    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                    REVIEWING INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                     SUBCOMMITTEE ON AFRICA, GLOBAL HEALTH,
                            GLOBAL HUMAN RIGHTS, AND
                          INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS

                                     OF THE

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               DECEMBER 10, 2018

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-173

                                   __________

            Printed for the use of the Committee on Foreign Affairs

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Available: http://www.foreignaffairs.house.gov/, http://docs.house.gov,

                        or http://http://www.govinfo.gov

                                  _________

                      U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    33-668 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2018

                          COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS

                     EDWARD R. ROYCE, California, Chairman
    CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey     ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
    ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida         BRAD SHERMAN, California
    DANA ROHRABACHER, California         GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    JOE WILSON, South Carolina           GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
    MICHAEL T. McCAUL, Texas             THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    TED POE, Texas                       KAREN BASS, California
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          WILLIAM R. KEATING, Massachusetts
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    MO BROOKS, Alabama                   AMI BERA, California
    PAUL COOK, California                LOIS FRANKEL, Florida
    SCOTT PERRY, Pennsylvania   TULSI GABBARD, Hawaii
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida [until 9/10/   JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
        18] deg.                         ROBIN L. KELLY, Illinois
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         BRENDAN F. BOYLE, Pennsylvania
    TED S. YOHO, Florida                 DINA TITUS, Nevada
    ADAM KINZINGER, Illinois             NORMA J. TORRES, California
    LEE M. ZELDIN, New York              BRADLEY SCOTT SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York     THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         ADRIANO ESPAILLAT, New York
        Wisconsin                        TED LIEU, California
    ANN WAGNER, Missouri
    BRIAN J. MAST, Florida
    FRANCIS ROONEY, Florida
    BRIAN K. FITZPATRICK, Pennsylvania
    THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia
    JOHN R. CURTIS, Utah
    VACANT

         Amy Porter, Chief of Staff      Thomas Sheehy, Staff Director

                   Jason Steinbaum, Democratic Staff Director
                                     ------

        Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and
                          International Organizations

                   CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey, Chairman
    MARK MEADOWS, North Carolina         KAREN BASS, California
    DANIEL M. DONOVAN, Jr., New York     AMI BERA, California
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JOAQUIN CASTRO, Texas
        Wisconsin                        THOMAS R. SUOZZI, New York
    THOMAS A. GARRETT, Jr., Virginia

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                   WITNESSES

    Mr. Jeffery Morehouse, executive director, Bring Abducted
      Children Home..................................................     5
    Mr. Juan Garaicoa, father of two children abducted to Ecuador....    24
    Ms. Michelle Littleton, mother of three children abducted to
      Lebanon........................................................    39

              LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

    Mr. Jeffery Morehouse: Prepared statement........................    14
    Mr. Juan Garaicoa: Prepared statement............................    31
    Ms. Michelle Littleton: Prepared statement.......................    41

                                    APPENDIX

    Hearing notice...................................................    56
    Hearing minutes..................................................    57
    The Honorable Christopher H. Smith, a Representative in Congress
      from the State of New Jersey, and chairman, Subcommittee on
      Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights, and International
      Organizations: Statements submitted for the record.............    58

                    REVIEWING INTERNATIONAL CHILD ABDUCTION

                                  ----------

                           MONDAY, DECEMBER 10, 2018

                           House of Representatives,

                     Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health,

             Global Human Rights, and International Organizations,

                         Committee on Foreign Affairs,

                                Washington, DC.

