing, the gut-wrenching horror stories of left-behind parents came into the public spotlight for the very first time.
Fifteen years ago, Congress began a long and grueling battle to get our Government to tackle this problem. The State Department and law enforcement officials in the United States viewed parental kidnapping as a private family matter that did not require outside involvement, and should not be treated as a foreign policy concern.
But since that time, the U.S. Government, prodded by Congress, has taken some important steps to establish an effective nationwide support system to provide law enforcement agencies and parents with the proper tools to find missing children and to press foreign governments to return them. Our hearing will show that much remains to be done.
Despite our efforts thus far, over 16,000 children have been abducted to foreign countries in the last 20 years, and alarmingly, the State Department reports that there are still approximately 1,100 unresolved cases of international child abduction at any given time.
Last year we had cases unresolved for over a year and a half with 14 countries, including Colombia, France, Spain, and Zimbabwe.
Mr. Chairman, given the terrible pain of each and every American parent in these cases, the current state of affairs is absolutely unacceptable. We must do more to resolve cases, and to end the pain of families whose dear children have disappeared. Congressman Lantos and all of us are very pleased that we have the opportunity to work with you and your colleagues, and Congressman Lampson of Texas, in crafting the bill H.R. 4347, the International Assistance to Missing & Exploited Children Act, which contains a number of measures to enhance international cooperation and boost the capacity of U.S. Government agencies to help parents with abducted children.
Page 31 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The bill will build the capacity of our Federal agencies and their critical NGO partner, the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, to assist parents here in the United States as they seek to locate and return abducted children.
It will also enhance enforcement of the international treaty, The Hague Convention, which requires member countries to return abducted children, by strengthening its monitoring body, The Hague Conference on Private International Law.
The legislation also recognizes that the State Department must do more to accelerate efforts to negotiate bilateral treaties with more than 100 countries which are not parties to The Hague Convention.
It is all of our hopes that we can move this bill through the House in an expedited manner, and send it quickly to the Senate so it can be signed by the President and acted into law this year.
Mr. Chairman, we hope that our State Department, which has taken a long time to overcome its aversion to raising individual cases forcefully, will do whatever it takes to make sure to devote each and every adequate resource to aid parents to press cases with foreign governments.
So we look forward to learning the views of our panelists, and thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Page 32 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Ms. Watson.
And now Mr. Dan Burton of Indiana.
Mr. BURTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thought you forgot who I was for a minute.
Chairman HYDE. That would be impossible.
Mr. BURTON. Thank you. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, I took a trip to Saudi Arabia about 18 months ago because we had a number of women who had been held against their will as well as children that had been abducted. We went over there to try to get our Ambassador and our State Department and the Saudi Government to be cooperative in bringing some of these people home.
I have to tell you that the Saudi Government has been very recalcitrant, and for those of you who do not know what recalcitrant mean, Mr. Chairman, it means they have been a pain in the rear in trying to help get these people back.
We had a case in Terre Haute, Indiana, where a woman, Ms. Tonetti, was married to a Saudi. They were divorced and he went back to Saudi Arabia, and he came back and said he wanted to take the children for 2 weeks for the summer. She told the judge that if he took the children she would not see them ever again, and the judge says, well, we will not let that happen.
Page 33 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So he wrote a letter to the Saudi Ambassador, Ambassador Bandar, here in Washington, DC, saying that these children were not to be taken out of the country. But in addition to that, he took the man's passport so that the children would be safe. So the children were safe. They went with the father. He went directly to the Saudi Embassy, got a passport for himself and the children, and she has not seen them since.
The Saudi Government has been complacent time and again in helping kidnap these children, taking them away from the rightful parent that has been given to them by a court of law, and our Government has had a terrible time in dealing with that. And I think it is extremely important that we not only pass legislation, but send a signal to our State Department, to Ms. Harty who is doing her best, and the Saudi Government that we are going to take whatever measures are necessary to protect American citizens, bring them home if they want to come home, and bring these children home who have been kidnapped against their will, and never to see their mother or their father again.
It is something that we just cannot turn our back on, and the Saudi Government just completely shuts us off. They are supposed to be our friends, our business partners. They have given $4 billion to terrorist organizations over the last 15 years, which is not the purpose of this hearing, but they have been very complacent in keeping children there and parents and women against their will.
I talked to one woman when I was over there with our delegation, and she said, ''Please put me and my kids in a box, put us the belly of a plane, do anything you can, but get us out of here.'' She was there by herself without her children so she could not take off with us right then, otherwise I would have tried to put her on the plane. She said, ''If my husband knew that I was even talking to you, he would kill me.'' That is the kind of problem that American women are facing over there.
Page 34 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
They are not wives, they are property. The children are not children, they are property. They are owned by the Saudi father, and I know that is the law and they have their religious law, but these are American citizens, and we have to do everything that we possibly can and apply every bit of pressure that we possibly can on the Saudi Government to bring these kids home.
And if for long term it means that we have to become energy independent and let those Saudis pound sand, then so be it. These Americans are American citizens held against their will and being mistreated. The woman told me she has to eat on the kitchen floor with her kids because he has other Saudi wives. They are beaten on a regular basis. And if they say anything, there is a threat to life and limb, and this is not just an isolated case. I have a whole host of these cases.
We seem to talk and say, oh, we are making progress, we pussyfoot around the issue, and we are doing more and more, and we are talking about The Hague Convention. Saudi Arabia is not even a signatory to The Hague Convention.
American citizens should be protected by the American Government, and we should do whatever is necessary to bring these people home. That means imposing severe pressure on those governments that try to block us, in particular the Saudis.
I would like to publicly thank one of our guests here today for working so hard on this, Mr. Walsh, who is the head of America's Most Wanted. He has done yeoman's service in trying to focus attention on this issue for the American people, and I appreciate what you are doing, Mr. Walsh, and I only wish that our Government would focus as much attention on it as you have.
Page 35 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And so, Mr. Chairman, I will do everything I can to help you with legislative action to help with this problem, but we need to put more pressure, in particular, on the Saudis to bring American citizens home.
Chairman HYDE. I thank you.
Mr. Chabot.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you holding this hearing this afternoon.
I first became familiar with the issue of international parental child abduction about 9 years ago when I met a gentleman from my home town of Cincinnati, Tom Sylvester, who will be testifying later this afternoon. His daughter, Carina, an American citizen, then barely a year old, was kidnapped by her mother and taken to Austria where she remains today.
During the last 8 years her American father has seen his daughter only occasionally and under strict supervision. This is a case that really rips your heart out. Every time I think about this case, every time we talk about this case in the office, it is the most frustrating situation that I have been involved in since I have been in Congress, because this is clearly an issue of what is right and what is wrong. Thus far what is wrong has prevailed, and my heart goes out to this gentleman and his daughter. It is just inexcusable that this has dragged on as long as it has.
Page 36 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
During that period, the child's mother has refused to comply with both American and Austrian court orders. She has ignored appellate decisions, and has lived in continual violation of The Hague Convention. All the while the Austrian Government has arrogantly failed to enforce The Hague Convention return order.
This is a man who spent literally his life, for the last 9 years, trying to get his daughter back. He spent tens of thousand of dollars, and many sleepless nights. He is somebody who has done what you are supposed to do. He has followed the rules. He has lived within the law, has not taken the law into his own hands and done anything illegal, although I am sure it has probably been tempting at times when you look at the way the justice system has treated him internationally, but he has always followed the rules.
He won all the way up to the Supreme Court of Austria. This case has been discussed at the highest levels in both the United States and the Austrian Government. Tom Sylvester and I have met with both Secretary Albright down at the State Department, and with Secretary Colin Powell. We brought this case, and they brought the case to their counterparts in the Austrian Foreign Minister and all the way up to the Austrian Chancellor. Attorney General Ashcroft has addressed the issue in Vienna. Ambassador Harty, who was here earlier and unfortunately had to leave, I know has had numerous contacts with Austrian Government officials. I have traveled all the way to The Hague and met with the Austrian Central Authority about this case specifically, and the overall issue of international child abduction. The President of the United States himself, I am told, has expressed his strong sentiments to the Austrian Ambassador. Yet here we are.
Carina Sylvester remains in Austria, and Tom Sylvester lives each day without his daughter. Frankly, our efforts, however sincere, have failed Tom and Carina Sylvester. And I think it is time for our Government to reassess how it does business with some of these offending countries like Austria. I would like to be able to come back here next year and see the fruits of a bolder diplomatic and judicial approach to this heartbreaking issue.
Page 37 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want to thank Tom Sylvester personally for not giving up and continuing to fight for what is a civil right, and that is the right of this father and his daughter to be together. And I want to thank the officials that have been involved in this because I know people within the State Department and the other departments within the Government, the Justice Department, many have worked hard.
I do not think we have done everything we could do at every point in time. You know, I want to be open about this. But for the most part I think many are very sincere, but this is a case where justice has not prevailed, and I believe, I am optimist, I think ultimately it will. Nine years is far too long, and I hope next year that Tom has an opportunity to be with his daughter.
Yield back the rest of my time, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Chabot.
It is apparent that affairs of state trump individual human rights on occasion, and that is a serious problem in the realm of justice, so we are going to pursue these some more, not that we have the magic formula, but we can be a grand irritant and will exercise that leverage.
Mr. Chandler.
Mr. CHANDLER. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I will be very brief.
Page 38 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Everyone who has spoken so far has been very eloquent on this subject. This is clearly a tragic problem, a problem that our Government must do its utmost to deal with. Obviously, we have difficulties with international law that have to be dealt with, but being an irritant, I think, is a very good approach, a very, very big irritant is what we need to be.
Very briefly I want to say hello to Mr. Walsh. He was kind enough, when I served as Attorney General of Kentucky, to come to our State and spread this message, a message of victims' rights, a message of what happens to innocent people in cases like this throughout our country, and it is a message that more of us need to hear and see and be aware of.
I have three children. They are 10, 9, and our youngest, Mr. Walsh, is 6 years old. He is a boy, same age as your Adam was when you lost him. I cannot imagine, cannot imagine the pain that so many families in this country have to go through, and I want you to know, I want all the people here to know, everybody on this Committee to know, that I am committed in every way that I possibly can be to contributing a great deal of irritation for these people who are not doing what they ought to do.
Thank you, sir.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you.
Mr. Flake? No statement. I have a memo for you, however.
Mr. McCotter.
Page 39 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. MCCOTTER. Thank you, Mr. Chair, but there is really nothing I can add that would speak more eloquently or more urgently than the victims suffering.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you. Mr. Chris Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to thank you for introducing H.R. 4347, the International Assistance to Missing & Exploited Children Act of 2004. It is a very much needed piece of legislation, and I commend you for your leadership on that.
Mr. Chairman, as you probably know, one complex child custody case which has made a significant number of headlines lately has been the abduction of two New Jersey citizens by the President of Uzbekistan's daughter, Ms. Gulnora Karimova.
Mr. Masqudi, who is her husband as well as a New Jersey resident and an American citizen, has been trying without success to visit with his two children, his son, Islam, and his daughter, Iman, for several years. It needs to be pointed out that a New Jersey court awarded custody of the two children to their father, and has fined Ms. Karimova for violating the court order and issued a warrant for her arrest.
In retaliation, she has used her family connections to have Uzbekistan issue an Interpol red notice throughout many of the countries in which Interpol operates to have Mr. Maqsudi arrested when he travels overseas.
Page 40 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. Maqsudi has told me on many occasions that he desperately wishes to see his children in Uzbekistan, but if he went back there he would undoubtedly be arrested and quite possibly tortured by the repressive Karimov regime.
He even offered to meet her in a neutral country, or a setting that would guarantee that neither of them would be arrested. I know the State Department has tried to work on this, I think they can do more. I have raised it as Chairman of the Helsinki Commission on a number of occasions, and have gotten nowhere.
So I just want to raise this issue again today, Mr. Chairman, because it underscores that obviously there are many people, husbands and wives, who love their children just as much as Mr. Maqsudi. They would love to see their children, but because of an abduction have been precluded that opportunity.
So again, your bill, I think, is a very, very important step. I would especially like to say how great it is to see Dennis DeConcini, a good friend and a very fine Senator, who headed the Helsinki Commission for a number of years. I served under him, and greatly cherish those times together during the worst days of the Soviet Union. He did a marvelous job, and Dennis, nice to see you again.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Mr. Smith.
Our second panel today is led by John Walsh, host of America's Most Wanted and America Fights Back. It was over 20 years ago that our Nation learned about the sad details of 6-year-old Adam Walsh's life ending. Since that tragedy, Mr. Walsh has championed his son's life and has worked tirelessly in assisting and recovering missing children, and bringing perpetrators to justice. I am convinced that many other children have been saved due to the diligent efforts of people like yourself, Mr. Walsh, and we surely look forward to hearing your statement.
Page 41 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Among the thousands of other parents who have spent years of sleepless nights in the effort to have their children returned home, we also have Mr. Tom Sylvester here with us today. He has been a victim of a heartbreaking case of international child abduction of his daughter Carina. She is living and growing up in Austria, and only knows her father as a visitor who is limited to seeing her for a few days several times a year.
Mr. Sylvester's former wife lives permanently overseas and has been completely successful in derailing the courts' and his efforts at claiming his rights as a father. We look forward to hearing your story, Mr. Sylvester.
And finally, our panel will conclude with our good friend, retired Senator Dennis DeConcini, whose life's work has moved in new directions. After his retirement from the Senate, he chose to continue public service by joining the Board of Directors of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, where he is now Chairman of the Board.
In addition, Senator DeConcini serves as a member of the board of the new International Center for Missing & Exploited Children. It cannot go without mention that the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children is the world's leader in returning missing children to their parents, and we look forward to hearing Senator DeConcini's thoughts on this growing crisis.
I also want to mention that we have been joined by Mr. Erie Allen, President of the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, who will be available for any questions that someone might choose to ask.
Page 42 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So we ask you begin the panel with your statement, Mr. Walsh.