        The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in
    room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Christopher H.
    Smith (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
        Mr. Smith. The committee will come to order.
        First of all, let me begin by thanking all of you for
    joining us this afternoon to discuss the continuing crisis of
    international parental child abduction and how the Trump
    administration can and must use current law, especially the
    tools embedded in the Goldman Act, to more aggressively bring
    children home to their families.
        I especially want to thank the brave left-behind parents in
    this room, and hundreds of others who are here in spirit, for
    tenaciously struggling to recover their child or children from
    an abduction.
        The deleterious physical and psychological impact on
    abducted children, including parental alienation, coupled with
    the pain and agony endured by a left-behind parent from a
    forced, illegal, and inhumane abduction, demands more effective
    U.S. Government action.
        Today we will hear from three extraordinary parents who
    have left no stone unturned in a noble quest of bringing their
    kids home. Out of deep love and concern for the safety and
    well-being of their children, all three parents--Jeffery
    Morehouse, Juan Garaicoa, and Michelle Littleton--continue to
    strive and to hope and to believe.
        All three parents, and far too many others like them, daily
    endure the absolute nightmare of having had their beloved
    children kidnapped and taken to a foreign land. We can and we
    must do better.
        As Jeffery Morehouse notes in his testimony, to date there
    have been more than 400 U.S. children kidnapped to Japan since
    1994. To date, the Government of Japan has not returned a
    single American child to an American parent.
        He notes that the last time that he hugged his son, ``the
    last time I heard his voice was Father's Day 2010. I love you,
    Mochi, wherever you are,'' he said. ``Our kidnapped children's
    true voices,'' he goes on, ``have been silenced.'' And he
    speaks on behalf of many other left-behind parents and that
    they need to be heard.
        Child abduction is child abuse and it continues to plague
    thousands of families across the United States. Each year more
    than 450 new children are abducted, adding to the 11,000
    children who were abducted internationally between 2008 and
    2017.
        The good news: Since Congress adopted legislation that I
    wrote in 2014, the Sean and David Goldman International Child
    Abduction Prevention and Return Act, Public Law 113-150, we
    have seen a huge reduction in the number of new abductions each
    year. In fact, 450 is half the number of just 10 years ago.
        According to the State Department's Annual Report on
    International Child Abductions for 2018, the State Department's
    Prevention Team has been working with the Department of
    Homeland Security, as directed by the Goldman Act, to protect
    vulnerable children from abduction. Last year, 210 very high-
    risk children were enrolled in the DHS prevention program, an
    increase of 60 percent over 2016.
        We have also seen some high profile Federal criminal
    prosecutions of taking parents and their accomplices, such as
    the prosecution and conviction of Carlos Guimaraes and his wife
    Jemima for assisting with the kidnapping of their grandson Nico
    Brann to Brazil 5 years ago.
        These prosecution efforts of the DOJ and FBI are incredibly
    important, not only for holding the perpetrators accountable
    and for driving home the seriousness of international child
    abduction, but also for deterring future abductions.
        Ask anyone who works in the field or any left-behind parent
    and they will tell you that international child abductions are
    very difficult to resolve, even with the 77 countries that have
    partnered with the United States in the Hague Convention on the
    Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Two hundred and
    fifteen children came home last year. Every return is a hard
    won celebration and should not be minimized.
        But every case resolved without return must be scrutinized
    and aggressively so; 197 cases were closed without return. Did
    the parent agree to let the child stay abroad because they
    could not afford the financial or emotional cost of fighting in
    a foreign court for years on end? Did the foreign court
    expansively read the Hague Convention exceptions to return so
    that living in an apartment counted as a ``grave risk of
    harm,'' such as Japan's courts held in the Cook family case,
    which is absurd?
        The Hague Convention was intended to minimize trauma to
    children and left-behind parents, returning children to their
    home country for custody determinations and to do so quickly.
    But it is regularly flouted without consequence to the
    violating country.
        Tragically the State Department has persistently refused--
    and this is the bad news--persistently refused the use of
    return tools that are in the Goldman Act as envisioned by
    Congress to enforce the Hague Convention in both Hague and non-
    Hague countries and to move non-Hague countries to bilateral
    resolution agreements with the United States.
        A 42 percent return rate of American children within 2
    years of abduction--and that is the rate--cries out for
    immediate and systemic improvement. We can and we must do
    better.
        The Goldman Act of course empowers the Secretary of State
    with significant sanctions, including the authority to
    withdraw, limit, or suspend U.S. development, security, or
    economic support assistance; to delay or cancel one or more
    bilateral working official or state visits; to extradite the
    taking parent, which puts pressure on the parents to return the
    child; to come up with their own actions that would have a
    positive effect; and many other prescribed actions that are in
    the Goldman Act.
        To my knowledge, extradition has been used once and the
    other options not at all. That has got to change.
        At a Senate hearing April 24 of this year, Assistant
    Secretary of the Bureau of Consular Affairs Carl Risch
    testified that the State Department ``considers all the tools
    the Goldman Act provides for the most effective way to make
    progress with particular countries.''
        However, more than 2,000 cases after the Goldman Act was
    signed into law, the State Department has apparently never
    found a single case where those tools would be helpful, not
    even in the cases where the foreign courts had decided on
    return, but just failed to enforce those orders.
        Devon Davenport has won all 24 appeals over the last 9
    years for return of his daughter Nadia from Brazil--and yet she
    is still not home. Dr. Brann has been waiting for 5 years for
    the return of his son Nico from Brazil.
        We have 100 American children abducted to India with almost
    no hope of return without the United States choosing to take
    real action. And again, those actions are in our law, they are
    in the Goldman Act. Use them, Mr. President. We could also
    lower the number of visas available to Indian citizens until
    abducted children are returned, another opportunity to get this
    right.
        While Japan was finally named a noncompliant country by the
    Trump administration in this year's annual report, after having
    just about nothing done in the previous administration on
    Japan, Japan is still not held accountable for the dozens of
    cases that were pending before it signed the Hague Convention
    in 2014. And Jeffery will talk about that in his testimony.
        But what a dark day that was. They signed the Hague
    Convention, which maybe opens up the door to some cases from
    then on, but all the cases that preceded ratification of the
    Hague Convention are grandfathered out. What a gross injustice.
        Marine Corps Sergeant Michael Elias suffered the abduction
    of his two children to Japan. In 2008, after courts in New
    Jersey decreed shared custody and no travel for the children,
    Japan gave the children replacement passports to facilitate the
    abduction. Sergeant Elias has not been able to speak to his
    children in 10 years.
        I actually traveled with my chief of staff to Japan to
    raise his and other cases, and I was shocked, frankly, about
    what we were not doing to help this combat war veteran at least
    see his children and hopefully to bring his children home.
        I believe the Trump administration can and must do better
    with the backing of the Hague Convention, bilateral agreements,
    and requests for cooperation in return of abducted children,
    and with the actions described in the Goldman Act. We can and
    we must do better. The time is now. Delay is denial.
        And for these three parents and so many others like them,
    the agony is every day, every day, and then every day. And we
    need to change that and we can change it with our law.
        I would like to yield to Mr. Garrett for such time as he
    may consume.
        Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to waive
    and reserve time later.
        Ms. Smith. Thank you very much.
        I would like to now yield to the gentleman, Mr. Posey.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you very much, Chairman Smith, for
    recognizing the problem that we have today and for holding this
    important hearing and for allowing me to join you in your
    discussion and your questions.
        I am proud to represent Michelle Littlejohn, one of the
    three witnesses here today. Ms. Littlejohn's three beautiful
    children, two daughters and a son, Ascila, Leilah, and Yousef,
    were tragically abducted by her former husband to Lebanon
    nearly 2 years ago. She has worked tirelessly to litigate their
    return in Lebanese courts and has won remarkable, landmark
    decisions that have essentially established her case to return
    the children. Yet she waits.
        I must defer to her with great respect to tell you the
    entire store and commend her for the brave struggle. Ms.
    Littleton's testimony and that of the other witnesses here
    today suggest that we need to look, as you said, more closely
    at ways to improve our Government's support of parents who face
    abductions and retentions.
        As you mentioned so eloquently in your opening statement,
    Mr. Chairman, Congress passed the Goldman Act to empower the
    State Department with tools or sanctions to discipline
    countries who enable abductions and retentions.
        I understand that you invited the State Department to
    participate with us today, and I must say that I am very
    disappointed that we don't have any State Department officials
    here today to testify on how we can work together to strengthen
    our support for the brave parents, like Ms. Littleton.
        I follow the travels and the work of our Secretary of
    State, who clearly, obviously, gives that job absolute 100
    percent. And I just can't tell you how I am disappointed that
    none of the other 60,000-plus employees of the doggone
    Department could not find time to show up today and participate
    in this important hearing that you have called. I am very
    disappointed and maybe I may bring that to the attention of the
    Secretary.
        These are doubtless difficult circumstances when a child
    abduction intersects with our foreign relations, but we must
    try to do better.
        And again, Chairman Smith, I want to thank you for holding
    this important hearing and allowing me to participate. I yield.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you very much.
        I would like to now introduce our three outstanding
    witnesses, noble parents who are fighting for their children,
    beginning with Jeffery Morehouse, who is the executive director
    of Bring Abducted Children Home, or BAC Home, a nonprofit
    organization dedicated to the immediate return of
    internationally abducted children being wrongfully detained in
    Japan.
        Bring Abducted Children Home strives to end Japan's human
    rights violation of denying children unfettered access to both
    parents and works to increase public awareness through
    community outreach on international parental child abduction.
        His son, Mochi, remains kidnapped in Japan, despite Mr.
    Morehouse's U.S. Sole custodial order being recognized by the
    courts in Japan in both 2014 and 2017. He is also a founding
    partner in the Coalition to End International Parental Child
    Abduction and the G7 Kidnapped to Japan Reunification Project.
        We will then hear from Juan Garaicoa, who is the father of
    two boys, Mateo and Martin, who were abducted to Ecuador in
    August 2016. Mr. Garaicoa decided to start his own independent
    financial advisory practice in 2004, the year Mateo was born.
    His independent financial advisory practice allowed him to
    fulfill his commitment to spend more time with his children.
    Previously he worked for a select number of investment banks in
    New York and Miami. And he is here today to make that appeal
    for his two children, and we are grateful he is here.
        Then we will here from Michelle Littleton, who is the
    mother of three children, Ascila, Leilah, and Yousef, who were
    abducted to Lebanon on January 4 of 2017. After her children's
    abduction, Ms. Littleton moved from California to Florida to be
    with her family.
        She was hired as an administrative assistant to the
    director for launch operations at Cape Canaveral Air Force
    Station as a contract hire for United Launch Alliance. Ms.
    Littleton was also selected as an Ambassador to the United
    States Launch Alliance.
        Previous to her current position, she worked at a
    commercial real estate company, but put her real estate career
    on hold in order to pursue and try to bring back her children.
        Ms. Littleton awaits the day when she is reunited, and has
    rooms furnished and decorated in her home on Merritt Island in
    Florida for the day when they come home.
        Mr. Morehouse, the floor is yours.

     STATEMENT OF MR. JEFFERY MOREHOUSE, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, BRING
                         ABDUCTED CHILDREN HOME

        Mr. Morehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and to the
    committee, for inviting me here to share my expertise and my
    personal experience on the ongoing crisis and crime of
    international parental child abduction in Japan.
        Japan is internationally known as a black hole for child
    abduction. To date, as you mentioned, there have been more than
    400 U.S. children kidnapped to Japan since 1994, and the
    Government of Japan has not returned a single American child to
    an American parent.
        Over the years, many Japanese citizens and officials have
    shared with me that they are deeply ashamed of these abductions
    and need help from the U.S. and other countries to change it.
    They have asked for continued public, foreign pressure as it
    gives them the support needed internally to uproot this cabal
    of resistance in Japan that continues to corrupt the family
    court system there.
        This has revealed itself in what is called the Continuity
    Principle, or simply put, judges and attorneys representing
    abductions and abductors, and they manipulate the best interest
    of the child to rule that the child should remain alienated and
    ignore how they ended up with the abducting parent.
        When Japan acceded to the Hague Convention on the Civil
    Aspects of International Parental Child Abduction on April 1,
    2014, you, Mr. Chairman, joined us as we met with the Japanese
    Ambassador and officials at the Embassy to discuss their plans
    for implementation. And I remember walking out of that meeting,
    knowing that our worst fears had been realized. They had no
    real plan to uphold the spirit and the intent of the Hague
    Abduction Convention. It was all misdirection, all smoke and
    mirrors. What we foresaw then remains true today.
        Under Article 21, and I am quoting here, it says,

            ``The Central Authorities are bound . . . to promote
            the peaceful enjoyment of access rights and the
            fulfillment of any conditions to which the exercise of
            those rights may be subject. The central authorities
            shall take steps to remove, as far as possible, all
            obstacles to exercise such rights.''

        In the first known case to pursue Hague access rights in
    the Japanese courts, Canadian Henrik Teton requested interim
    access to his children and was ignored by the court. The judge
    refused to provide his name, therefore making accountability in
    these rulings impossible. No observers, no Embassy officials
    were allowed to witness the court proceedings.
        Four and a half years ago, at the very moment Japan acceded
    to the Hague Abduction Convention, parents joined Bring
    Abducted Children Home to hand deliver 30 Article 21 Access
    applications. Hague was supposed to be an efficient path to see
    our children again. We were told at that time we must give
    Japan time, we must wait and see.
        Well, we have waited and we have seen. Of those 30 cases,
    three parents reported receiving one Skype session with their
    children and one reported three sessions before the kidnapping
    parents cut them off entirely. None of these parents have
    received true unfettered access to their kidnapped children.
        When I personally filed for access under Article 21, my ex-
    wife responded by filing a new motion for custody in Japan,
    citing my Hague application and weaponizing it against me. I
    had to put my application on hold for 3 years. After winning my
    case in Japan in 2017 and attempting to restart efforts for
    access, she has been nonresponsive.
        In consultation with the Japanese Central Authority, the
    Office of Children's Issues is again encouraging me to file an
    Article 21 motion in the Japanese courts. This is grossly
    flawed. As I will state later in my testimony, Japan now admits
    that all the power to comply with court rulings rests with the
    kidnapper.
        Japan's implementation of the Hague Abduction Convention is
    an abysmal failure. Hague return orders have failed to be
    enforced time and again, although it states under Article 7,
    and I will quote again, ``Central Authorities shall cooperate
    with each other and promote cooperation amongst the competent
    authorities in the respective states to secure the prompt
    return of children.'' The prompt return of children. It doesn't
    state the optional return of children.
        Japan fails miserably here, too. The enforcement of the
    return orders fails every time, unless the kidnapping parent
    willingly complies. In Japan an enforcement involves an
    official going to the home and asking for the children to come
    out while the kidnapping parent remains inside prompting them
    to stay and holding all power over those children.
        For James Cook, as the chairman mentioned, who testified to
    this subcommittee in April, Japan's courts overturned the
    return order because Mr. Cook had moved into an apartment and
    had to share a bedroom with his sibling after the enormous
    legal bills incurred from years of fighting in the Japanese
    courts. He took his case all the way to the Supreme Court of
    Japan and the Hague Convention failed again there.
        Laws and treaties are being ignored. Mr. Cook's children
    remain abducted, with the kidnapping parent. This is just
    another example of Japan's Continuity Principle at work and it
    crushes any hope of reuniting with our kidnapped children.
        According to my discussion with the State Department, Mr.
    Cook's case would now be classified as a judicial resolution
    under their interpretation of the Goldman Act. In other words,
    Japan gets rewarded for finding a way to avoid returning
    children that are kidnapped from the United States.
        Another example of Japan's systemic failure to return
    kidnapped children involves two Japanese parents that were
    living in the United States. I point this out because it is the
    second time that a case involving two Japanese parents received
    extrajudicial effort that I have not yet seen in cases
    involving a non-Japanese parents.
        Like in the Oregon case that ended in 2016, the enforcement
    of the Hague return order failed. In this new instance, a
    Japanese form of habeas corpus petition was filed in the Nagoya
    High Court, but it was not awarded.
        So the father appealed to the Supreme Court in Japan, which
    issued a ruling in March 2018, and they wrote four significant
    points in that: The child was found to be unduly controlled and
    influenced by the mother. The second point, therefore the
    child's statement was not considered to be objective. The
    Supreme Court in Japan determined that the retention of the
    child was clearly illegal.
        And then the Japan Supreme Court remanded the case back to
    the Nagoya High Court, the lower court. In effect, the Supreme
    Court issued an opinion, but they didn't issue a return based
    on habeas corpus which evolved out of this failed Hague
    process.
        Now, in July 2018 the Nagoya High Court issued a new ruling
    in the case. This time the child was ordered returned, but the
    mother and the child immediately fled the court. It can be
    assumed that the Government of Japan, the courts, her
    attorneys, and the police know exactly where the mother and the
    child are, but the enforcement of the return order remains to
    be executed.
        In 2014, the Goldman Act was signed into law in part to
    create accountability for countries like Japan that fail to
    return our kidnapped American children. Multiple tools were
    provided--a demarche; an official public statement; a public
    condemnation, denial, or cancellation of official meetings or
    state visits; the withdrawal, limitation, or suspension of U.S.
    assistance; and a formal request to extradite the kidnapping
    parent.
        To date, only demarches have been issued. All other tools
    have been ignored, while we still don't have a single case of
    the Government of Japan returning an American child to an
    American parent.
        In April, the Senate Judiciary Committee took this topic up
    at a hearing. Senator Booker asked, and I will quote, ``Are we
    using the tool in the Goldman Act, beyond demarches?''
    Assistant Secretary Carl Risch of Consular Affairs responded,
    ``Not to my knowledge.''
        Chairman Grassley inquired, ``How many demarches have been
    issued since the passage of the Goldman Act?'' Mr. Risch:
    ``There have been many, but we feel that type of diplomatic
    engagement is the key to success in these cases.''
        Senator Blumenthal probed, ``Have you used any other
    tools?'' Mr. Risch concedes they have not.
        In response to the committee's follow-up questions for the
    record, Assistant Secretary Risch responded that, from 2008 to
    2015, 9,127 children were kidnapped and only 3,992 were
    returned. There was no substantial change in the percentage in
    those 8 years. Some years it went up a few points, some years
    it went down.
        If returning kidnapped children home to the United States
    as the key measure of success--and it is--that would point to a
    failure in strategy, not success.
        This subcommittee in April also held a hearing that
    examined the lack of use of the tools. And at the hearing,
    Chairman Smith, you noted that since 2014 we have seen a
    decrease in the number of new abductions, but not an increase
    in the percentage of returns, and you noted that in your
    opening statement as well.
        Special Advisor for Children's Issues Suzanne Lawrence
    testified, and I will quote from her,

            ``We do consider all the tools we have at our disposal,
            and we do that with our interagency partners, and try
            to use the best tool at the best moment on a case-by-
            case basis. We consider them when we think they will be
            effective.''

        Congresswoman Jayapal followed up,

            ``What would move the threshold in order to use those
            tools? What can we tell our families about what we are
            going to do differently than we have been doing now?''

        Ms. Lawrence replied,

            ``I don't have a specific answer for you on what the
            threshold is.''

        Congressman Harris commented,

            ``Is it going to take literally an act of Congress and
            an appropriations bill to get you ramped up through the
            escalating sanctions that can occur in some of these
            countries that the State Department has been unwilling
            to pursue?''

        And Chairman Smith, you hit it right on the mark:

            ``Sanctions work. If Japan doesn't get it through your
            persuasion--and I thank you for trying so hard--it is
            time to lower the boom!''