STATEMENT OF JOHN WALSH, TELEVISION HOST OF ''AMERICA'S MOST WANTED'' AND CO–FOUNDER, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN
Mr. WALSH. Thank you, Chairman Hyde. I would like to thank Congressman Chandler for his kind comments; Congressman McCotter for being here; Congressman Flake, I have worked with before; Mr. Chabot for your leadership and all your help for Tom Sylvester, you are a ray of hope for Tom, and that is greatly appreciated; Congressman Lantos who is not here; and Congresswoman Watson, thank you for taking the time here today.
The people I have mentioned, I feel that they have their priorities in order, that they are here and listening to us because they care about America's silent citizens, our children. These are American kids we are talking about today, American citizens.
I have worked with Dan Burton on this issue before. He has been a loud voice. He put his money where his mouth is. He went to Saudi Arabia and tried to help these people, and ran into a brick wall, and I feel exactly the same way you do. I have had many, many dealings in Saudi Arabia looking for terrorists there. I have had many, many opportunities to try to convince the Saudis to do something as it relates to these non-custodial parental abductions, and it is a brick wall, and it really is time.
If they are our business partners, if they are our partners in fighting terrorism and trying to put down the horrible butchers who cut off the heads of innocent citizens, al-Qaeda, then they ought to step up to the plate and prove to us that they are our partners, absolutely, and that is what this legislation is about today. H.R. 4347 is so important.
Page 43 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Everybody here, almost every member of this panel has had an experience with a constituent who has had a non-custodial parental abduction. Mr. Smith mentioned it. I think every Congressman I have run up to has said, I have a member of my constituency who cannot get their kid back from a foreign country.
You also know firsthand from Congressman Lampson, who is a great friend of ours too and Chairman of the Missing & Exploited Children's Caucus, and has worked with Congressman Burton on this. Most of the legislation up to now, and most of what has been done has been lip service, that is all it is, lip service.
You know, I appreciate what Maura Harty does, but she is a one-woman band, she really is. She goes to these countries by herself, and Secretary Powell is the first member of the State Department that has really listened to us.
I have been working with Congressman Hyde for 20 years. He was the original sponsor of the Missing Children's Bill back in 1982, dragging the FBI into the search for missing children. He was there when we got the Missing Children Assistance Bill passed in 1984, when late President Reagan had us speak in the East Room of the White House. I will never forget that. That was the creation of the National Center that Ernie heads.
We have had great success in every area except international abductions. We have run up against brick wall after brick wall. We cannot seem to make any headway. We finally have a Secretary of State that will listen to us. We have a woman that works for him that actually gets on a plane and goes and tries to bring these people back.
Page 44 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But you know what? You are the court of last resort. We are here today, Tom is here because he has done every damn thing he could. He has talked to every cop. He has talked to every judge. He has talked to every FBI agent. He has talked to every prosecutor. He has talked to U.S. attorneys. He has gone everywhere and got nothing.
He has got all the paperwork, just like you said, Mr. Chabot. He has got mounds of paperwork, and huge amounts of bills. And you know what? His daughter has been in Austria for 8 years.
Is Austria not a partner of ours? Did they not sign onto The Hague Treaty? Are they not in this war on terrorism and afraid that they are going to be the next 9/11 like every other country in Europe? So why can they not comply to our laws?
Because you know what the Austrian Government says? That you are full of B.S.; that all the laws you passed here do not mean anything; that you are a paper tiger. Absolutely, that is what I hear when I go to these countries and try to get these kids back. The United States Congress is a paper tiger. There is no guts behind that legislation.
I want to tell you what this legislation would do. It would do three very important things. It will provide the tools to quickly resolve domestic parental abductions, tools like Federal court jurisdiction to resolve disputes between conflicting custody orders; enhance capability for the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children to search databases to track down abductors quickly. Most of these people get on the planes and are gone for months before anybody really starts to look at the case.
Page 45 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It will give the National Center the ability to better prevent these incidents from occurring by giving authorities the ability to detain at the border. Why can we not stop these people at the border? They know the person left behind. You mentioned a couple cases where that parent got visitation. The Saudi Ambassador was even notified, was he not? The Saudi Embassy was notified here. Do not let these people go out of the country.
How much damn notice do you have to give them? How much notice do you have to give them? They can go get a passport and buy an airplane ticket, and that left-behind wife or husband knows they are going to the airport. If we cannot stop them at the border, then why do we have anybody at the border?
We need to create a national registry of child custody orders. There would be some uniformity. I said this about the NCIC in 1981. The FBI had a damn computer that stored information on stolen boats, planes and cars, and stolen guns, but we do not have a national registry on child custody orders. So this is a nightmare and everybody falls through the cracks.
My God, we put a man on the moon, did we not? I keep saying to these Committees we have spent billions of dollars to put that stupid little module on Mars, and send us back those pictures, and we do not have a national registry. I do not give a damn about what the other side of Mars looks like.
Ask Tom Sylvester what it looks like when he does not see his daughter for her birthdays, and she has been gone for 8 years. Do you think he gives a damn about what is on the other side of Mars? I do not think so.
Page 46 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It will also enhance the international system for addressing this problem; strengthening the mechanisms in place at The Hague; reaching out to parts of the world that are not a part of The Hague Convention; and thorough aggressive judicial training.
You know what The Hague is asking with this legislation? How much this legislation appropriates to The Hague to do this judicial training and try to bring some of these countries in order? Take a guess—$150,000. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars is all The Hague and we are asking in this legislation.
I mean, God, look at the pieces of legislation you pass every day. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars is tip money. It is nothing to get The Hague in line here.
I have a basic belief, because most of you know me as a manhunter but I also hunt for missing children. Those who break the law should pay the consequences. Too often, however, that does not happen in cases of non-custodial family abduction. Too often family abduction cases do not receive the attention or priority they deserve. This bill will change that.
I mentioned that Maura Harty has worked long and hard, but she is a one-woman show. She is a one-woman SWAT team that gets on these planes and looks for these kids.
And I mentioned Secretary Powell. He would love to have the ability to do what he wants to do. We have met with him numerous, numerous times. He is a loud, loud advocate for children and very involved with the National Center. He cut the ribbon at the dedication of our building. He works closely with the boys and girls clubs. He says, give me the wherewithal, give me the horses, give me the ability and I will go do it. I will make it a priority. I will make it a priority.
Page 47 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I want you to take a look at this video if you would, please. Congressman Burton is involved in one of these cases. He is involved in lots of these cases. I just want you to take a look at the pain of these mothers and what they went through, and do not forget, their children are American citizens.
[Video tape played.]
[Technical difficulty.]
Mr. WALSH. You know what, in the interest of time let me just read a couple facts that I have gleaned out of articles that we prepared for today.
Although the United States and more than 70 other countries signed The Hague Convention on International Child Abduction, many of world's largest nations refuse to do so, including India, Russia, most Islamic countries in the Middle East, China, and much of Africa. Each year at least 400 American children are taken illegally to such countries, according to State Department records. Four hundred American kids every year are taken out of this country.
I will tell you what, if it were 400 anchormen like Dan Rather, 400 athletes that went to other countries and did not come back, or 400 Members of Congress, it would be a damn big deal, would it not? It is just 400 kids, that is all, 400 kids every year.
In the year 2000 alone, U.S. taxpayers paid hundreds of millions of dollars of grants, loans, and aid to many nations that refuse to return kidnapped American children, according to this News Day article. Among nations refusing to sign The Hague Treaty, the top five aid recipients received $476 million from the United States despite at least 293 cases of abducted children taken to these countries. One of the United States' major allies in the Middle East, Egypt, gets $2 billion each year in military and economic aid without any requirements to return dozens of children who have been taken there.
Page 48 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Egypt, where The Hague Convention does not apply, only returned 121 children out of 959 cases; a rate of 12 percent according to Government records of cases handled during a 3-year period.
For our great friend Egypt, you signed those pieces of legislation that give them that $2 billion, but yet they laugh in your faces and at the legislation. I was here and worked really, really hard for the parental kidnapping bill that was passed in 1993. Here is what the FBI says about that bill: The FBI officials in charge of investigating these cases say they are often hamstrung by lack of international cooperation, even when alleged abductors are indicted by U.S. courts and when children's whereabouts are known. So the FBI and everybody that Tom Sylvester has run into says the same thing. Where is the guts of this legislation that passed in 1993? Where is our message to our partners in the world that we lend and give and give and give with no strings attached, billions and billions of dollars?
I was here once before when we bailed out Mexico with the NAFTA treaty. The peso was falling apart. I was down in Mexico doing shows, drug dealers and cartels everywhere, and we were going to lend them billions of dollars.
And I went to President Clinton myself and then Attorney General Janet Reno, and I said we need one thing. If we are going to bail Mexico out, let us make them sign an extradition treaty of fugitives, murders, criminals and get our kids back from Mexico. Right? Did not happen. What a perfect time for us to say we are going to save your entire country, we are going to lend you billions of dollars and shore up your economy, but you know what, since that meeting with President Clinton we now have on record over 3,000 murders and fugitives down there and we do not know how many kids.
Page 49 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I say it is a perfect example. When somebody comes begging to us or they want the money, it is so simple for this Committee, for this Congress and for the Senate across the hall over there, to say: We are your partners, sign The Hague Treaty, we will do business with you, we will lend you money, we will support you, we will battle terrorism with you, but you know what, these kids are American citizens. They need to come home. We need to end this rhetoric.
I could go on forever, but I want to thank Senator DeConcini for being here. He is on our board. He is a very loud voice. And you know what, I hope that I get to see this Committee in the Rose Garden, that is your intention with this piece of legislation. There are not billions of dollars attached to this, this is a simple piece of legislation with 150 grand attached to it, that is nothing. I hope to see you there.
Because you know what, then I can look at this man, Tom Sylvester. I mean, I searched for my son and could not get him back. Those 2 weeks were the worst weeks of my life. I cannot imagine what he has been doing for 8 years wondering what his daughter is doing, missing those birthdays, missing Christmas, wondering what kind of care she is getting from the psycho mother who abducted her.
A missing non-custodial parental-abducted child can be in great trouble. I have done many cases on America's Most Wanted where the non-custodial parent killed the children to get even. It is not an act of love. It is an act of revenge. I did a guy that was living out of dumpsters. I did a guy that we caught in France who had never taken his child to school or for dental care. It is not an act of love. It is an act of revenge. It is a way to get even with your ex-spouse when you did not get custody.
Page 50 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So you know what, there are so many advocates here on this Committee, I really think you are going to do it this time. You are going to pull the trigger. You are going to pull the plug and you are going to get this legislation passed. And believe me, I think we can saddle up and get it passed on the Senate side, and I want to be in that Rose Garden because you know what, I can turn around and say to this guy, Tom Sylvester, you have listened to nothing but B.S. for 8 years. You have listened to nothing but lip service. Your heart is broken, and you know what, Tom, we are here today in the Rose Garden because you never gave up, and because you listened to us. You listened to this panel and you listened to him, and maybe that day he will get his daughter back instead of all the lip service he has listened to.
Thank you for your attention, and thank you for the Members who are sitting here today listening to this. God bless you. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Walsh follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN WALSH, TELEVISION HOST OF ''AMERICA'S MOST WANTED'' AND CO–FOUNDER, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN
I am very pleased to be here to talk about H.R. 4347 and why it is critical to the situation regarding family abductions that we face in America today. As you know, I have an abiding interest in making sure that those who break the law pay the consequences. Too often, however, cases of family abduction are not given the attention they deserve. Thank you, Chairman Hyde and Congressman Lantos, for holding this hearing. It's because of your leadership and determination to move this legislation that we're going to see some action on international and domestic family abductions soon. I also want to recognize Congressman Lampson who introduced the bill with Chairman Hyde and has been pushing to bring internationally abducted children home for years. He has worked tirelessly for the past 3 Congresses introducing the Bring Our Children Home Act that has been included in this bill.
Page 51 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When children are abducted by family members, the abductors are not only breaking the law, they are breaking a child's bonds with left-behind family members and, possible more critically, a child's spirit. In many cases, the results are much worse—children taken by despondent or angry parents have been killed because of the anger and hurt between the parents. Murder-suicide cases are not uncommon. In 1995, after the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children entered into a cooperative agreement with the Departments of State and Justice on the handling of international cases, the Center received a request for the return of two children to Canada. The children had been with their father who was supposed to return them in the evening. When they didn't return, the mother called police and expressed her belief that they might be heading across the border to the U.S. It wasn't long, however, before police in Canada discovered that the father had driven the two children to a rented storage locker and ran a hose from the tailpipe through the driver's side window killing himself, his daughter and his son by carbon monoxide poisoning.
Even when children are not physically harmed, they can suffer severe psychological effects as a result of being abducted. The children often exhibit a fear of authority, inability to bond, they wet the bed and experience nightmares. This isn't surprising considering the lengths that the abductors will go to in order to succeed in keeping the child away from the other parent and family. Abductors tell children that the left-behind parent is dead, a drug addict or that they didn't want the children anymore. They change the child's name and force them to keep secrets, deny their past and avoid the police. In some cases, a child is forced to pretend that he or she is a son instead of a daughter to make sure they aren't caught. When the abductor does fear that they are on the brink of getting caught, they snatch the child from school, from the new friends they've made, from any sense of normalcy they may have achieved, and run again. When the children are taken internationally, they are not only ripped away from one parent, but they are dropped into a foreign land with a foreign language and customs, all of which forces them into even greater physical, psychological and emotional reliance on the parent who kidnapped them.
Page 52 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When people come to the U.S., we expect them to abide by our laws. In too many instances, people come to the U.S., don't abide by our laws, and take their children back to their countries of origin. Let me show you a short video that illustrates the problem. [Show Video.]
The situations experienced by the parents on that show are repeated across the country. The agony that the parents feel having their children taken suddenly and being kept out of reach is palpable and real. Parental kidnapping is a crime in the United States and it's a federal felony to take the child across state lines or across international borders. I worked to have that law passed. Even so, parents whose children are parentally kidnapped feel that the system failed them, that the courts failed them and they are frustrated when the U.S. government, with all its power and influence, doesn't bring their children back from foreign countries.
The bill before you today is focused on preventing parents from illegally removing their children from the United States and, if it does happen, creating a system that works to bring them home.