        And the State Department's response to those hearings was
    to ignore Congress' call to use the tools.
        A comprehensive review of all four actions reports from
    2015 to 2018 shows a very bleak pattern. Many of these
    countries cited are repeat offenders, yet no other tools, other
    than a demarche, was utilized. Japan had three demarches in
    2017 alone. In fact, other tools were only mentioned one time.
        The 2018 actions report claimed, the Department wrote,
    ``The Department is considering the use of further tools under
    the Act if Japan continues its pattern of noncompliance in
    failing to promptly enforce Convention court orders.''
        In an open session of the Diet in Japan in early 2017 the
    Japanese Foreign Minister at the time, Fumio Kishida, declared
    there is not a single example of sanctions under the Goldman
    Act. He called them out. He called the State Department's
    bluff.
        Through multiple hearings in the House and the Senate, the
    State Department has rejected your calls, Congress' calls, to
    use the tools. Clearly, demarches, raising IPCA cases with
    foreign government officials, and empty threats are not
    bringing children home.
        And what are these demarches? What is in them? Does anyone
    really know? I am still waiting for a response to a FOIA
    request that our organization submitted in February.
        What is it going to take beyond demarches? When are the
    interests of American children that have been kidnapped going
    to be put first? And when will decisive efforts be made to
    bring abducted children home?
        Based on multiple discussions with State, it is clear that
    Japan anticipated being cited under the Goldman Act in 2018
    starting at least 6 months in advance. There was a demarche in
    November 2017 and December. Japan knew what was coming and they
    were preparing to spin their way out of it.
        On May 15, 2018, as Japan was about to be cited for
    international parental child abduction by the United States,
    they held a public seminar at the House of Culture in Japan in
    Paris, co-organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan
    and the Japan Federation of Bar Associations. In an audio
    recording of this event from inside we hear participants being
    educated about the Hague Abduction Convention. They are taught
    how to prevent having their children returned to France, should
    they be taken without consent to live in Japan. More simply
    put, the organizers lay out how to abduct to Japan and get away
    with it.
        By creating a seminar that advised potential abductors how
    to circumvent a Hague return order, the Government of Japan has
    exhibited a shocking and blatant disregard for this
    international agreement. When they were exposed and confronted
    by French Senator Richard Yung, Japan's Ministry of Foreign
    Affairs tried to deflect it as a rogue act by a presenter they
    invited.
        Now, if that were true, somebody from the Japanese
    Government staff would have immediately interrupted at the
    seminar and disavowed their government of this. They would have
    denounced it right then and there. They didn't do that. Because
    it wasn't a rogue act. It was intentional. The Government of
    Japan is a shameless co-conspirator.
        I will note that seminars continue to be held and there is
    little reason to believe that the content has changed. There
    was one scheduled in London and I believe there was another one
    scheduled in New York.
        In June of this year, just after Japan was cited by the
    United States, their press reported potential draft legislation
    to purportedly address the child abduction issue. This was an
    attempt to change the narrative. It noted that there is nothing
    under Japan's legal system to deal with parents who refuse to
    hand over their children in defiance of a court order.
        The proposal in an interim report considered fining parents
    to encourage them to voluntarily comply. Now, fines and
    voluntary compliance already exist and they haven't solved the
    problem. Fines can be levied, they can be imposed, but they
    have to be collected and substantial enough to bend a
    kidnaper's will of defiance. That is a very narrow and unique
    set of circumstances. It is not a judicial or a legislative
    reform.
        As this potential draft limped along, in September it was
    reported in the press the rules now call for giving more power
    to enforcement officers and allowing handovers to take place in
    the presence of parents with custodial rights, on condition
    sufficient consideration is paid to the sentiment of the
    children.
        We have got to unpack this a little bit. It sounds good,
    but there are two immediate problems with it.
        First, a Hague case has to do with habitual residence, not
    custodial rights of the child. There could be a parent seeking
    a return order that might not have sole custody or the
    recognition of being the custodial parent in Japan or under
    Japanese law. It is habitual residence that we are dealing
    with.
        Second, what is it that they mean by sufficient
    consideration paid to the sentiment of the children? It is
    another loophole. What is the sentiment of a child going to be
    after they have been alienated for months or years? They are
    going to be filled with confusion, fear, anger, anxiety, all
    directed at the parent who is here to take them home. Is this
    ``sufficient consideration'' going to dictate enforcement is
    still abandoned because the child appears more accustomed to
    living a life under duress?
        These are subversive efforts to give the false impression
    of progress in Japan. It is more smoke and mirrors.
        Though the State Department has put great hope in Japan's
    potential legislation, a recent discussion I have had with them
    reveals that they were working on a draft from the summer, not
    the current legislation--sorry, the current potential
    legislation. It is not even a bill yet. The current version,
    according to our partners, has gutted the bill and would be
    completely ineffective if it is ever passed in a year or years
    down the road.
        So don't be misled by reports in the Japanese press and
    from State Department meetings with the Government of Japan of
    sweeping legislative changes to improve our kidnapping crisis.
    Japan should not be rewarded with more time to fix problems
    that were exposed years ago. Let the kudos come after our
    kidnapped children are returned.
        In May, my colleague and I met with Japanese Embassy
    officials to try and better understand, is there any genuine
    path for Japan to reunite parents with kidnapped children? The
    Head of Chancery, which I think is essentially their number two
    person there, Mr. Takuya Sasayama, was shockingly candid to us.
    He said, ``Your access depends on the mother and the child's
    wishes.''
        In November the State Department met with officials in
    Japan at the Japanese Central Authority to again raise cases of
    American children kidnapped to Japan and the lack of progress
    and failures in enforcement of judicial rulings.
        Two weeks ago I received a comprehensive readout from the
    Office of Children's Issues on this, and there were three
    points I want to share with you. Japan acknowledged that, one,
    if the parent refuses there are no repercussions for ignoring
    an application for access, a return order, or a court order.
    Two, enforcing a court order depends on the voluntary
    cooperation of the kidnapping parent. And three, the kidnapping
    parent knows this and they hold all the power.
        Is this Japan's new tactic, admit the problem and blame the
    kidnapper?
        We need real solutions to the numerous clear-cut cases,
    such as Naval Captain Paul Toland and Paul Wong. Though they
    are both the only living parent, the grandparents in Japan are
    holding their daughters from them.
        There are cases like Randy Collins, whose ex-wife was
    ordered to surrender the child's passport to the court and
    instead she kidnapped him.
        Douglass Berg's children were kidnapped from their habitual
    and legal residence in the United States in 2009, violating his
    parental rights to access.
        Marine Corps Sergeant Michael Elias' two children were
    kidnapped to Japan after a U.S. court ordered no travel for
    those children.
        The list goes on and on, it is too far too long. All
    children and families crushed by the Government of Japan's
    unwillingness to uphold its moral, ethical, and treaty
    obligations. There are thousands of cases within Japan that
    must be remembered, too, in this process.
        In my own case, I was granted sole custody of my son in the
    State of Washington in May 2007. Three years later, on June 20,
    2010, I dropped my son Mochi Atomu Imoto Morehouse off to begin
    a weeklong visit with his mother. He was 6\1/2\ years old at
    the time. This is where my nightmare began.
        Six days later, I received a phone call that no parent ever
    wants to receive. It was the police. My son, my ex-wife had
    been reported missing. I knew immediately what had happened.
    She had succeeded in what she had been planning all along. She
    had kidnapped our son to Japan. At this moment my life had been
    shattered.
        I did everything I could to prevent this. There were
    passport and travel restraints in place. I had a court order
    that barred her from leaving the State of Washington with him.
    The Seattle Consulate of Japan had denied her passport request
    when she went there. And she simply went to the passport office
    at the Portland Consulate of Japan, which issued her one, in
    violation of Ministry of Foreign Affairs' own policy.
        Over the years people have said to me things like, ``At
    least you know he is safe with his mother.'' He might be
    somewhere in Japan, but he is not safe. He is at risk. He has
    been willingly and intentionally kidnapped to a foreign land,
    with the intent of alienating him from me and everyone he
    knows.
        Imagine being a small child and your mother steals you away
    to a foreign country and tells you your father doesn't want you
    anymore or he is dead. Your whole life is now built on a
    foundation of lies. This is not what a healthy, nurturing
    parent does. It is child abuse.
        In 2014, and again in 2017, I won another landmark ruling
    in Japan: The court declared my U.S. sole custody order has
    legal effect. My ex-wife has no legal custody rights in Japan,
    none. They also cited her admission of illegal acts of passport
    fraud and forgery.
        There was no intent to offer justice, though. It was simply
    the Continuity Principle at work again. It doesn't matter how a
    child ends up with an abductor, Japan will not uphold laws and
    treaties to return children to their rightful home.
        In the end, the court refused to even reunite Mochi and me.
    I don't even know where he is being held.
        Our kidnapped children's true voices have been silenced.
    They need to be heard. In the beginning of my most recent legal
    battle in Japan, my son, 13 at the time, was asked by his
    attorney, ``Do you ever think of your father?'' And he replied,
    ``Sometimes I dream of him at night,'' as he cried, telling
    that lawyer.
        The last time I spoke to my son, the last time I saw him,
    was on Father's Day in 2010. I love you, Mochi, wherever you
    are.
        On behalf of the 66 children listed on the BAC Home Web
    site and those who have all been rendered voiceless by their
    abductors, for my fellow parents of internationally kidnapped
    children here today and watching all over the world who feel
    marginalized by the lack of active, engaged, transparent
    assistance in recovering our loved ones, I implore Congress to
    take strong, unified action toward Japan for its ongoing
    refusal to return our kidnapped children.
        For the past 2 years, Prime Minister Abe has spread it all
    over the press how President Trump and the U.S. are going to
    help Japan resolve the 1977 to 1983 kidnappings of 17 of their
    citizens kidnapped to North Korea. I feel for those parents. I
    understand their pain. It is our pain. And the U.S. should
    help, it is the right thing to do.
        President Trump ran on putting America first. Well, putting
    America first means putting America's kidnapped children first
    and bringing them home.
        Prime Minister Abe, what about returning the 400-plus
    American kids kidnapped to Japan since 1994? What about
    returning Mochi? The Government of Japan throwing their arms up
    in the air and saying it is up to the kidnapper is not
    acceptable. The Government of Japan is complicit here.
        Last week Secretary Pompeo said to the German Marshall Fund
    in Brussels, ``When treaties are broken, violators must be
    confronted and the treaties must be fixed or discarded. Words
    should mean something.'' How will Japan be confronted?
        In September the President addressed the United Nations and
    declared, ``We are standing up for America and the American
    people.'' Who is standing up for America's kidnapped children?
        Words must be backed up with actions so that Japan will
    recognize that enough is enough and the United States will not
    tolerate the ongoing kidnapping and retention of our citizen
    children.
        In Vice President Pence's press statement from his November
    trip to Japan, he stated to the Prime Minister that President
    Trump has made a commitment to ``speed up the sale of defense
    technology to Japan, and we are keeping that promise. Before
    the end of the year we will deliver 10 F-35s to Japan and 6
    more in 2019.''
        I urge Congress to take immediate action while the
    opportunity exists and block the sale of defense technology to
    Japan until our kidnapped children are returned to us. They
    have broken their treaty obligations.
        It is necessary to stand up for the American people here.
    Create this sanction. Please, stop the delivery of the F-35s.
    Tell the Prime Minister it is not acceptable to continue to
    hold my son Mochi Atomu Imoto Morehouse or any of the 400-plus
    American children kidnapped and retained in Japan.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Morehouse follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                     ----------