The bill will help prevent international child abductions in a number of ways. It authorizes law enforcement to take a child into protective custody to prevent them from being abducted out of the U.S. and creates a national registry of custody orders so law enforcement and the courts know which parent is the lawful custodian. The bill also authorizes the use of supervised visitation centers in cases in which abduction is threatened. In all of the cases I profiled on my show, the children were internationally abducted during a visitation period—one mother had actually asked the court to order supervised visitation because of her ex-husband's threats of abduction but was refused. Her children remain in Saudi Arabia today.
Page 53 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
When abductions are not prevented, we must do more to resolve them quickly—each day that goes by further harms the child and further alienates them from the left-behind parent. The bill contains a provision to encourage and support states to enact the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, a piece of uniform legislation that is specifically designed to streamline the resolution of state-to-state abductions.
In addition, the bill will provide the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children with access to information from the Internal Revenue Service that can help locate thousands of child-victims of family abduction. The sooner these kids can be located, the sooner the disputes can be resolved for the benefit of the children involved. Judges, lawyers, law enforcement and other professionals need to understand the legal tools that exist to combat family abduction, they need to understand the tremendous risks suffered by children who are abducted by a family member and they need to understand the unbearable pain experienced by the left-behind parent. This bill provides for critically-needed training so that parents can start to experience the legal system helping them.
Another critical element of the bill is the sense of Congress that funding to the Hague Conference on Private International Law should be increased. The U.S. is a member of this entity, along with dozens of other countries that are trying to improve their responses to international family abduction. The Hague Conference needs additional resources to continue to monitor how countries are doing and provide them with services to help return children quickly and legally.
So many of the parents I've spoken to about family abduction have lost faith in the system and in the international cases in particular, they feel abandoned by their government. We've got to change that, we've got to build a better system so kids are not stolen by one parent and hidden away from the left-behind parent. It's hard enough to solve these cases when everyone stays in the U.S., but resolving them is much more complex when the child is taken to a foreign country. This bill will help us provide better ways to stop family abductions from occurring and provides us with better tools for getting the kids who are stolen, back to their homes.
Page 54 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
94505cl.eps
94505cm.eps
Chairman HYDE. Thank you.
Mr. Sylvester.
STATEMENT OF TOM SYLVESTER, PARENT OF ABDUCTED CHILD, CARINA SYLVESTER
Mr. SYLVESTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for inviting me to testify today, and I would also like to especially express my heartfelt gratitude to Congressman Chabot for his unwavering support for all these years in my case.
I am Tom Sylvester, father of Carina Sylvester, my American-born daughter and only child who was taken by her Austrian mother from the United States to Austria on October 30, 1995. That was her last day on American soil. She was then just 13 months old. She is now 9 years old, and remains in Austria.
In the intervening 8 years I have worked unceasingly to be a substantial part of Carina's life, but without success. From the moment I came home from work to discover my baby daughter gone, my life has never been the same. I took immediate action. My initial calls were to the police and a lawyer. Through my lawyer I learned of The Hague Convention and its civil remedy for the return of a parentally-abducted child.
Page 55 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Being a law abiding citizen, I chose the legal system to bring my daughter home. The Austrian trial court, which heard my Hague Convention case, issued a prompt and favorable order that Carina be returned to her home in the United States, and this decision was affirmed by the Austrian Supreme Court.
However, the abductor refused to comply with the court order and the Austrian legal system provided no effective mechanism, such as contempt of court, to compel her compliance. The one and only attempt at enforcement failed. In the end it was merely a knock on the door and a request for compliance.
Time passed. The delay itself created a fatal change in circumstances; namely, that my daughter was settled in the local environment now, and that it would be too traumatic to send her back to the United States. The Austrian court decided not to enforce their own valid and final order.
The situation is best described with circular logic. The child was not returned because the order was not enforced. Now the order will not be enforced because the child was not returned. The system failed us completely.
Once The Hague Convention proceedings were completed, I obtained an arrest warrant under the International Parental Kidnapping Act with help from the FBI. In an ironic twist, the existence of the warrant is regularly raised against me by the Austrian Government officials and the Austrian court as an obstacle for Carina's return to the United States even for a visit.
Page 56 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
A U.S. court gave me custody of Carina. The Austrian courts refused to acknowledge that order, and instead awarded the abductor custody and required me to pay child support retroactive to the date of the abduction.
I remain prohibited by the Austrian courts from seeing Carina outside of Austria. I make voluntary payments to the abductor for Carina's benefit. And I am one of the lucky ones. I am allowed to spend a few days several times a year with Carina, but always under the supervision of the abductor.
My daughter does not speak English. She is being raised without any parenting by her American father who loves her, and without any knowledge of her extended family in the United States who also love and miss her very much.
There has been considerable diplomatic intervention in my case but without effective follow-up action and results, despite the efforts of Ambassador Harty, prior Ambassadors to Austria, Secretaries of State Albright and Powell, and even the President of the United States. No one yet has been able to make a difference.
As to Carina's ability even to visit the United States, no matter what safeguards we agree to and whatever form demanded, diplomacy has failed. In the end, unless the abductor agrees to allow Carina to return to the United States or allow me unsupervised access in Austria, it cannot happen. She remains in complete control, and no Austrian authority will contest her wishes.
Page 57 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
My last recourse was the European Court of Human Rights know as the ECHR. It is an independent international tribunal which sits in Strasbourg, France. Complaints I have filed there in the late 1990s against Austria on behalf of my daughter and myself were determined by the court last year to be meritorious.
In April 2003, the ECHR entered its decision finding that Austria had violated our human right to respect for family life by failing to take all reasonable measures to enforce the order entered under The Hague Convention for Carina's return to the United States. A modest money judgment was awarded to me for Austria's human rights violation. However, there has been no change in access to my daughter as a result of that decision.
As you can see from my situation, an international parental child abduction is multi-faceted. Although it may begin with the abduction, it really does not end until the child is safely returned home. My attempts to maintain a life with my daughter began in 1995, and I will continue until she has returned home. In the process, I have spent nearly a half a million dollars for Austrian and American attorney fees, travel costs, payments to the abductor and related expenses.
Any legislation enacted that can help similarly situated parents, both American and foreign national, to promptly recover their abducted children has my support. However, there are many American parents like me who seek assistance in areas of concern relative to other matters that have not yet been addressed to date.
I want to thank the House Committee on International Relations for holding a hearing on this very important subject, and for listening to my story.
Page 58 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sylvester follows:]
94505a.eps
94505b.eps
94505c.eps
94505d.eps
94505e.eps
94505f.eps
94505g.eps
94505h.eps
94505i.eps
94505j.eps
94505k.eps
Page 59 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
94505l.eps
94505m.eps
94505n.eps
94505o.eps
94505p.eps
94505q.eps
94505r.eps
94505s.eps
94505t.eps
94505u.eps
94505v.eps
94505w.eps
94505x.eps
Page 60 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
94505y.eps
94505z.eps
94505aa.eps
94505ab.eps
94505ac.eps
94505ad.eps
94505ae.eps
94505af.eps
94505ag.eps
94505ah.eps
94505ai.eps
94505aj.eps
Page 61 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
94505ak.eps
94505al.eps
94505am.eps
94505an.eps
94505ao.eps
94505ap.eps
94505aq.eps
94505ar.eps
94505as.eps
94505at.eps
94505au.eps
94505av.eps
94505aw.eps
Page 62 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
94505ax.eps
94505ay.eps
94505az.eps
94505ba.eps
94505bb.eps
94505bc.eps
94505bd.eps
94505be.eps
94505bf.eps
94505bg.eps
94505bh.eps
94505bi.eps
Page 63 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
94505bj.eps
94505bk.eps
94505bl.eps
94505bm.eps
94505bn.eps
94505bo.eps
94505bp.eps
94505bq.eps
94505br.eps
94505bs.eps
94505bt.eps
Chairman HYDE. Thank you.
Senator DeConcini.
Page 64 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS DECONCINI, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN
Mr. DECONCINI. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and Members, thank you for this hearing today. Thank you for listening to concerns of Mr. Sylvester. And nobody expresses those concerns more vociferously and clearly than John Walsh. And Mr. Allen, to my left, the President of the National Center, and I, as Chairman of the Center, are pleased to be here. We are here as kind of the hands-on part of what happens under The Hague Treaty.
I have learned just how serious this is, having served on the board of both the International Center and the National Center, and as Chairman today. We are committed to doing what we can through the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children to prevent family abductions from occurring and to fight for the swift resolution when they do occur.
We are working on the international level through the separate and nonprofit International Center for Missing & Exploited Children to get all countries to step up their efforts to resolve these issues in a consistent, reliable, and swift fashion.
We need to do more, and I thank you for the efforts that you are putting forth in this legislation. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4347 is not perfect, but it is a step in the right direction. It is something that is overdue. The highlights of that legislation have been pointed out, but they are really not that difficult: Bringing about a swift resolution of these cases through granting jurisdiction to the Federal courts to resolve conflicts in custody orders between individual States.
Page 65 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Today, because of a Supreme Court decision, there is no way to resolve one State versus another State. Common sense is pretty easy to adjust and change. Assisting States in adopting the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction that Mr. Walsh pointed out is really not difficult. Locate children and resolve cases.
The database of the IRS can be used. This is not going to infringe on peoples' privacy. Create a national registry of custody orders so there is some place in this country that people can go. And law enforcement, of course, can determine which parent really, truly has the latest custody order.
Empower law enforcement to use protected custody in these cases to enable them to detain a child before that child can be taken out. Often our law enforcement have no tools. Even if they know that the child is getting on the plane with the wrong parent that does not have custody, they cannot do anything. This gives them that temporary effort to protect this child until it is resolved.
The registry and the courts can be involved, and providing limits to statutory immunity is also in the bill. We at the Center believe in The Hague Convention. Yet in too many instances and for too many parents, it just does not work. Mr. Sylvester has pointed that out so clearly.
We need to do better. At the last special commission meeting of The Hague with the personal presence and support of Congressman Lampson and Congressman Chabot, we urged the creation of good practice guides for member states, a kind of rule book, a road map on how the convention should be implemented.
Page 66 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Hague responded. Two particular guides have been completed, and a third is on the way. Today, our Center is working directly with The Hague to create a guide on vital issues of access for left-behind parents and enforcement of court orders.
We are making progress. Yet there is a fundamental problem: The permanent bureau of The Hague is attempting to implement more than 35 separate conventions, of which the Abduction Convention is just one, with very limited resources. Member states pay dues, but it is clear that the current Hague budget is not adequate, and there is the need to generate additional support.
Our new International Center for Missing & Exploited Children has negotiated a memorandum of agreement with The Hague Conference on private international law committing to work together to attack the problems on international child abduction. We are promoting the creation of an international training institute for judges, opening real dialogue with the Islamic world on this problem, aggressively attacking problems like providing access for left-behind parents, and enforcing court orders.
As part of this effort, we have proposed a modest increase in The Hague budget. Having served here for 18 years, I could not believe it was only $150,000. I wanted to say, well, certainly someone will add that on. But this is a modest amount of money in truth, and it is a message that the United States is serious about it.
Let me emphasize that with the increase in funding comes a significant increase in expectations. We believe that it is time to finally provide the body charged with implementing this historic treaty with the tools and resources it needs to get the job done.
Page 67 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our commitment is to keep the pressure on, and to work with them and more than 60 member states to make this treaty work, and to bring these children home. We are tired of cases like Mr. Sylvester's, and there are hundreds of these types of cases.
So, Mr. Chairman, this legislation is a bold step that will bring about real change in this complex, frustrating problem, and I thank you and the Members for their support, and hope that you might move it during this session of Congress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeConcini follows:]
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DENNIS DECONCINI, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, NATIONAL CENTER FOR MISSING & EXPLOITED CHILDREN
Thank you, Chairman Hyde, for the opportunity to appear before the Committee to discuss the important issue of international child abduction.
When I retired from the U.S. Senate, one of the key ways I chose to continue my public service was to serve on the Board of Directors of the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children (NCMEC). Last year, I had the high honor of being elected as Chairman of the Board, succeeding Robbie Callaway, long-time child advocate and Senior Vice President of Boys & Girls Clubs of America. I am also proud to serve as a member of the Board of Directors of the new International Centre for Missing & Exploited Children (ICMEC).
In those two roles I have had the opportunity to become familiar with the crime of child abduction. As we have heard from the previous witnesses, child abduction has devastating effects on the whole family. We are fortunate that parents who have suffered these tragedies are willing to work in the public interest to help create improved laws and responses so other families might be spared.
Page 68 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As many of you know, cases of children being abducted by a family member and taken away from the stability of the life they have known is a common occurrence in the United States. According to the latest research from the U.S. Department of Justice, there are more than 200,000 such cases each year. As the globe shrinks and international travel becomes more commonplace, more and more of these cases involve the transportation of a child across a national border.
As we know from the experience of Tom Sylvester and other parents, existing laws don't provide adequate protection or response. The result is that a parent, like Tom, can do everything the right way and according to the law, spend thousands of dollars and thousands of emotional hours yet live with constant uncertainty of when or whether he will see his only daughter again. By the same token, Tom's daughter, Carina, has a father who is loving, available and committed to her welfare, yet she has been robbed of her fathers' time and love—something that should be every child's right.
NCMEC is committed to doing what it can, as an organization, to fight for improvements in our global response to international missing child cases. From the day NCMEC began receiving calls through its Hotline 20 years ago, calls came in seeking the location and return of U.S. children who had been abducted and taken abroad. In 1995, NCMEC entered into a cooperative agreement with the Departments of State and Justice to handle cases in which a parent seeks the return of or access to a child abducted into the U.S. under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. While NCMEC pursues improvements to the global system designed to resolve these cases and has aggressively sought the return of internationally-abducted children in each case, obstacles to the quick and successful resolution of cases remain.
Page 69 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As other countries face their own tragic cases in both the abduction and exploitation areas, many have sought the assistance of NCMEC to formulate similar services, programs and laws to combat these issues. As the number of cases with a global reach increased, we realized that if we were to really have an impact on abduction and exploitation that affects children within the U.S., we had no choice but to operate on the international stage. For these reasons, we created the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (ICMEC). ICMEC is a separate, non-profit corporation created to address the abduction and exploitation of children worldwide.
NCMEC and ICMEC work collaboratively to ensure that best practices of NCMEC and the U.S. are made available for other countries to adapt and implement. ICMEC serves as a global focal point for hammering out strategies to address the abduction and exploitation of children in a consistent and effective manner worldwide. In addition, the international policy work and the affiliations made by ICMEC create new opportunities and contacts to help individual parents and children whose cases are being worked by NCMEC.
Recently, H.R. 4347, ''The International Assistance to Missing and Exploited Children Act of 2004'' was introduced. This bill makes improvements to the law to help prevent and successfully resolve both domestic and international abductions of children. It is an important piece of legislation. One of the fiercest battles we wage in child abduction cases is against time. In stranger abduction cases, this battle plays itself out trying to identify the perpetrator and locate the child before harm can be done to them. In family abduction cases, the battle is location of the child and the speedy resolution of the legal issues in the case so that the child can be legally settled without the child living in hiding or being snatched back and forth as happens in these cases.
Page 70 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
SWIFT LEGAL RESOLUTION OF FAMILY ABDUCTION CASES
H.R. 4347 contains several provisions to help quickly resolve family abduction cases. It is currently possible for two states within the U.S. to issue conflicting custody orders, each believing it is acting within the law. When courts in different states exercise jurisdiction and make conflicting custody decisions, the only recourse now available to resolve the conflict and thus determine which custody order is valid and controlling, is for the aggrieved party to appeal through the state courts, hopefully getting a resolution along the way. If not, U.S. Supreme Court review is available for truly intractable jurisdictional deadlocks—at least in theory. The reality is that Supreme Court rarely grants certiorari in child custody cases, which effectively leaves custody contestants without a legal remedy once the highest courts in two states have upheld conflicting orders. More importantly, the goal must be swift resolution of these disputes, not countless appeals that only serve to further alienate and disrupt the lives of the children and families involved. Custody contestant cannot go to federal court for relief when interstate conflicts first arise because of a 1988 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 1174 (1988). That case held that there is not right under the federal Parental Kidnapping Prevention Act (PKPA) to go into federal court for a determination as to which of the two state courts that have issued custody orders has done so consistent with the federal law. While the Supreme Court was unwilling to find an implied right of action in the PKPA to go into federal court to resolve jurisdictional conflicts, it did note that Congress might choose revisit the issue which is precisely what this legislation does. Many children remain caught in a legal limbo—NCMEC is contacted by parents who hold an order giving them custody of their child but who are unable to enforce it because the abducting parent also holds a custody order issued them by the state to which they abducted. The federal courts should be granted the jurisdiction to decide these rare but intractable conflicts.
Page 71 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In addition, the bill requires the Attorney General to establish a program to assist states to adopt the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act (UCCJEA), provide training for lawyers, judges and designated public officials on the uniform implementation of the act and provide guidance and funding to states to facilitate and expedite implementation of the public enforcement of custody/visitation provisions of the UCCJEA. The National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws approved the UCCJEA in 1997 to replace the law that is currently relied upon to resolve interstate family abduction cases, known as the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA). The UCCJEA improves the current law in important ways to deter parental kidnapping and to eliminate jurisdictional ambiguities that have often been exploited by parents to draw out litigation, secure conflicting custody orders, and delay or deny enforcement of valid custody and visitation orders. The law provides for an abbreviated, court-assisted process for a parent to register their custody order in a new state, and an expedited child recovery remedy. New provisions allow public officials to assist in the civil enforcement of custody determinations and to locate and secure return of a child in international cases brought under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The new procedures will simplify child custody enforcement and recovery as well as reduce self-help recoveries that can be emotionally and physically harmful to children and legally problematic for their parents.
Two years ago, NCMEC, in conjunction with the Internal Revenue Service, conducted an experiment in which the names of missing children, along with known facts about their cases, were run through the IRS information databases in an effort to determine the location of the missing children. The results were astounding. The IRS databases contained information that could lead to the recovery of a missing child in two-thirds of the cases submitted. Although NCMEC currently has access to a number of federal databases for the sole and narrow purpose of discovering information that might lead to the location of a missing child, the IRS is statutorily unable to provide access to their database information. This bill contains a carefully worded, narrow provision, allowing NCMEC to periodically run the names and case information of missing child cases in the IRS databases and have any results provided to investigating law enforcement for the purpose of resolving missing child cases. As is the case with other database information to which NCMEC is provided access, we have no interest in the financial information contained in the records—our sole interest is to provide law enforcement with any data that may lead to the location of a missing child.
Page 72 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As we seek to find the best ways to resolve family abductions within United States, we must be equally vigilant in resolving cases in which children are brought into the United States from another country. The bill before you today contains provisions designed to provide parents seeking the return of children wrongfully taken into the United States with better access to courts and to educate those courts about the laws of international family abduction. Specifically, the bill allows for the provision of free or reduced-fee legal services, waiver of filing fees and other court costs in connection with bringing a proceeding for return of a child under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (Hague Convention) and for training of federal judges and state judicial and legal education programs on both interstate and international parental kidnapping law and practice. Having a well-trained judiciary and providing parents with access to legal services and the appropriate courts are vital to achieving the goal of providing a stable situation for children through the swift resolution of parental abduction cases.
PREVENTING FAMILY ABDUCTIONS
Given the difficulties involved in resolving parental abduction cases as well as the trauma they cause, it is clear that a major focus needs to be placed on preventing abductions from occurring in the first place. This is particularly true in the case of international abductions. The jurisdiction of the United States ends at our borders making it very difficult and often impossible to secure the return of a child who has been taken to another country. With better systems in place to stop children from crossing the border in the hands of an abducting parent, we stand a much better chance of ensuring that families stay whole and that children are not unilaterally cut-off from one parent.
Page 73 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
This bill calls for creation of a national registry of custody orders. This is not a new idea, but is one that is overdue. A national registry of custody and visitation orders provides a single point of contact for courts and law enforcement to verify the validity of a custody order. In a particularly tragic case, a mother who had lawful custody of her only son, received a phone call from her son's school alerting her that the child's father had arrived to pick up the son even though he was not authorized to do so. The school also called the police who were on the scene when mother arrived. When questioned, the boy's father produced a previous custody order that provided both parents with joint custody but was no longer valid. Because mother did not have her current and valid sole custody order with her, the police allowed the child to leave with his father. That night father and son boarded a plane and traveled to a country that has not signed the Hague Convention. Despite her best efforts, the child's mother has had only two visits with her son in over 5 years—both under the watchful eyes and ears of the abducting father. Because of cases like this, other law enforcement officials are understandably hesitant to intervene when faced with conflicting custody orders or the inability to verify an order's validity. A national registry provides police with the necessary information to intervene and provides the courts the background information they need to determine whether or not they have proper jurisdiction to make a decision in a child's case. In addition, this type of registry could serve as a basis for a system that could be designed to prevent non-custodial parents from taking a child out of the United States without proper authorization and, therefore, prevent many tragedies of international child abduction.
The bill also strengthens the hand of law enforcement to help prevent family abductions by authorizing them to take vulnerable children into protective custody. Currently, when law enforcement, usually on the border, comes across an abducted child, they are unable to 'recover' the child. A left-behind parent may know the abductor is planning to take the child out of the country and may even know what airport they are likely to leave from, but without a warrant for arrest of the abducting parent and/or court-ordered sole custody, law enforcement usually lacks a basis for taking the child into protective custody. Parents continue to face challenges in obtaining warrants for family abduction, especially in the international context as evidenced by information provided at the October 1999 hearing of the Subcommittee on Criminal Justice Oversight of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Even in the best of circumstances, issuance of warrants can take days. Allowing law enforcement officers to recover a child without facts supporting the arrest of the accompanying adult will ensure that the U.S. is able to stop attempted abductions when the child has been reported as missing to police but before criminal charges issue.
Page 74 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
RESOLUTION OF INTERNATIONAL FAMILY ABDUCTION CASES
Understanding that children are as easily taken across country borders as they are across state borders, this bill focuses attention specifically on international child abductions in several provisions. First, in order to better understand the problem we seek to correct, the bill requires annual reports to Congress on federal parental kidnapping investigations, prosecutions and extraditions. Congress regards international parental kidnapping as a serious crime, making it punishable as a felony under the International Parental Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993, and the Fugitive Felon Act. It is an extraditable offense under all U.S. extradition treaties. In previous legislation, Congress required the Department of State to produce reports naming those countries signatory to the Hague Convention that are not in compliance with the terms of their treaty obligations. These reports have been enormously helpful to courts when faced with the question of whether a parent should be allowed to remove a child to a certain country. In addition, the reports have lead to productive discussions between the United States and the countries names in the reports providing a real opportunity to facilitate better ways to resolve these cases worldwide. In order for Congress to conduct meaningful oversight regarding the implementation of laws on international abduction and to identify obstacles that remain to the successful resolution of cases, information regarding investigations, prosecutions and extraditions is critically needed.
Since 1995, NCMEC has played a vital role in the successful implementation of the Hague Convention. It was in that year that the Department of State approached NCMEC and asked if we would assist in the implementation of this important treaty. Given the vast number of family abductions into and out of the United States each year, the State Department was overwhelmed with applications for assistance under the Convention. Because of our experience locating children abducted within the United States, the State Department asked if we would, in the spirit of reciprocity, use our existing services to locate children who had been abducted from overseas. NCMEC has been providing that service for the past nine years. This bill provides NCMEC staff processing these cases with the same limited immunity provided to State Department staff working cases under the Convention. NCMEC recognizes the important role we can play in convincing other countries to return children abducted from the United States by properly living up to our obligations to return children wrongfully brought into the United States. This provision provides NCMEC with the protection against frivolous lawsuits that we need to continue helping children caught in the middle of international conflicts.
Page 75 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The bill also provides additional funding to the Hague Conference on Private International Law to allow it to continue to encourage member States to properly resolve cases of international abduction. The Hague Conference is the membership entity that overseas the operation of a number of private international law treaties including the Hague Abduction Convention. Several years ago, NCMEC and the International Centre for Missing and Exploited Children (ICMEC) promoted the idea of creating reports providing suggested 'good practices' that signatory countries could adopt to improve the operation of the Hague Convention so that cases could be resolved quickly and for the benefit of the children involved. The Hague Conference, through its membership, embraced this idea as an opportunity to encourage signatory countries to do a better job of return abducted children to their country of habitual residence. The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference has produced two Good Practice Guides, one on the operation of the Central Authority—the government entity tasked with implementing the Convention within a country and the second focused on what systems and legislation countries should have in place prior to implementing the Convention. Last year, ICMEC entered into a Memorandum of Agreement with the Hague Conference to support additional guides to good practice, create a judicial training institute, identify solutions to abductions involving Islamic law countries, among other things. One critical element to the success of the Hague Conference's efforts to improve how international child abduction cases are handled is to increase each country's contribution to the core budget. This bill contains a 'sense of Congress' that the Hague Conference core budget should be increased to strengthen its ability to help countries address the complex and frustrating problem of international child abduction. In so doing, the United States joins the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia who have all expressed support for increased funding. ICMEC aims to generate private sector revenue and support in order to assist Hague Conference with these special projects designed to improve they way cases are resolved. These projects are vitally important to the lives of countless children around the world. We must ensure that the Hague Abduction Convention remains a vibrant, living document that provides a uniform system for the safe return of abducted children no matter what country they are abducted from and where they are taken.
Page 76 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
CONCLUSION
It is critical that the United States continue to improve our response to family abduction so that we are able to hold up our system as a model for other countries. H.R. 4347 contains provisions specifically designed to address identified obstacles to the successful resolution of family abduction cases, both domestic and international. The United States plays an important role in the world community and we must ensure that our own house is in order so that we can stand on the world stage and bring others to the table for the benefit of all children.
Chairman HYDE. Thank you, Senator.
As I have listened to your collective testimony, it occurs to me that enforcement is lacking, and as John Walsh said, it is lip service. They have a person serving as Assistant Secretary with a nice title, but she is a lone ranger, and the only thing we need is some way to get their attention.
I find money is very effective, and we have the authority to put a hold on certain funds, and we have done so for sometimes technical reasons having to do with the transfer of technology and things like that. I do not see why we could not broaden our perspective and see if we cannot get the attention of some of these countries by withholding some money.
Now, that will make other people mad. I can understand the need to assuage Saudi Arabia's feelings, especially at a time like this, but they ought to understand our needs and our requirements, because justice is on our side.
Page 77 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
So I do not promise you any magic results, but I promise you attention to this problem and conversations with people who can light a fire, and I am looking for places to withhold money. The Egyptian situation is a natural.
I do not know what we give Austria, but I am sure going to find out.
Okay, well, thank you. This was most interesting, most productive, most useful.
And now Mr. Chabot.
Mr. CHABOT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Once again I want to thank you for holding this hearing, and I want to thank all of our witnesses here this afternoon. Senator DeConcini, thank you for all your good work, and especially with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children. You and our good friend, Ernie Allen, and all the good folks at NCMEC do a wonderful job. And those of us who work on these issues really appreciate everything that both of you do.
And, Mr. Walsh, thank you for being here. You and your family, of course, suffered a terrible tragedy, and the hearts and prayers of our Nation went out to you then and continue to, and we are so grateful that you have chosen to work on behalf of other parents who are suffering, and we wish you the very best in your endeavors as you continue working for the American people.
Page 78 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And finally, let me once again welcome and thank my friend from Cincinnati, Tom Sylvester. Tom, we are not going to give up until you and I can give Carina a tour of that Capitol building over there.
Mr. SYLVESTER. Thank you.
Mr. CHABOT. We do tours a lot of time for folks from Cincinnati, school groups, families, and church groups, and I will not be satisfied until you are holding her hand, walking through the Capitol building, and we are showing you our Capitol, her Capitol.
Mr. SYLVESTER. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. CHABOT. She is an American.
Mr. SYLVESTER. Thank you.
Mr. CHABOT. I know that 5 minutes is not a lot of time, Tom, so if you would like to elaborate on your earlier testimony, I would be delighted to turn over whatever time I have left to you to tell us anything about your case that you think would be helpful for us to know. Most especially, anything that our Government ought to be doing, including this legislation, either additions to this or other things that you think we ought to be doing.