        Mr. Smith. Mr. Morehouse, thank you very much for that very
    persuasive testimony on behalf of your son, as well as all the
    other left-behind parents who are being, I believe, cruelly
    mistreated by the Government of Japan. Thank you so much.
        We will now here from Mr. Garaicoa.

    STATEMENT OF MR. JUAN GARAICOA, FATHER OF TWO CHILDREN ABDUCTED
                               TO ECUADOR

        Mr. Garaicoa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Smith, Members of Congress attending this hearing
    today, on behalf of my two children, Mateo and Martin, I would
    like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak here
    at the United States Congress about international parental
    abduction and the Goldman Act to return abducted American
    children.
        It has been well documented that international parental
    abduction in most cases is not an act of love, but rather an
    extreme form of child abuse. Children who are victims of
    parental abduction usually have already gone through the pain
    of their parents' separation or relationship breakdown.
        Due to the unilateral decision of one of their parents,
    these children then face the trauma of suddenly losing contact
    with their mom or dad, the left-behind parent. Sadly, this is
    precisely the case of my two boys, Mateo and Martin, who have
    been deprived of any contact whatsoever with their dad for over
    2 years now.
        The effect of international parental abduction on children
    can be catastrophic. An essay published by the American Bar
    Association reports that, I quote:

              ``Children that are abducted for over 6 months
            display severe psychological trauma and severe social
            disorders that will likely not be resolved as long as
            the child stays with his or her abductor.
              ``Although reintegration with family after many years
            can be difficult for the child, this is often the only
            chance the child will have to overcome the issues
            caused by the abduction. Most children are found to
            improve with the stability of being home with the
            searching parent and attending therapy.''

        The essay goes on and says:

              ``Children of long-term abductions report a feeling
            of resentment toward both parents, the abducting parent
            for stealing them and the left-behind parent for not
            rescuing them sooner. And the longer a child is on the
            run, the more emotional damage is done.
              ``Abducted children have a high rate of seeking out
            their left-behind parent as teenagers and adults,
            always seeking reunification, even after many years
            apart. This suggests that returning a child to a left-
            behind parent, even after many years, is often what is
            best for the child and is what the child desires.''

        Shortly after my children's abduction in August 2016, I
    found much needed encouragement and hope from a press release
    dated November 18, 2015, from former Secretary of State John
    Kerry, and I am going to highlight three of that paragraphs of
    that statement.
        One, according to the press release,

            ``One of the Department of State's highest priorities
            is the welfare of children involved in international
            parental child abduction cases. And one of our most
            effective tools for resolving these cases is the Hague
            Abduction Convention.''

        Two,

            ``In 2014 Congress passed the Sean and David Goldman
            International Child Abduction Prevention and Return
            Act, which gives the Department of State additional
            tools to advocate for the return of the abducted
            children.''

        And three,

            ``There can be no safe haven for abductors.''