One thing that has always stuck in my mind is something you told me; that the abductor, your former wife, told you about our Government, and if you could perhaps share that with the rest of us again, and again my time is your time, so I will yield my time to you at this point.
Page 79 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. SYLVESTER. Thank you, Congressman Chabot.
I recall vividly, as a matter of fact, I mentioned those words before this very Committee back in its last hearing on October 14, 1999. I had recently gone to Austria and talked at length with my ex-wife, looking to find some workable solution and resolution. And she looked at me as we sat across the table from one another, and very defiantly said to me, ''Tom, you know, there is one difference between me and you.'' Of course, I thought there were quite a few more than one, but anyway I said, ''What is that?'' And she said, ''My Government protects me.''
Please know that, I will be brief here, and please know that clearly I am advocating for Carina. But I ask that you consider the possibility that when you hear her name, just when you hear her name, that you apply a broader message of an acronym that her name represents, and that is that all Children Abducted or Retained Internationally Need Assistance. And to me, that is how Carina's spirit lives on for us here, and she is with us here in that way, to give rise to the awareness that all children abducted and retained internationally need assistance.
So I certainly support, again, any legislation that can help any parent promptly recover their children. And from that standpoint I support this legislation generally. This legislation will help certain parents in certain situations, and that is great.
However, it appears to me there is room for improvement. I would like to see some recommendations be considered that would help American left-behind parents and American children to have additional support. And I have outlined many of those in my written testimony for the record, but just simply to highlight for the moment, I clearly would advocate and recommend increased involvement by the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, an ambitious advocate, in outgoing cases. They have done a stellar job. This legislation appears to give rise to the possibility of providing even greater performance on behalf of the United States to fulfill its treaty obligations.
Page 80 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But I clearly feel there is opportunity, we have a right to demand and expect other countries to reciprocate. As we raise the bar and as we put systems in place and legislation in place that helps us be a better treaty partner, I would ask the support from the U.S. Government to help American left-behind parents and American children to urge the other governments to reciprocate and to do the same.
Once again, there are quite a few recommendations that I have, and perhaps I will have an opportunity to participate in some markup process or other legislation activities, but I would ask that those be addressed as part of the record.
Mr. CHABOT. And we intend to accomplish that, and we very much thank you for your testimony this afternoon.
I think my time has expired, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman HYDE. Your statements are in the record.
Mr. Smith.
Mr. SMITH OF NEW JERSEY. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank our very distinguished panel for that very powerful testimony from each of them.
Again, I think your bill does move the ball significantly forward. Registries and reporting are very important. If we do not even have a handle on the situation, if we do not have sufficient personnel dedicated, if you do not have enough people, if you have a one-woman show, as Mr. Walsh pointed out, the possibility and the probability of having effective outcomes is absolutely minimized despite good intentions. Personnel equals policy. So I think your point was very well taken.
Page 81 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
And when you talk, Mr. Chairman, about, you know, withholding some funds, I think we have to look no further than the most recently enacted legislation on human trafficking to show that we are serious, we name names, we list countries that are either acting in compliance with minimum standards, and that is what we are talking about with The Hague Convention. And when we actually withhold non-humanitarian foreign aid as a way of trying to get their attention or using other diplomatic measures that are at our control, we are likely to see significant and profound changes.
The impact of the human trafficking legislation shows that smart sanctions work, and I think we need to be looking at that as well as it relates to these child abductions, and I thank you again for this powerful testimony.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Chairman HYDE. Our space engineers have finally solved the riddle of our electronic assets, and so I do not want their work to go for naught, so if you would play the tape.
[Video tape played.]
Mr. WALSH. I think you see the point of what that little girl said. We are all American citizens. Why were we not able to walk out of Saudi Arabia with our passports?
Page 82 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It is a nightmare. I know the update on that last family. Now, there is a mother who had to go to Malaysia to steal her children back because although she had total custody, sole custody, all her papers in order, nobody would help her, nobody would go get the kids. She went and paid her own way to Malaysia, and took a chance and stole that one daughter. The other little girl left behind has already been bartered off in an arranged marriage at 15 years old. She will probably never come back to the United States. They still don't know where that little boy is.
But I have to say I brought that video just to show you testimony from the mouth of that little girl. I cannot understand, as American citizens, why we could not walk out of that country.
Chairman HYDE. Well, one thing in addition to pressing the legislation that is before us: I am asking Mr. Chabot, and I will ask Mr. Burton, to give me a draft of a resolution condemning Austria's conduct and Saudi Arabia's, which I will then send to the Secretary of State, and say I cannot hold these people back.
Mr. WALSH. Great. That would be wonderful.
Chairman HYDE. We had better pay attention to this. It is getting out of hand.
Mr. WALSH. That would be wonderful.
Chairman HYDE. And we will generate some action.
Page 83 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Mr. WALSH. I really think, and I do not just single out the Saudis, but I think it is time to end the, you know, the double-dealings: They say one thing, they do not say another. This is not directed at all Saudis, but I watched the other day when Prince Bandar came on television and told CNN——
Mr. ALLEN. It was not Prince Bandar. It was a member of the Royal family.
Mr. WALSH. Oh, member of the—no, no, the Prince himself, Crown Prince Abdullah, talking about the Khobar Towers, when they had the 22 people killed at the Khobar Towers. I was watching with an interpreter, and I watched him on Al-Jazeera turn right around and say, we are very concerned about Americans being killed here in Saudi Arabia. We are very concerned about them being taken, and held hostages and beheaded, but I just want to tell you that it is a Zionist plot contrived by members of the Israeli parliament and Zionists from Jerusalem.
I have been there. Where does somebody come up with this? I have been to the Persian Gulf hunting terrorists and stuff. They tell CNN one thing, and then go on Al-Jazeera and say that the kidnapping and murder of Americans is a Zionist plot by Jews from Israel.
I mean, it is time to hold these people accountable for all their double-dealings with the people in our country that are ex-patriots over there, our partnership, our ability to fight al-Qaeda, and especially our children.
Page 84 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
I mean, they look at us with utter disgust. When I go over there, they say any child born of a Muslim father or a Saudi is Saudi property, it is not American property, you have no right whatsoever here. They do not respect anything we have to say and they do not respect our laws.
You are the lawmakers. Put some teeth in this bill. Put some teeth in this, and let us deal with these people the way they should be dealt with, okay?
You know, they may be our partners and we buy lots of oil from them and all those other things, and we may be together, but I am not so sure in the battle against al-Qaeda. I know that firsthand, and I have been profiling this Osama bin Laden since 1993. I know how horrible that threat is. But I have been dealing with the Saudis, trying to get fugitives out of there, trying to catch terrorists, et cetera. They say one thing on American television and say another thing on Arab television. Might want to look at that piece yourself.
But the point I am making is it is time to hold them accountable. If they really want to be our partners in this war on terrorism, if they really want to do business with us, then hit them where it hurts. Hit them in the pocketbook, and put some teeth into this legislation.
I love what you said there, absolutely. I mean, I know that there are people in the State Department right now, not just this wonderful lady who goes over there by herself and begs, et cetera. I would like to see a couple of U.S. marshals, a couple of FBI agents and some people go into that country and say, you want to deal with us, you know what, we have got the documents here, we are going to come and get these people out of here. It would be worth a try.
Page 85 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
But anyway, it is wonderful that you held this hearing here today, Chairman Hyde. You have been a loud voice for children. For 20 years, I have worked with you. I would love to see you mark this bill up, get it out. We will take care of it on the Senate side.
Chairman HYDE. Okay, that is a deal.
Mr. WALSH. That is a deal. I love that.
Chairman HYDE. The Committee stands adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4:28 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE DAN BURTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF INDIANA
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening this most important hearing on human rights today. As you may know, during my tenure as Chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, I launched an investigation into the matter of American citizens who have been kidnapped by their non-custodial foreign-national parent, often in violation of U.S. custody orders, and are being held in Saudi Arabia against their will.
Page 86 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
These American citizens, many of them women and children, have reportedly been denied their most basic civil rights, as guaranteed by the U.S. Constitution. A great majority of them have been subjected to emotional, physical, and sexual abuse. Moreover, the young girls who have been abducted will never be allowed to leave Saudi Arabia, at any age, unless they have express written permission from their closest male relative, who is often the one who kidnapped them in the first place.
There are several details regarding Sharia law—the strict fundamentalist code observed in the Kingdom—and Saudi culture that make these particular international child abduction cases noteworthy.
For instance, Sharia law gives Saudi men extraordinary power over their wives and children, whereby the men literally ''own'' them.
Another disturbing factor in these cases is the fact that Saudi Arabia is not a signatory nation to the Hague Convention Treaty on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The Hague Convention treaty puts general guidelines and procedures into place regarding how to handle international child abduction and custody disputes. While this is not a perfect system for maintaining that the rightful parent is guaranteed the physical custody of their child, it is a step in the right direction, and a positive sign that signatory countries are willing to ensure international law is upheld.
Unfortunately, in lieu of the Hague treaty, there are absolutely NO legal standards governing the return of kidnapped children from Saudi Arabia.
Page 87 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Our investigation, which began back in the 107th Congress, produced numerous hearings, several legislative proposals, and even a Congressional Delegation to Riyadh, the capitol city of Saudi Arabia, in August of 2002.
Although it has been nearly two years since that visit, I will NEVER forget the tears on the faces of American women who literally risked their lives to come and speak with me. Nor will I forget how terrified they were of the physical torture—possibly fatal—that they might face if their Saudi husbands found out that they had gone to or been in touch with the U.S. Embassy. These women live in a constant state of fear, and it is the duty of the American government to help ensure their safe return home to the United States.
International child abduction is not just an issue in Middle East countries. Thousands of American children have been taken against their will to places around the world, such as Ecuador and Honduras. Even more astounding is that abductors have not only found safe haven in 3rd World countries, but also in Hague Convention signatory nations such as Spain, France, Germany, and Austria—where witness Tom Sylvester's daughter Carina has been held since 1995. This is simply unacceptable.
Because of the attention that the issue of international child abduction has received in recent years, we have seen some marked improvements in the way that these situations are dealt with. Before, the custodial American parents were given NO hope that their sons and daughters would ever be returned to them, now we are beginning to see some light at the end of the tunnel.
Page 88 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Under the guidance of Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as the personal attention that Assistant Secretary of State for Consular Affairs Maura Harty has given to this issue, many more children are being returned home to the United States every year. In addition, the Department of State has recently promulgated guidelines on how Embassy and Consulate staff are to treat victims of international child abduction should they seek refuge at any U.S. installation.
While these are positive changes that are to be congratulated, we must also call upon Congress and the Department of State to place further diplomatic and legal pressure on these non-compliant countries, whether Hague signatories or not, in order to guarantee the safe return of these U.S. citizens who are being held against their will.
To assist in this effort, I am currently drafting legislation to include international child abduction in the annual Human Rights Report submitted to Congress by the Department of State. This would not only be a useful tool for the U.S. government to utilize while working on these most important issues, but it would also send a clear message to all non-compliant Nations that the United States is keeping its watchful eye on the treatment of American citizens who have been illegally abducted. I certainly hope that once this legislation is ready, the Members of this Committee will join me in this fight and sign on as Co-Sponsors.
I would like to thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today on the heartbreaking issue of international child abduction.
Page 89 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE MAURA HARTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE DIANE E. WATSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Question:
The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children has provided the Committee with some disturbing statistics of missing children. In my state the Center lists 292 missing children and 26 are from my area in Los Angeles. These numbers rank among the highest on the Committee. With a busy Tom Bradley International Airport, and the close proximity of the Mexican border, it is not too hard for a domestic abduction to become international. I would like to hear your thoughts as to what is the reason for such a high number of missing and exploited children in California? Also, what are you and your law enforcement counterparts working on in order to reduce that number?
Response:
We defer to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and other experts on domestic abductions concerning why the number of missing and exploited children in California appears so high, and to provide information concerning efforts underway domestically to address the problem.
The vast number of Mexican immigrants and Americans of Mexican descent in California, and the ease of travel between California and Mexico, however, are certainly factors in the number of international parental child abduction cases we handle involving Mexico. Unique in the United States, the California Attorney General's office is authorized under California state law to handle Hague applications for return and access directly, giving that office an important role in our efforts to return abducted children to the U.S. We work very closely with the Attorney General's office and its network of District Attorneys in pursuing both Hague and non-Hague cases. We participate with California officials in various outreach activities in California, and have included representatives from the Attorney General's office in various programs sponsored by the Department, such as seminars hosted by the U.S. Embassy in Mexico for local judges, attorneys, and Mexican officials. Over the past year, we have also placed increasing emphasis on prevention efforts, including the creation of a separate Prevention Unit within the Office of Children's Issues.
Page 90 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question:
Ambassador Harty, as you know, one example of international child abduction was perpetrated by the daughter of the president of Uzbekistan, Gulnora Karimova, who was married to an American citizen named Mansur Maqsudi and who absconded three years ago from their home in the United States with their two young children, both of whom are American citizens.
These children have not been allowed to see their father for three years, despite an New Jersey court order giving sole custody to Mr. Maqsudi and issuing an arrest warrant for Ms. Karimova for violating the custody dispute.
Given the fact that Uzbekistan has become a strategic partner of the United States in the war against terror and have received large amounts of foreign aid from this country, why hasn't the State Department been able to prevail upon the President of Uzbekistan to have his daughter obey the order of an American court and allow her children to see their father?
Why hasn't the State Department even been able to provide Mr. Maqsudi with photographs of his two children?
Response:
Since Mr. Maqsudi contacted the Department in 2002 for assistance, the Department of State has actively pursued parental and consular access to Mr. Maqsudi's children, in keeping with his wishes. This has involved engaging the Uzbek Government at senior levels and, more recently, seeking assistance from the Russian Government as well. Assistant Secretary for European Affairs Elizabeth Jones raised the case with Uzbek officials, including Uzbek President Karimov and the Foreign Minister. Ms. Karimova, a diplomat with the Foreign Ministry of Uzbekistan, was assigned to the Embassy of Uzbekistan in Moscow in 2003. She took the children with her to Moscow. Since then, my Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs met with the Uzbek Ambassador to Russia to request consular access to the children; the Uzbek Ambassador denied the request. We have also worked with the Russian Government to seek consular access. We will continue these efforts despite Ms. Karimova's consistent refusal to allow State Department officials to visit with the children or to allow Mr. Maqsudi direct contact with them. We have not been able to provide Mr. Maqsudi with a photograph of his children for the simple reason that we ourselves have been denied access to the children.