    There can be no safe haven for abductors.
        So I am going to focus my testimony on those three topics.
        After fighting for over 2 years to secure the return of my
    children from Ecuador, I have found the following conclusions.
    One, The Hague Convention has not been an effective tool in
    bringing back my children from Ecuador. Two, the State
    Department has not enforced the tools provided by the Goldman
    Act. And three, the abductor seems to have been successful in
    finding a safe haven in Ecuador, a Hague partner country that
    has been listed as noncompliant by the State Department for
    several consecutive years.
        Let me talk about the Hague Convention. In principle, the
    legal remedy available through the Hague Convention of seeking
    to have the abducted children returned to their habitual place
    of residence aims to achieve a fair process.
        However, in noncompliant countries reality is rather
    different. As soon as the taking parent abducted my children to
    Ecuador, she filed lawsuits for divorce, parental rights, and
    child support, three different lawsuits. Classic case of forum
    shopping. Henceforth, she has retained 13 attorneys from nine
    different law firms in Ecuador in 2 years--13 attorneys from
    nine different law firms in Ecuador--none in the U.S.
        When we served her for divorce proceedings in the U.S., she
    did not even bother to retain an attorney from the United
    States. She did not appear in court and the court gave me full
    custody and parental rights of my children. But she continued
    on with the cases in Ecuador.
        The 13 Ecuadorian attorneys were not retained randomly.
    They are rather widely known for their political connections in
    Ecuador and questionable, unethical, illegal practices. In
    fact, the very first attorney, Monique Carriano (ph), chosen by
    the doctor (ph) in Ecuador, is the wife of the person who was
    acting at the time as the Minister of the Interior, the head of
    police. My attorneys warned me in Ecuador: Don't come to
    Ecuador, the wife of the Minister of the Interior has the
    police at her disposal, don't even bother coming to Ecuador.
        Subsequently, the taking mother retained the services of
    two attorneys, Maria Elena Pascal (ph) and Maria Gracia Pasmen
    (ph), who are known to be close friends with the person acting
    then as President of the Judicial Council of Ecuador, who is
    Gustavo Jalkh, who was recently ousted in Ecuador due to
    corruption.
        More recently, the taking parent retained the services of
    another attorney, Antonio Costa (ph), who has the reputation in
    Ecuador for allegedly engaging in bribing.
        It is worth emphasizing that we have documented a fairly
    large number of irregularities since day one in Ecuador. Let me
    share some of those irregularities with you as they pertain to
    the Hague Convention in Ecuador.
        In the lower court hearing in April 2018 the judge,
    Marianella Maldonado (ph), did not allow testimony from U.S.
    independent professionals that were going to testify via video
    conference. She just didn't allow them to testify. These
    professionals included family therapists and the guardian ad
    litem from Miami who were appointed by a Florida judge and they
    had firsthand knowledge of our family dynamics as they
    personally treated both parents and children for nearly 3
    years.
        The lower court judge did not allow the U.S. custody
    evaluator, who traveled personally to attend this meeting in
    Ecuador, this hearing in Ecuador. According to the U.S. custody
    evaluator, who had previously testified in other Hague
    proceedings in different countries, he found an extremely
    hostile environment in the Ecuadorian court.
        Most notably, the custody evaluator claimed, one, that the
    judge demonstrated to be utterly biased; two, that his passport
    was confiscated by the court until late in the afternoon, long
    after his testimony had concluded; and three, that he was
    threatened with prison in Ecuador for perjury. She thought he
    was not coming back to the U.S.
        The lower court judge did not recuse herself from hearing
    this case despite the fact that she maintains an intimate
    friendship with opposing counsel. Oddly enough, the judge and
    the abductor's attorneys were displaying public messages on
    Facebook of their mutual admiration and love precisely at the
    time when we were waiting to hear the hearing date for the
    hearing for the Hague case.
        The lower court judge had a short private meeting with my
    boys before the Hague hearing. Based on that meeting, she
    denied the restitution of my children because, she said, that
    was the desire of my boys.
        In July 2018, the court of appeals, consisting of three
    judges, did not allow an officer from the U.S. Embassy in
    Ecuador to attend the hearing. We don't know why. An officer
    from Ecuador's Central Authority was allowed to attend the
    lower court hearing.
        The panel of judges also met privately with my children,
    but this time it was with the presence of an independent child
    psychologist. After the hearing the panel of judges announced
    that a final ruling would be issued in writing in the following
    days. However, they did announce their decision to order
    protective measures in favor of my children in the form of
    therapies, which were necessary to reestablish the bond between
    children with their father in view of the mother's strong
    opposition.
        The panel of judges several days later issued their ruling
    in writing with protective measures included, denying
    restitution with my children because they considered that my
    children were well settled in Ecuador.
        So notwithstanding having dismissed the reason that the
    lower court judge had used to deny the restitution, the court
    of appeals proceeded to deny the restitution of my children
    based on the ``well settled'' exception.
        It is abundantly clear that this ruling was made in
    violation of Ecuador's Constitutional Court and the Hague
    Convention. In 2017, Ecuador's Constitutional Court ruled that
    the 1-year clock of the so-called ``well settled'' exception
    stops when a petition is received by the Ecuadorian Central
    Authority.
        Interestingly enough, the lower court judge did mention in
    her ruling that our petition had been filed within 1 year of
    the abduction. However, this material fact was notoriously
    missing from the court of appeals' ruling.
        As we speak, my attorney in Ecuador is filing today an
    appeal with the Constitutional Court in Ecuador.
        With respect to the Goldman Act, in April 2018, when the
    State Department published its latest Goldman annual report,
    Ecuador was listed yet again as a country that demonstrated a
    pattern of noncompliance. Subsequently, in July 2010, the State
    Department published its report on the specific actions taken
    against countries determined to have been engaged in a pattern
    of noncompliance in their 2018 Annual Report on International
    Child Abduction.
        The following is the actual transcript of the full report
    of actions taken by the State Department with respect to
    Ecuador. It consists of three paragraphs.
        One, the Department has reinforced efforts urging Ecuador
    to improve its convention implementation. In January 2018, the
    U.S. Central Authority increased the frequency of digital video
    conferences with the Ecuadorian Central Authority, Ecuadorian
    law enforcement officials, and the Public Defender's Office to
    monthly meetings.
        Two, the Department also plans to invite Ecuadorian
    officials to participate in a new International Visitor
    Leadership Program, scheduled for summer 2018. The
    International Visitor Leadership Program will specifically
    address the judicial components of processing and resolving
    Convention abduction cases.
        And, finally, the third paragraph of this action report
    says, in June 2018, U.S. Embassy Quito delivered a demarche to
    the Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Relations giving official
    notice that the Department cited Ecuador for demonstrating a
    pattern of noncompliance.
        Period. That is it. Those are all the actions taken with
    respect to Ecuador. And with all due respect, these actions,
    from the point of view of a left-behind parent, do not seem
    that impressive.
        Despite the fact that the Goldman Act provides powerful
    tools to the Department of State, it is evident that these
    tools are not being used. The State Department's actions report
    contains no sanctions whatsoever against Ecuador. In its action
    report, the State Department states that ``diplomatic
    engagement remains our most effective tool with all countries
    to assist in resolving international parental child abduction
    cases.''
        I have no doubt, as a left-behind parent, the intentions
    are good and that the desire is there, but enforcement is
    clearly lacking. Soft diplomacy alone is not getting the job
    done.
        Finally, with respect to actions that might be helpful in
    resolving the longstanding abduction of my children in Ecuador,
    I would like to say the following. Critics of The Hague
    Convention are of the opinion that the United States Government
    is powerless in its attempts to coerce foreign countries to
    obey or comply with The Hague Convention.
        To maximize impact and bring back American children
    abducted abroad, I personally believe that the U.S. Government
    should start announcing and implementing sanctions at the macro
    and micro level. This will send an unequivocal message to the
    world that the United States of America means business when it
    comes to bringing back its abducted children.
        So, specifically, the executive branch should consider
    taking the view that American children are being illegally
    retained in foreign countries as a result of an act of
    kidnapping. With implementation of economic sanctions,
    noncompliant countries will soon start complying with The Hague
    Convention and American children will finally be rescued and
    protected from the harmful effects of international parental
    abduction.
        Economic sanctions may have a huge impact almost overnight.
    The United States is Ecuador's principal trading partner.
    Conversely, Ecuador is the 42nd-largest trading partner of the
    U.S.
        Currently, Ecuador benefits from tariff-free entry into the
    United States for many of its products under the Generalized
    System of Preference, GSP. In Ecuador, the annual renewal of
    the GSP with the U.S. Is celebrated as a major victory. Under
    the current President of Ecuador, Moreno, Ecuador is now
    expressing interest not only in negotiating a new bilateral
    investment treaty with the U.S. But also is exploring a
    commercial trade agreement between both countries.
        It is worth mentioning that Ecuador is currently facing a
    fiscal deficit that is unsustainable, and the country lacks any
    significant monetary policy maneuvering because its official
    currency is the U.S. dollar.
        From an economic point of view, the country that seems
    powerless is Ecuador. If the U.S. Were to announce imminent
    economic sanctions against Ecuador, the days of noncompliance
    with the Hague treaty would be over.
        Two, the Department of Justice should consider taking swift
    and immediate action against abductors and accomplices.
        Back in 2016, when my children were kidnapped by their
    mother, I went personally to the FBI Miami field office, as I
    had read that the FBI had jurisdiction under the International
    Parental Kidnapping Act. A special agent, FBI agent, told me on
    that occasion that the protocol is for the FBI not to get
    involved until the Hague proceedings in the foreign country
    were finalized.
        More recently, another FBI agent, a special agent from
    Miami, emphatically told me: Juan, I am telling you right now,
    the taking mother won't be indicted unless you win the Hague
    case in Ecuador. So the FBI is not going to take any action
    unless I win the Hague case in Ecuador.
        To my surprise, the FBI agent also told me that the
    defenses under International Parental Kidnapping Act and The
    Hague Convention were the same. My understanding, however, is
    that International Parental Kidnapping Act has three defenses,
    none of which is the welfare exception.
        I would hope that the U.S. Law enforcement considers
    international parental kidnapping as a violent crime against
    innocent children and that the FBI becomes immediately involved
    without having to wait for Hague cases to be resolved overseas.
        Parental abductors usually count on a support network of
    family and friends who aid in the kidnapping and/or its
    continuation. These individuals should be investigated and
    eventually be prosecuted if found liable for aiding and
    abetting. These accomplices, whether they are family, friends,
    or even family attorneys, should be criminally charged with
    kidnapping and conspiracy to kidnap.
        Prosecuting these individuals makes sense not only because
    they will be held accountable for their crime but also because
    law enforcement may obtain valuable testimony against the
    abductor and/or other accomplices. More importantly, taking
    action against accomplices could, in some cases, persuade the
    abductor to voluntarily return children retained abroad.
        And, number three, the Department of State should consider
    implementing immigration sanctions against accomplices
    irrespective of whether the abducted children were taken to a
    Hague partner country or a non-Hague partner country.
        The State Department can build a database with the names of
    all the individuals involved in the illegal retention of
    American children overseas, including family, friends,
    attorneys, judges. Under this scenario, not only the abductor
    and his or her accomplices but also corrupt attorneys and
    judges could be properly interviewed when they visit an
    American consulate next time for their visa renewal.
        The problem in Ecuador is that corruption is endemic,
    especially in the judicial system. And this problem does not
    seem to be addressed by the State Department's action report on
    parental abduction.
        In Ecuador, judges are known for accepting bribes from
    unscrupulous attorneys and their clients. At the moment, there
    is no constitutional court in Ecuador because all of its
    judges--nine judges--were recently ousted due to corruption.
        Furthermore, a national court judge who was part of the
    panel of judges that heard my Hague case is currently being
    investigated in Ecuador after a journalist published a report
    that her daughter has paid $1,000 in income taxes in the past
    10 years--not $1,000 every year, but in the whole 10-year
    period, $1,000 in income taxes--despite having inflows of
    several million dollars in her bank account.
        The possibility of denying U.S. Visas to these individuals
    can become an extremely powerful tool in preventing and
    resolving international parental abduction. While legislation
    may be needed, please, Mr. Chairman and Members of Congress,
    consider implementing immigration sanctions as soon as possible
    against abductors and their accomplices irrespective of the
    country of destination where the abductor has taken our
    children.
        I would like to finish my testimony by emphasizing that
    every day counts. Every single day counts. Time does not erase
    our memories or heal our pain. Time triggers an awful lot of
    daily reminders. Time is of the essence, and now is the time to
    bring our children home. The childhood of our children is in
    your hands. The fate of our children is in your hands.
        My special thanks to Michael for his extraordinary work at
    the Office of Children's Issues and to Allison for her
    unconditional support throughout this difficult journey.
        And last but not least, I would like to send a brief
    message to my children: I love you guys. I am here for you
    always.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Garaicoa follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            ----------

        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Garaicoa, for that very powerful
    testimony and your recommendations for additional actions. I
    think they were very well-founded.
        Ms. Littleton? I yield such time as you may consume.

     STATEMENT OF MS. MICHELLE LITTLETON, MOTHER OF THREE CHILDREN
                          ABDUCTED TO LEBANON

        Ms. Littleton. Chairman Chris Smith, Congressman Bill
    Posey, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you
    for holding this important and urgent hearing on international
    child abduction.
        My name is Michelle Littleton, and my three beautiful
    children--Ascila, Leilah, and Yousef--were kidnapped from their
    hometown of Mission Viejo, California, by their father, Mazen
    Fawzi Matar, on January the 4th, 2017.
        It was the middle of the school year on what was supposed
    to be a 10-day vacation over Christmas break. While most
    children were returning to school, my children were boarding a
    plane and being kidnapped to war-torn Lebanon, where dozens of
    other American children had already been abducted to and never
    returned.
        For 1 year prior to the abduction, my family fought to
    prevent this nightmare from happening by pleading with Judge
    James Waltz of Orange County to prevent the trip. Eventually,
    Judge Waltz felt I was just being difficult and took my custody
    away so my ex could obtain passports without my consent. After
    he obtained the passports, I had to agree to the trip to have
    partial custody back.
        Judge Waltz should have listened to my desperate warnings.
    By not researching the Lebanese history of non-returns, he
    failed to protect the very United States citizens he serves.
        All judges should have awareness of IPCA and strongly
    consider the risks involved when approving international
    vacations, especially when one parent is communicating fears of
    abduction and the data is available to show that return from a
    particular country is extremely difficult or impossible.
        My worst fears for both of my daughters' safety and well-
    being became real when I requested the State Department perform
    a welfare and whereabouts visit. During the visit, the
    grandfather stated that my girls are almost of age to be
    married. They were 12 and 13 at the time.
        There have been times when the Embassy could not visit the
    children, either because it was not safe for the staff to
    travel to Tripoli or because my ex-husband denied access. I
    have gone several months at a time without being able to
    contact my children. I cannot imagine the heartache my children
    must be feeling, especially my son, Yousef, who was only 5
    years old when he was abducted and ripped out of my arms.
        With the help of my Lebanese lawyer, Mhomad Ayoubi, I have
    been able to slowly but successfully navigate through the
    foreign and complex Lebanese court system. However, 2 years
    into my fight and I am still up against my ex-husband's delay
    tactics from Lebanon, enabling my husband's tricks.
        He has filed appeals to every victory I have won. I have
    even won full custody in Lebanon. The Lebanese civil and
    execution courts have ordered the children to be returned to me
    in the United States immediately. Not surprisingly, my ex filed
    an objection to the execution enforcement order based on what
    he calls ``no jurisdiction'' for the Lebanese authorities to
    enforce their own return order.
        It has been 3 weeks since he filed the objection to the
    enforcement, and he may be able to run the clock for another 8
    weeks or more with frivolous delay appeals.
        I am grateful that Lebanon has recognized the situation for
    what it is--a kidnapping--and issued orders for my children's
    return to their home here in the United States. But my ex, who
    is a U.S. Citizen, is making a mockery of Lebanese courts, U.S.
    Courts, and, worst of all, putting at risk the lives of our
    children. This should not be tolerated by the Government of
    Lebanon or the United States.
        I have not been able to see my children in 2 long years. I
    have asked if I could travel to see my children, but I am told
    it is too dangerous. This is my painful reality and hell that I
    have been living for 2 years.
        I want my children home for the holiday more than anything
    in this world, and me and my children have the right to be
    together now, right here on American soil. It must end at once,
    with my children at home with me.
        This could be a watershed moment for U.S.-Lebanon
    relations. Although the United States has had dozens of
    children abducted to Lebanon, I do not know of any cases before
    mine with a court order for return from a Lebanese court. In
    fact, there have not been any court-ordered returns ever
    reported to the State Department. Zero.
        With the current court orders in place in my case, Lebanon
    could for the first time return an abducted child to the United
    States. It would be a timely and welcome gesture of cooperation
    between Lebanon and the United States as we seek justice for
    children abducted, wrongfully retained in either country. It
    goes both ways.
        The State Department and law enforcement have been so
    helpful in my case, and I am thankful that they have even more
    tools at their disposal in the Goldman Act if Lebanon fails to
    enforce the return orders they have issued. Almost $200 million
    and so much more is provided in aid to keep Lebanon safe and
    strong. So much is at stake.
        Isn't it time for Lebanon to enforce the return orders that
    they have already acknowledged to send my children home? I call
    on the State Department to use every tool at its disposal to
    bring these American citizen children home immediately. And I
    appeal to Lebanon to, please, quickly enforce the return orders
    Lebanon has justly upheld. Set the example so that any parent
    now considering the child abuse that is child abduction will
    know that Lebanon does not aid kidnappers.
        I have one message for my children: I love you, and I am
    fighting for you, and I cannot wait for you to come home.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Littleton follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                         ----------