Page 91 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
RESPONSES FROM THE HONORABLE MAURA HARTY, ASSISTANT SECRETARY, BUREAU OF CONSULAR AFFAIRS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY THE HONORABLE HENRY J. HYDE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, AND CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Question:
The Office of Children's Issues maintains a database that is used as a workload manager, containing files on the number of active cases in which a parent is seeking custody of a child, and cases where the parent is seeking access to a child. Are you able to determine the number of open cases at any given time? Closed cases? Are the ''closed'' cases classified as to results, so that one may determine whether it was closed due to a recovery, failure to pursue the case, failure to find the parent or child, death of the parent or child, etc.? If not, don't you think that more useful information may be kept if case files maintained this information in the ''closed cases'' index? How difficult would it be to maintain this type of information?
Response:
The International Parental Child Abduction database used by the Office of Children's Issues allows us to determine the number of open and closed cases. Although the database allows us to capture information on the reasons that a case has been closed, it does not currently allow us to readily retrieve this information. We recognized this problem and are working with the systems developers to enhance the database's search capabilities. We agree that it would be very useful to retrieve such information.
Page 92 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question:
Congressional Research Service reported that as of May 12, 2004, the Office of Children's Issues had 503 active custody cases, and 98 active access cases, both with the majority of the caseloads being from non-Hague countries. How do you count your caseload? How many cases does each case manager have? Do you see an increase or decrease in the caseload for non-Hague countries? What can be done in the non-Hague countries?
Response:
In fact, the Office of Children's Issues is aware of over 1,000 active abduction cases, involving both Hague and non-Hague countries, and over 200 access cases. We count those cases where we are actively working with left-behind parents to pursue either a child's return or parental access. Staff in the Office of Children's Issues involved in abduction casework numbers 18, and each staff member currently handles an average of 72 cases. We have seen an across-the-board increase in the number of cases for both Hague and non-Hague countries. In non-Hague countries, we actively pursue children's return using a variety of tools, including civil, criminal, and diplomatic remedies. We have emphasized to other countries the importance that the U.S. places on resolving cases of international parental child abduction, and sought their cooperation in returning children to the U.S.
Question:
Page 93 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Although Mexico is a signatory of the Hague Convention, it has the largest number of active custody cases of children being abducted from the United States. What is the State Department doing to help in these cases? What more needs to be done?
Response:
The United States has no more important Hague Abduction Convention partner than Mexico. The number of cases we witness of children being taken to or from the U.S. and Mexico dwarf those we see with any other country. We are presently dealing with 134 active cases of children abducted from the United States to Mexico or wrongfully retained in Mexico after a visit, often in violation of the custodial rights of a Mexican citizen parent living in the United States.
In 2003, 21 abducted or wrongfully retained children were returned from Mexico to the United States. As an absolute number, that seems impressive; as a percentage of active abduction and wrongful retention cases, and in comparison with return rates from other countries with which we have many cases, such as Canada and the UK, the number is much less impressive.
Especially troubling is the number of cases in Mexico that have remained unresolved after more than 18 months. There are presently 22 such cases, some now over five years old; in contrast, we have no more than two such cases with any other Hague partner.
Among the underlying causes of Mexico's poor performance overall under the Hague Convention appear to be a woefully understaffed and underfunded Central Authority in the Foreign Ministry; a judiciary unfamiliar with, and not infrequently hostile to, the Convention; and law enforcement and court authorities unable to ''locate'' children even in cases in which we and the left-behind parents can provide exact addresses.
Page 94 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In general, Mexico has only partially implemented the Hague Abduction Convention into its legal, administrative and law enforcement systems. As a result, we found Mexico to be ''non-compliant'' in our last Annual Hague Compliance Report.
There is some encouraging news. Communication between the Mexican Central Authority and its U.S. counterpart, the Bureau of Consular Affairs' Office of Children's Issues, has noticeably improved over the last three months. Cases have been forwarded on to local courts in six weeks instead of eight or ten or more. Director Licenciada Rosa Isela Guerrero and her staff are dedicated and work extremely hard, despite the small size of their office and their lack of resources.
Our Embassy in Mexico City has embraced, as one of its explicit goals, a concerted effort to help promote improvement in Mexico's compliance with the Hague Abduction Convention. The Embassy has added a second staff member to its team dealing solely with international parental child abduction. In close coordination with our Central Authority, it will continue its monthly meetings with the Mexican Central Authority, monitoring and exploring solutions to problematic cases.
Likewise, our Hague Convention Central Authority, the Office of Children's Issues, has added an additional case officer devoted exclusively to Mexico cases as of July 2004.
We take every opportunity at all appropriate levels, in Washington and in Mexico City, to raise the general issue of compliance with the Hague Abduction Convention and specific abduction and wrongful retention cases with Mexican officials. Recently, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs met with Mexico's Deputy Attorney General and with the Office of the Attorney General's Coordinator of International Affairs. We specifically raised the issue of Mexico's seeming inability to locate children and the parents who have abducted them. The General Coordinator has offered himself as a direct point of contact in efforts to locate missing children, and our Central Authority has provided a summary of these cases. In addition, the Justice Ministry has referred all Hague cases now more than 18 months old to the Mexican Federal Investigative Agency, Mexico's equivalent of our FBI.
Page 95 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Aiming at longer-term, more structural solutions to our challenges with Mexico, the judicial training conference on the Hague Convention that our Embassy organized for family court judges from the Federal District of Mexico and the State of Mexico in July 2003 was followed up by a similar but longer conference in Guadalajara last month. This was organized by our Consulate in Guadalajara and co-hosted by the Jalisco Supreme Court, to target training for judges and officials working with children's issues in the state of Jalisco and surrounding states.
Question:
Although Germany is a signatory of the Hague Convention, it has traditionally had one of the largest numbers of active access cases of children being from the United States to Germany. What is the State Department doing to help in these cases? What more needs to be done?
Response:
Our Central Authority often serves as a conduit between parents in America and our German counterparts, helping with communication and attempting to clarify contentious issues. We specifically address access cases in our Bilateral Working Group with German officials from the Justice and Foreign Ministries. Our goal is to help ensure clear communication and explore potential solutions. Our consular officers in Germany meet with local agencies, such as the German Youth Authority, and with local, regional, and federal officials who may be able to assist in resolving access cases. Our consular officers are also available to meet with our U.S. parents when they come to Germany. Mediation is a tool that is increasingly being used with the support of our Central Authority and the German Central Authority. These cases are never easy, but we never stop trying to facilitate access for American parents.
Page 96 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
We have found that the best way to avoid having long-term access cases is effective compliance with the Hague Abduction Convention. Children who are returned under the Convention do not become access cases. Germany is a leader in recognizing this fact and that is part of their motivation in working with us on compliance issues.
Question:
As you know from Tom Sylvester's case, he has done everything possible under the terms of the Hague Convention to get his daughter back from Austria. He has won every legal challenge, including being awarded damages from the government of Austria. Austria continues to enforce (sic) any of these orders. Since we don't seem to gain any traction through the normal Hague Convention negotiations, what do you think about pursuing other means of pressure? How can we compel foreign states to enforce their own laws? Suspend aid packages?
Response:
It is regrettably incorrect to say that Mr. Sylvester ''has won every legal challenge'' in seeking the return of his daughter. Following his success at every level of the Austrian court system in securing an order for the return of his daughter under the Hague Abduction Convention and Austria's woefully inadequate efforts to enforce that order, the case was litigated once again in Austria. Mr. Sylvester ultimately lost the second set of proceedings, and his ex-wife was granted custody of their daughter. This result has seriously compromised his and our efforts to reunite him with his daughter. We will continue to work with Mr. Sylvester to pursue all possible options. The Department has conducted numerous high-level meetings with the Austrian government with still no satisfactory answers or resolution concerning Mr. Sylvester's efforts to obtain meaningful access to his daughter. We are constantly considering measures that might prompt the Austrian Government—and his ex-wife—to take positive steps in his case. We will continue to make clear to the Austrian Government that Austria's record in meeting its obligations under the Hague Abduction Convention, and in resolving this case, will remain a critical issue in U.S.-Austria bilateral relations.
Page 97 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In response to the question of whether the U.S. should withhold aid to countries that fail to enforce their own laws in the Hague Abduction Convention, Austria is not a recipient of U.S. aid.
Question:
Some have argued that the State Department should include information on each country's child custody and visitation system in the children's rights section of the annual human rights reports. What do you think about this idea?
Response:
Each year, the Department considers whether to address new issues in the Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, and we welcome specific comments and suggestions for improving the Country Reports and promoting human rights.
In early Country Reports, The Department used some of the key provisions of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as the basis for fulfilling the legislative mandate to cover internationally recognized human rights. Since the first Country Reports was published in 1977, contents of the report have been broadened by specific additional legislative mandates and by Department decisions to expand coverage to certain areas not necessarily linked directly to the Universal Declaration. At the same time, we have had a mandate to shorten the report and make it less duplicative of other reports to Congress.
Page 98 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The issues of child custody and international parental child abduction have been covered in previous Country Reports, to the extent that particular laws have involved restrictions on freedom of movement or other rights covered in the Universal Declaration. For several reasons, however, we have not made child custody issues or parental child abduction a separate topic in each Country Report. First and foremost, federal law requires that the Bureau of Consular Affairs provide an annual report on compliance with Hague Convention. Given the suffering occasioned by parental abductions, however, we will continue to look for other opportunities to highlight the issue, including, when warranted, in specific annual Country Reports.
Question:
Who sits on the U.S. government's interagency working group on international child abductions? How often does it meet? What is its mission?
Response:
The interagency working group on international child abductions meets 6–8 times throughout the year. Representatives from the Office of Children's Issues, the Office of the Legal Adviser, and the Office of Diplomatic Security in the Department of State participate in the working group, along with representatives from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children and several branches of the Department of Justice, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Crimes Against Children Unit, the Criminal Division's Child Exploitation and Obscenities Section, the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and U.S. INTERPOL. The group shares information about agency activities related to parental child abduction and identifies ways to work together to improve coordination of U.S. efforts to prevent international parental child abduction, get children returned to their habitual residence, and successfully prosecute kidnapping cases.
Page 99 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question:
The United States government certainly gives a lot of foreign aid to Colombia, yet it is listed as one of the ''Noncompliant'' countries with its obligations under the Convention. Because of the seriousness of this issue, I'd like to take a moment to single out some of the other countries that fall into this category: Austria, Ecuador, Honduras, Mauritius, Mexico and Turkey. Does the United States, or any other Convention country, have any tool at hand that can force these countries to become compliant? Do we consider suspending any aid packages to these countries until they become compliant?
Response:
The issue of whether to adjust economic aid as a way of inducing countries to comply with the Hague Abduction Convention is complex. In some countries, a fundamental problem with the Central Authority is its lack of adequate resources, so that withholding assistance would likely not promote better compliance with the Convention.
In addition to humanitarian goals, foreign aid serves a whole range of U.S. national security, economic and other interests. The question of whether to increase or reduce foreign aid has to be considered within the full context of all of those interests. A judgment must also be made, on a case-by-case basis, as to whether adjusting foreign aid would be likely to influence the outcome of international child abduction cases generally or individual cases in particular. We are not aware of other countries that use foreign aid as a tool in seeking improved compliance with the Hague Abduction Convention.
Page 100 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question:
Aside from country ''flyers'', what does the State Department do to educate U.S. courts and the public on the consequences of foreign custody jurisdiction over American children? Are there ''flyers'' for countries that have demonstrated patterns of noncompliance with the Convention? Or even those not belonging to the Convention?
Response:
We currently have posted flyers for 53 countries on our Internet website, providing information on both Hague and non-Hague countries. A number of other flyers are in production, and we intend to expand the list with assistance from our overseas Embassies and consulates. Our annual Hague Compliance Report to Congress is posted on our Internet website as a resource for judges, attorneys, and the public, including for left-behind parents or parents involved in custody cases in a U.S. court.
Question:
How many incoming Hague cases are there each year? Outgoing?
Response:
As of June 2004, the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, with which the State Department has a Cooperative Agreement to assist with the processing of Hague cases involving children abducted into or wrongfully retained in the United States, was aware of outstanding cases involving 414 children whose return from the United States was sought by foreign parents living in Hague partner countries and another 112 children in the U.S. whose parents sought access to them through the Hague process.
Page 101 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Office of Children's Issues is currently aware of 364 children abducted from the U.S. to Hague countries whose left-behind parents have filed for the children's return under the Hague Abduction Convention.
Question:
Some parents feel that the U.S. policy that allows the Justice and State Departments to file amicus briefs and otherwise assist foreign parents at U.S. taxpayer expense in Hague-related litigation in U.S. courts is particularly offensive, when no U.S. government agency intervenes on their behalf overseas. Is there anything that can be done to alleviate the seeming disparity of fairness? Also, with regard to paid legal assistance overseas?
Response:
It is simply not accurate to suggest that we intervene in U.S. Hague cases to assist foreign parents while declining to do so for American parents involved in cases seeking the return of children overseas. The State Department, both in its capacity as the Central Authority for the Hague Abduction Convention and otherwise, remains strictly neutral on the merits of all Hague Convention petitions.
On very rare occasions, a court or a party will request the views of the United States Government concerning a legal or policy question at issue in a case. On even rarer occasions, and only if the subject matter of the court's or party's request is something on which the Department of State has unique expertise, the Solicitor General of the United States will decide to grant the request and will ask us to assist with the preparation of an amicus brief that the Solicitor General will submit to the court on behalf of the United States Government.
Page 102 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
With respect to funding for litigation and related costs, when the U.S. signed the Hague Abduction Convention in 1980 and when the Congress ratified it, the United States took a reservation from the treaty's provisions concerning financial assistance to parents in Hague cases. Congress and the President made it clear that the United States would not be obligated to make such assistance available. At present, no law permits the Department to help parents financially with legal expenses in abduction cases and the Department has no funds available to it for that purpose. In contrast, some other countries decided to make significant funding available for parents pursuing or defending against Hague cases. We note with great interest that one provision within the proposed HR 4347 would provide funding that so far has not been available to American parents; such funding would no doubt help to offset the disadvantage some American parents have perceived when the other parent in a Hague proceeding receives financial assistance from his or her government.
Question:
The 2000 GAO report found that while roughly 90% of children abducted to the United States are returned to their host countries, approximately 24% of children are returned to the United States. Why the disparity? What should be done about it?
Response:
It is important to note that the two statistics you have cited are not taken from comparable data. The 90% figure cited in the GAO Report and elsewhere refers to returns of children under the Hague Convention in cases that are brought to court in the U.S. We believe that the high 90% percent rate of court-ordered return of children from the United States to other countries reported by the GAO reflects a sound understanding, on the part of U.S. judges hearing Hague cases, of the Hague Abduction Convention as implemented in the U.S. by the International Child Abduction Remedies Act. The Department of State has played an active role in educating U.S. judges about the Convention and these high percentages of court-ordered returns in Convention cases indicate that those efforts have been successful. The percentage does not, however, reflect those additional Hague cases in which the child has not yet been located, cases involving children abducted to the U.S. from non-Hague countries, or cases in which a child's return was pursued using mechanisms other than the Hague Abduction Convention. In contrast, the 24% return rate cited in the 2000 GAO report reflected both cases involving children abducted or wrongfully retained in both Hague and non-Hague countries. Regardless of what the current return rate is in cases involving various circumstances and countries, we believe we can always do more to promote the return of abducted and wrongfully retained children to their habitual residences in the U.S.
Page 103 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question:
Pursuant to the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended, how many individuals have been excluded from entering the United States who are in violation of a custody order of the U.S.? How many individuals would have been subject to exclusion, if they were not holding a child in a country that has ratified the Hague Convention?
Response:
Our records indicate that 53 persons have been found ineligible for visas under Section 212(a)(10)(C) of the Immigration and Nationality Act since that provision was enacted into law. It is important to note that a finding of ineligibility cannot be made unless and until the individual applies for a visa. This provision of the INA also only applies to visa applicants who have abducted a U.S. citizen child to a non-Hague country in violation of a U.S. custody order. It therefore does not apply in a large number of the abduction cases we are trying to resolve.
It is not possible to ascertain how many additional applicants might have been inadmissible had they taken their child to a country party to the Convention instead of to a non-Hague party country. The inadmissibility provision in the INA's Section 212(a)(10)(C) applies only in cases of U.S. children abducted to or wrongfully retained in non-Hague Abduction Convention Countries in violation of a U.S. custody order; the Convention does not require that a left-behind parent have a custody order in order to apply for relief under the Convention.
Page 104 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question:
Since 2000 Germany has had significant improvement in its application of the Convention. There have been specific systemic changes as well as a bi-national group that meets semi-annually that have contributed to these changes. Is it possible to use Germany as a model for dealing with those countries listed on the ''Noncompliant,'' ''Not Fully Compliant,'' and ''Countries of Concern'' lists?
Response:
We have established formal and informal bilateral working groups similar to those we have had with Germany since 2000. Critical to the success of these working groups is a senior level policy commitment to resolving areas of conflict. We draw upon and encourage this political will in high-level meetings when visiting countries of concern or hosting visitors in Washington. Our embassies and the Office of Children's Issues follow up at the policy and the working level in formal and informal meetings. We raise cases, we propose solutions, and we encourage our partners to find creative solutions. Germany made significant improvements by adapting its court system, by improving judicial training, and by expanding outreach to local law enforcement and youth authorities. We encourage others to take this same proactive approach.
Unfortunately, not all non-complaint countries have the political will to engage with us in a serious effort to resolve their compliance problems. Even with those countries, the Department works actively to promote improvements in Hague Convention compliance.
As countries improve we note their efforts in the compliance report and, when improvements lead to overall systemic improvements in Convention implementation, we no longer name them in the compliance problem section of the report. That does not mean that our job is finished. It just means we have made significant progress and continued vigilance and follow-up is required.
Page 105 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question:
In your 2004 Hague Compliance Report, of the 41 applications for return that have remained open and active for eighteen months after the filing date, 22 of them were cases involving the taking parent being living in Mexico. Of those 22 cases 16 of them involve children that have not been located. What actions is the Mexican Central Authority taking to locate these children and the taking parent?
Response:
We take every opportunity at all appropriate levels, in Washington and in Mexico City, to raise the general issue of compliance with the Hague Abduction Convention and specific abduction and wrongful retention cases with Mexican officials. Recently, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs met with Mexico's Deputy Attorney General and with the Office of the Attorney General's Coordinator of International Affairs. We specifically raised the issue of Mexico's seeming inability to locate children and the parents who have abducted them. The General Coordinator has offered himself as a direct point of contact in efforts to locate missing children, and our Central Authority has provided a summary of these cases. In addition, the Mexican Justice Ministry has referred all Hague cases now more than 18 months old to the Mexican Federal Investigative Agency, Mexico's equivalent of our FBI.
Question:
Your office estimates that there are 1,100 active cases on any given day. Due to legal costs ranging in the thousands, how many more cases do you think have occurred but the left behind parent has not taken action because they could not afford to do so?
Page 106 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Response:
It is not possible to estimate how many abduction or wrongful retention cases are not brought to our attention, whether because legal costs deter a parent from using the Hague Abduction Convention mechanism to seek a child's return or because other facts lead to a parent's decision not to request the Department's assistance. Whenever we become aware of an international parental child abduction or wrongful retention case, we strive to assist parents regardless of their financial situation.
Question:
What actions have been taken by the State Department to maintain better records, work with other agencies on cases, and insure that the applicant is contacted on a regular basis about the status of their application?
Response:
The State Department has worked with software developers to improve the operation and reporting abilities of the database that the Office of Children's Issues uses to track international child abduction and access cases. We plan to share information from the database directly with our consular offices abroad and agencies participating in the interagency working group, but even now we have strong working relationships that encourage case officers from the Office of Children's Issues to share case information with interagency group members and our consular officers overseas. For example, State Department caseworkers are in regular contact with FBI field offices that work individual cases. They also regularly contact U.S. INTERPOL to confirm whether international alerts have been issued in child abduction cases.
Page 107 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Office of Children's Issues promotes outreach both within the State Department and with other agencies and organizations to improve understanding of the issue of international parental child abduction and the State Department's role. The Office of Children's Issues trains Diplomatic Security officers, consular officers and locally employed staff of our embassies and consulates abroad, in sessions held in Washington and overseas. The Office of Children's Issues also trains FBI officers from the field, employees from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, and foreign law enforcement officials through a variety of workshops and conferences.
As a standard part and important part of their case-work responsibilities, officers from the Office of Children's Issues contact left-behind parents or their legal representatives regularly by telephone or in writing to report new developments.
Question:
In 2000, both the House and the Senate passed a Resolution urging several countries (Sweden, Austria, Germany, Honduras, Mexico) to comply with the Hague Convention. How have these countries done with respect to fully implementing the Convention tenets since that time? The Resolution also called for the Secretary of State to disseminate to all Federal and State courts the Department of State's annual report on Hague compliance and related matters. Has this been done?
Response:
Page 108 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
In the cases of Sweden and Germany, we believe significant progress has been made in addressing our concerns and complying with the Convention. However, in both countries, access issues, especially in long-term cases, remains a concern.
In view of Germany's significant improvement since 2000 in its application of the Convention in the context of return applications, the State Department has recognized and detailed Germany's improved efforts in our Compliance Reports to Congress. Problems in Germany with enforcement of access orders do, however, persist, as noted in our April 2004 report.
Specific systemic changes that have produced positive results in Germany's processing and adjudication of return cases include consolidating the number of courts that hear Convention cases, streamlining the processing of applications, and educating judges about their role in applying the Convention. Moreover, the German Central Authority has been prompt in responding to requests from the U.S. Central Authority, efficient in moving Convention applications forward for resolution, and available to discuss proposed solutions for difficult or problematic cases. The U.S.-Germany bi-national working group continues to meet semi-annually to discuss specific long-standing cases, new cases and/or other issues as they relate to the Convention. Increasingly since 2000, and including in the past year, German courts have consistently rendered legally sound decisions that are in accord with the Convention and have ordered the return of children wrongfully removed from the U.S. or retained in Germany. Bailiffs and police now more effectively intervene to enforce return orders when necessary in comparison with prior reporting periods. The latter development reflects a greater awareness among German authorities of the means at their disposal for enforcing orders and a greater sensitivity to the need to exercise the available legal authority to ensure that court-ordered returns in fact take place.
Page 109 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Sweden's progress in addressing return cases has also been addressed in our Compliance Reports to Congress in the past few years. In our view, Sweden has been responsive to the concerns raised in 1999 and 2000 regarding such issues as locating abducted children, enforcing return orders and issuing judicial decisions that are consistent with the law of the Convention. Although access concerns persist in Sweden, too, we continue to monitor closely Sweden's performance in each new case and will continue to seek resolution of long-standing cases of concern.
Austria, Honduras, and Mexico remain countries where significant compliance problems remain unresolved. As stated in our April report to Congress, we consider Austria, Honduras and Mexico to be noncompliant with the Convention.
The Department's concerns about Austrian compliance and willingness to address chronic problems persist. Bilateral interaction at the highest levels has increased in recent years and numerous Austrian officials have proved willing to meet to discuss problems, but we are troubled that these meetings have not yet resulted in any tangible progress in resolving the case. Legislative changes in Austria that will consolidate adjudications of return applications under the Hague Convention in fewer courts and provide those courts' with special training are not scheduled to go into effect before 2005, so it may be several years before we can begin to determine the effects of the legislation on judicial processing of return applications.
Until earlier this year, Honduras refused to process Hague applications for the return of children to the United States, maintaining that the Convention had not been ratified by the national legislature and was therefore not in effect between the U.S. and Honduras. The Honduran legislature ratified the Convention in January 2004 and we hope to see positive movement on pending applications.
Page 110 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As mentioned in answer to a previous question, serious compliance problems persist in Mexico, despite our efforts to work closely with the Mexican Central Authority and other officials involved in children's issues in Mexico. The underlying causes appear to be a woefully understaffed and underfunded Central Authority in the Foreign Ministry; a judiciary unfamiliar with, or unwilling to apply, the Convention; and law enforcement and court authorities unable to ''locate'' children even in cases in which we and the left-behind parents can provide exact addresses.
Regarding the dissemination of our Compliance Report to Congress, in addition to posting the document on our website, the Department reached out to all state governors in 2003 to request their assistance in identifying coordinators for each state who can help disseminate information about international parental child abduction, including our Compliance Report.
Question:
Parents have consistently claimed that they have been left in the dark about their missing children's cases. What is the State Department doing now to let parents see their children's case files, if requested?
Response:
Our case workers strive to keep parents informed about significant developments in their cases but we are restricted by law from releasing complete case files or government-to-government communications directly to parents. Parents can use the Privacy Act to obtain information from their children's files and we work hard to move those requests quickly. The Privacy Act permits, but does not require, release of information about minors to either parent regardless of which one has custody. In fact, it has been our administrative practice to accommodate all such requests for information except when there is documented evidence of physical abuse by the requesting parent. In addition, we exercise caution in not releasing information about the other parent, although this requires considerable care since the minor often resides with the non-requesting parent.
Page 111 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
There are specific instances when we are able to expedite formal release of documents. That said, we are always willing to work with requesting parents to informally release documents when the ''expedite'' requirements cannot be met but the requesting parent is agreeable to an informal release.
Question:
The State Department publicizes the number of cases in which children are ''resolved''. How does State differentiate the number of those cases in which the child is actually returned home versus the ones closed when a foreign government denies a return request? Or the ones not pursued due to inability to fund the case?
Response:
We do not consider a case to be ''resolved'' unless the left-behind parent is satisfied with the outcome. We close cases once the child is returned, as issues of custody and the child's welfare then become the responsibility of the competent court and social welfare authorities. On the other hand, if a child remains abroad because a return application is denied or a left-behind parent does not pursue the child's return to the U.S. under the Convention, the Office of Children's Issues and our consular officers abroad provide the left-behind parent additional assistance. This may include seeking the child's return through other means, as well as monitoring the child's welfare, identifying mediation resources, or otherwise assisting the parent to maintain contact with the child. In such instances, although the Hague return application file is closed because no further proceedings pursuant to the Convention are anticipated, the State Department opens a non-Hague case file and works with the left-behind parent to provide the parent information on his or her remaining options and how the State Department can assist them.
Page 112 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Question:
Should the U.S. Departments of State and Justice have offices to proactively engage countries on these types of cases, so that they can globally resolve these issues? The U.S. has procedures for resolving international tax disputes and other intergovernmental conflicts. Why not have offices that proactively work on cases involving international child abduction in the same fashion?
Response:
The Department of State, often in cooperation with the Department of Justice, does work proactively on the problem of international parental child abduction, both in the context of the overall issue and individual cases. The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction provides a mechanism for resolving abductions by requiring the return of a child to his or her country of habitual residence. Where the Hague Abduction Convention is not an option, or where it does not function as it should, we also pursue other means for seeking the return of an abducted child. Our ''tools'' include civil, criminal and diplomatic remedies, depending on the facts of the case, the country involved and, above all, the wishes of the left-behind parent.
Some of the greatest challenges we face concern children abducted to, or wrongfully retained in, countries that are not party to the Hague Abduction Convention and that have legal systems or cultural norms incompatible with the Convention. This is particularly true in various Middle Eastern countries where children and foreign national parents find their entry and departure strictly controlled, and easily blocked, by an abductor parent. Parents who have been granted custody rights by U.S. courts often find those custody rights ignored, unenforceable, and contradicted by local custody law.
Page 113 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Over the past two years, I have led Department of State discussions with leaders in non-Hague countries including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Pakistan, India, the Philippines, the UAE, and Morocco to explore developing closer bilateral cooperation to assist parents in abduction and access cases. In meeting with my counterparts throughout the world, and particularly in the Middle East, I have encouraged the mutual recognition of the importance of facilitating parents' access to their children and to information about their children's welfare. Central to these discussions is the premise that, except in highly unusual and limited cases, children deserve and need to have contact with both parents.
Some of our discussions have resulted in joint statements that express our mutual concerns and shared principles concerning contact between parents and children. In October 2003, the governments of the United States and Egypt signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on Consular Cooperation in Cases Concerning Parental Access to Children. In April 2004, the U.S. and Lebanese governments signed a similar MOU. Both MOUs anticipate future consultations concerning how consular officials can cooperate to assist parents to obtain meaningful access to their children.
These memoranda confirm our shared belief that, while voluntary resolution of custody and access arrangements between parents should be encouraged, there are situations in which our respective governments can cooperate to overcome barriers to contacts between parents and their children. They also stress the shared principle that access by parents to their children is not a substitute for the return of abducted or wrongfully retained children. Any future arrangements on consular cooperation to promote such access would not operate to justify a failure to return children, or to prevent parents from attempting to establish or enforce rights of custody and access through the legal systems of either country.
Page 114 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The Department will continue to push, both bilaterally and multilaterally, for improved international cooperation to assist abducted children and their left-behind parents.
RESPONSES FROM DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD TO THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. BRYANT BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
94505cc.eps
94505cd.eps
94505ce.eps
94505cf.eps
94505cg.eps
94505ch.eps
94505ci.eps
Page 115 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
RESPONSE FROM TOM SYLVESTER TO QUESTION SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
In response to your questions following my testimony of June 22, 2004, I provide the following answers concerning the execution of the judgment in favor of both my daughter and myself in the European Court of Human Rights entered in the case of Sylvester v Austria.
Once the court's judgment became final in July 2003, oversight of its execution was transferred to a Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is the responsibility of the Committee of Ministers to ensure that the Republic of Austria, the violating party, comes into compliance with the judgment both as to the payment of the money damages awarded and as to Article 8 (the right to a family life free from state interference) of the European Human Rights Convention.
As a result, in addition to ensuring that the money damages have been paid, the Committee of Ministers investigates and oversees two important areas of Austria's compliance with the judgment: (1) individual measures—whether the violation of Article 8 has now ceased and whether my daughter and I are, as far as possible, in the same position as we were prior to Austria's violation and (2) general measures—what steps will be taken by Austria to ensure that Article 8 will not be violated again under the same circumstances so as to take all reasonable measures to timely enforce a return order entered under the Hague Convention.
Individual Measures
Page 116 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
As pertaining to individual measures, it is my position to the Committee of Ministers that the violation of Carina's and my human rights has not ceased and that we are without question not in the same position as prior to Austria's violation of Article 8. In contrast, the Austrian government asserts that they are not in continuing violation of Article 8 in that I have an ''agreement'' with my ex-wife concerning my access to Carina because I have no petition for access now pending and therefore I have chosen the current arrangement of limited supervised contact with her. This is untrue. The current situation is not consensual. It is the result of duress. I do not now nor will I ever ''agree'' to the contrived and unnatural conditions for contact with my daughter imposed upon me by my ex-wife. At present, I am permitted by her to see my daughter only if I am under her continuous supervision in Austria, only for times and dates chosen by her, never on a holiday nor on Carina's birthday and never, ever alone. These periods of access to my daughter occur customarily three to four times a year for a two and a half day weekend. I have purchased this time with my daughter with payments of $1,000 per month to Carina's mother. This system arose when she originally extorted the funds from me upon her realization that she benefited from the abysmal and now predictable failure of the Austrian legal system to provide me any order for access to my daughter.
Indeed, the characterization of the current situation as an agreement, in and of itself, should shock the conscience. The bizarre circumstances that have created this non-consensual situation were created by the irresponsible and reprehensible legal procedures established for the operation of the Austrian courts. Just as the rules of procedure allowed for the delays which resulted in Austria's failure to timely enforce the order for Carina's return to the United States, so that same system of procedures has systematically disallowed me relief to obtain even a timely order for contact with my daughter.
Page 117 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The origins of this situation are as follows. In early 1996, I obtained a favorable ruling from the Austrian Supreme Court which had finalized the December 1995 order under the Hague Convention that my daughter was to be immediately returned to the United States. In early April 1996, the court of the first instance permitted an initial and unsuccessful surprise enforcement of the return order. When that effort failed, I learned that I must apply again to the court for a second attempt for enforcement. When the abductor countered with four frivolous unrelated motions, the appeals taken on the decisions on those motions resulted in a stay of all other proceedings, including my request for a second enforcement. With the passage of time, no voluntary compliance by the abductor and no sanctions for her failure to comply, the same court accepted her request that the return order not be enforced. The reasoning of the court was that due to the passage of time, my daughter was now well-settled in that environment and further she did not know me because she had not had contact with me for years!
Following my appeals of these decisions, I was forced to petition this same court for access to my daughter in the year ahead. Thus, although I had a valid and final order of the Austrian court that my daughter be immediately returned to the United States, I had been precluded by Austrian legal procedure from petitioning for enforcement of that order and, because of the delay resulting from this procedural limitation coupled with the mother's non-compliance, I was now forced to petition the same court for time with my daughter. Not only was this state of affairs grotesquely unfair and illogical but it also was inhumane to both my daughter and myself. Indeed it turns the rule of law on its head. It is this Kafkaesque situation which forms the underpinnings for the favorable decision by the European Court of Human Rights in Sylvester v Austria and the backdrop for my position on the issue of individual measures which must now be taken by the Republic of Austria to fulfill its obligations under Sylvester v Austria.
Page 118 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
The result of my first petition for access to my daughter filed under Article 21 of the Hague Convention was an order for just six hours of access for all of 1997, taken in Austria in June and December, one hour at a time, supervised by a group including the mother, the judge, the grandparents and a psychologist. I was then billed and ordered by the court to pay $2,500 for this supervision. For just that small bit of supervised time in a group setting for which I was to pay, I had worked through the Austrian courts one and one-half years. This was my first sight of my daughter since her adjudicated abduction almost two years earlier. This was thus the end-product of the two and one-half years of litigation wherein I had received every conceivable judgment in my favor on two continents necessary for the return of my child and the guarantee of fair proceedings as to her final custody: a valid and final order from the Austrian courts that Carina be returned; a custody order from the Michigan courts and a safe harbor order of the Michigan court guaranteeing safeguards upon Carina's return to Michigan.
In early 1998, I was thus forced to submit yet another access request to the Austrian court under Article 21 of the Hague Convention. As can be seen from the chronology attached, under the Austrian legal procedure, no access was ordered for 1998. This was repeated in 1999. After nearly two years of petitions, only three days were ordered by the court, always in Austria and always supervised by the mother.
In nearly every instance, my application to the Austrian court for specific dates for access to my daughter was presented, considered, referred to the so-called ''expert,'' decided and appealed by the abductor, making the entire year's request moot by the time of its final resolution. Throughout this time, the mother would deny me any contact with my daughter as a punishment for seeking to exercise my rights through her courts.
Page 119 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Understanding the ludicrous and futile nature of continuing to work through the Austrian courts, I stopped. Instead, I managed to buy my way into a cursory life with my daughter. By paying the mother $1,000 per month I was able to obtain ''pay per view.'' I pay the mother money and buy her and Carina lots of things, and she makes Carina available to see me three or four times per year according to her schedule, under her supervision, always in Austria, never on a holiday and never alone. Although I am not subject to a child support order because of my award of custody of Carina by the Michigan courts, I have nonetheless paid her mother $60,000 for a total of 60 days supervised time with my daughter.
Thus, after having my right to family life annihilated by the Austrian legal system's failure to enforce the return order, I have been put in a position either to futilely pursue an attempt at a legal remedy in their courts or purchase scant moments with my daughter. Since I am completely without remedy in the Austrian courts, I have no choice but to pay for brief moments with my daughter. To characterize this situation as and an ''agreement'' because I do not now have a petition for access pending before the Austrian courts, is not only illogical but also violative of my and my daughter's human rights to share a life together. In this situation, as before, Austria is and has been interfering with our human right to live as father and daughter.
Moreover, if my situation vis-a-vis Carina's mother were consensual, the United States Department of State would not have been involved in discussions with the heads of state of Austria since 1997 nor would they had found Austria non-compliant under the Hague Convention in each of the five Compliance Reports prepared. A chronology of the State Department's diplomatic involvement in attempting to improve my access to Carina is attached. Most recently, the State Department even communicated in writing its close interest in the proper and full execution of the Sylvester v Austria judgment to the Council of Europe.
Page 120 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Hence, prior to Austria's violation of Article 8, I had a custody order for my daughter from, and free access to, the Michigan courts, an order from the Austrian courts for her immediate return to the United States and a legal expectation and understanding that my normal life with her would resume upon the execution of the return order and Carina's return here.
As a direct result of Austria's failure to enforce the return order, I was denied her return here to the United States, her learning of English, her understanding her American heritage and culture and her knowledge of and love of her American extended family. Instead, Carina remained sequestered in Austria, shielded by the Austrian legal system from even knowing me. I have been forced to participate in the bizarrely circuitous and ineffectual Austrian legal process concerning my requests for access to my daughter and have been denied both a remedy from the courts and time with my daughter in the process. The Austrian government cannot therefore be permitted to advance my refusal to do a useless and impossible thing such as further petitioning their courts as an excuse not to provide individual measures as required under Sylvester v Austria.
I can and must be placed in the same position as I had prior to Austria's violation. To do so I must recover my life with my daughter and she her life with me. The existing Austrian legal system has shown that it can never provide any relief in this regard. Therefore, other specific individual measures must be taken by Austria to remedy the fact that I cannot obtain an order for contact with my daughter in the Austrian court. This must happen promptly because although Carina was 13 months at the time of her abduction from the United States, she is now 10 years old. Specific, extraordinary, individualized measures must be taken by Austria so as to cease the continuing violation of our human rights.
Page 121 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
General Measures
As to general measures I submit the following. Austria must now demonstrate to the Committee of Ministers that ''measures have been adopted, preventing new violations similar to that or those found or putting an end to continuing violations.'' Consequently, Austria must prove that is has implemented a method by which litigants will enjoy all reasonable measures that can be taken to promptly enforce return orders entered under the Hague Convention. The Austrian delegation has responded to this requirement by indicating that it intends to reduce the number of courts competent to hear Hague Convention cases and further that it now accepts the legal concept of joint custody. These purported remedies are not responsive to the wrong found. There is no relationship between the number of courts competent to determine whether or not there is a violation under the Hague Convention and the enforceability or executability of any order ultimately entered by that court. For example, in my case, Judge Katter was extremely well-informed of the Hague Convention and the obligations of the Austrian government under this multi-national treaty. The education and competency of the court in no way affected the failure to enforce my particular judgment. Nonetheless, the order was not timely enforced.
Similarly, statistics show that the number of courts competent to decide Hague cases bear no relationship to the ultimate enforcement of the orders entered. In the United States, for example, there are over 30,800 courts competent to hear Hague Convention cases! Nonetheless, the judgments entered under the Hague Convention in the United States, however, are enforceable in all instances by the contempt powers of the court, so that a court can in fact compel a reticent party to come into compliance with an order for the return of a child under the Hague Convention. Sanctions, including imprisonment, can flow from the failure to comply with the court's order under its contempt of court powers.
Page 122 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
Hence, Austria is incorrect in submitting that reducing the number of competent courts addresses the systemic problem for which the violation was found in my case. In fact, reducing the number of courts would have no effect on enforcement whatsoever. It is ultimately necessary that Austria legislate powers to their courts in order to allow them to exercise contempt of court in Hague Convention cases. Current Austrian legislation under their Code of Non-Contentious Procedure provides for some types of surprise attempts at enforcement of child-related orders generally. This was, in fact, the Code utilized in my case. Even with the so-called surprise enforcement, conducted at 7:00 a.m. with the Judge, police, social worker and others present, my return order was not promptly enforced, indeed it was never enforced. Instead, the Austrian legal system provided that if a second attempt at enforcement were to be had, a separate application was required to be filed with the Court of the first instance. Since the abductor had filed a panoply of frivolous motions, all under appeal, my request for a second enforcement was not able to be heard on the grounds that ''the file was with the Court of Appeal,'' thereby staying all final court proceedings. In the time it took to hear the appeals of the frivolous motions, the trial court had determined that the order would not be executed at all under the same Code of Non-Contentious Procedures due to the passage of time.
Therefore, the existing Code of Non-Contentious Procedures alone is insufficient to ensure that new violations under Article 8 such as mine will not happen again. Indeed, under the same circumstances, the same result would occur today. Further, reduction of the number of courts competent to hear Hague Convention cases does not remedy this situation in any way whatsoever. There must in fact be separate enforcement procedural rules implemented by Austrian legislation specifically concerning the prompt enforcement of Hague Convention return orders separate and apart from the ineffectual Code of Non-Contentious Procedures. That is the type of general measure required under Sylvester v. Austria in order to rectify the violation of Article 8 adjudicated.
Page 123 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
It further goes almost without saying that enabling its courts to adjudicate a joint custody order has no relationship whatsoever with whether or not a return order entered under Austria's obligations under the Hague Convention is timely enforced by its courts.
The Committee of Ministers has now asked for further information to be supplied by Austria concerning the means available within its legal system for creating conditions necessary for executing return orders entered under the Hague Convention. Specific information is requested concerning the means available to ensure effective interim access rights while enforcement proceedings are pending, including the means available to ensure that authorities locate children which are hidden by their parents with a view to avoiding compliance with such decisions. The Committee will next address this case at the end of November 2004.
Austria has complied with the payment of the money damages awarded by the European Court of Human Rights.
I greatly appreciate the Committee's interest in this matter and ask that you contact me at any time if you have any further questions.
Very truly yours,
Page 124 PREV PAGE TOP OF DOC
LETTER SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD BY DAVID L. LEVY, J.D., PRESIDENT OF THE CHILDREN'S RIGHTS COUNCIL
94505cj.eps
94505ck.eps