        Mr. Smith. Ms. Littleton, thank you so very much for that
    strong testimony, for the appeal to our Government to use every
    power at its disposal to use every tool to bring these American
    children home immediately.
        I think that is part of the message that we are trying to
    send to the White House and to the Department of State, that
    you have tools in that toolbox that remain unused, and because
    of that, the people on the other side of this issue--and that
    is to say, the kidnappers--are able to game the system in such
    a way that they stall, they play out, buy years, and at the end
    of the day, your children and the children of so many Americans
    never come home while they are children--maybe as adults, but
    certainly not as children.
        So I do have a few questions I would like to ask.
        Both, Jeffrey, you and Mr. Garaicoa mentioned that you won
    in court--no, you mentioned you won in court, Ms. Littleton,
    that you won custody. On the enforcement issue, that seems to
    be perhaps one of the biggest Achilles' heels in all of this.
    Win, win, win--even David Goldman, on whose case I worked, he
    was in a situation where he would win cases and then they would
    just appeal. It went on for years. And it gets to the point
    where you spend so much money and time and effort, they hope
    that you will just pack your bags and go home, which you don't
    do and so many others don't do. They double down and try even
    harder.
        But at the end of the day, you get things like the Article
    13(b) exception to return, which was used in the Cook case,
    saying, as they did in Japan, that living in an apartment is a
    ``grave threat to the children's well-being,'' which is
    absolute nonsense. A lot of Americans live in apartments. There
    is nothing wrong with that. It is a great way of--if you don't
    have enough money for a mortgage or you are more transient, of
    just that is where you decide to live. But in his case, he had
    to spend down so much to get to the point where the very home,
    his abode, was a simple apartment. And then that is used
    against him in court again.
        So, Jeffrey, you might want to speak to that issue, because
    I think that is utterly perverse, that a court or any judicial
    or governmental body would use that kind of logic.
        And on the enforcement issue, as you mentioned, Mr.
    Garaicoa, about the intimidation factor in the courts. You
    talked about the special--how did you put it? Just let me get
    it correct. The custody evaluator said that on the case of the
    doctor from Miami that he was threatened with prison in Ecuador
    for perjury.
        The threat, however strongly it is made, of possible
    prosecution can have a chilling effect on what happens after
    that. And that goes for judges as well. If they feel they may
    be subjected to that kind of abuse, they may rule the other
    way.
        So you might want to speak to that as well. Because I think
    the idea of restitution is a very dangerous tool in the hands
    of a kidnapper and an abductor.
        And then, finally--and then I will go to Mr. Posey, and I
    do have some additional questions--just speak to the issue of
    if any of you can explain or give any insight as to why you
    think both the Obama administration and now the Trump
    administration have not used the tools that were given to them.
        When I authored the Goldman Act, we took many of the
    prescribed sanctions that were embedded in the International
    Religious Freedom Act as a very good template on what we can do
    on a human rights issue. And this human rights issue is used
    against Americans and American parents who are left behind. And
    it seemed to me that we had a well-founded group of sanctions.
    And demarche was to be the beginning, not the beginning, the
    middle, and the end and the only thing that is employed. It was
    just meant to be the warning shot before all the other
    sanctions begin to kick in.
        So if you could speak to that.
        And then you have all, in your testimonies, made an appeal
    for that, but if you could also just, you know, in a couple of
    sentences or two, if President Trump were sitting here, if
    Secretary Pompeo and others in the chain of command were
    sitting here--because they have to execute the laws, they have
    to implement the laws. We write them. But we do oversight as
    well, and that is what this is, to say, please, Mr. President,
    just implement the law.
        And as you say with the GSP, Mr. Garaicoa, if GSP was put
    on the chopping block, the abductions would go away. They would
    stop this horrific game, this dangerous game, this ugly game of
    siding with abduction and with kidnappers.
        And I will go to you.
        Mr. Morehouse. So, in response to the question regarding
    how it works in the courts in Japan and the exceptions they are
    creating, it goes beyond just The Hague abduction convention
    and really falls all under the continuity principle, where they
    will not change current circumstances and really just ignore
    how the child ended up with the kidnapping parent.
        We saw this play out in Mr. Cook's case, where they
    engineered the end conclusion that they wanted to get to, which
    was to not return the children, by crafting a best-interest-of-
    the-child argument based on living in an apartment. And as you
    pointed out a moment ago, many Americans live in apartments. My
    son, when he was born, we lived in an apartment in New York. It
    is a very common part of American society and, I will note,
    also in Japanese society. So it is really kind of a hollow
    argument that they made there.
        In my own case, as you may or may not recall, the last case
    took a year. We thought we had a real chance at proving that he
    had a great life available to him here in the United States at
    home. Went through all of the motions. I had to present to
    court investigators pictures of my house, my neighborhood,
    square footage, all of these great attributes of living in the
    Seattle area. And they just sat there and marveled at
    photographs of a very average American house, discussed that,
    asked me several questions, with no real intent of doing any
    judicial investigative process.
        It was all pre-engineered, even to the point of the fact
    where they asked for us to present a reunification process for
    Mochi and me. And we drew it out in a very Japanese style. It
    was going to span about a year to reunite him, which truly is
    absurd under the circumstances, but I was willing to go to that
    extent. They never even looked at it seriously in their ruling.
        They simply ruled that the U.S. Custody order that I have
    had since 2008 has legal effect in Japan, denied her all
    custody rights under Japanese law. So, ergo, I am the sole
    custodial parent of our son, both in the U.S. And Japan, and
    they are unwilling to enforce that.
        And then simply on the unwillingness to reunite, I think
    that was based on, as I testified earlier, he expressed his
    true opinion months earlier to an attorney. They had many
    months to sanitize that response and provide an answer for what
    the court wanted to hear in order to justify not reuniting
    Mochi and me. Just another example of how the continuity
    principle works in Japan.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you.
        Mr. Garaicoa. Mr. Chairman, with respect to the
    intimidation issue in the lower court in Ecuador, the U.S.
    Custody evaluator, Dr. Miguel Firpi from Miami, is a very well
    well-known professional that has over 20 to 30 years'
    experience in hearings, and he is one of the few people
    actually in Miami who has gone to different countries to appear
    in Hague cases.
        And he called me the following day, and he said: Mr.
    Garaicoa, I cannot explain this to you, but I have never, ever
    experienced something like what happened or transpired
    yesterday in Quito. I am glad to be back in Miami. At one
    moment, I thought I was not coming back. The opposing counsel
    threatened me with calling the district attorney's office that
    day, at that time in the afternoon in Ecuador. I was threatened
    that my passport would not be given back to me and that I would
    not go back to the U.S. Because you are committing perjury.
        He was not--and this too--the judge did not contain the
    opposing counsel. She kept quiet. So Dr. Firpi told me, I could
    not give my testimony in a free manner. And to my surprise, the
    other professionals that were about to testify via
    videoconference were not allowed to testify. And I am sorry to
    tell you, but the judge was completely biased, and this is not
    looking good.
        The hearing that day did not finish, did not end, because
    there were other witnesses in Ecuador. But he told me, by the
    day this hearing is over, chances are that the judge is going
    to rule against you. And that is, in fact, what happened.
        Dr. Firpi told me just last week when I knew about this
    hearing in Congress, he told me that he would be willing--more
    than willing to testify here at some point. And I think it
    would be interesting for you to hear from an independent
    professional how a foreign court works and whether that court
    is being fair or unfair. And he is willing to come or to
    testify via videoconference at any moment in time.
        Ms. Littleton. Thank you, Chairman.
        I think that, in general, it is very easy to look at
    Lebanon and recognize that they are not compliant. So far, no
    children have ever been returned from Lebanon. I think we are
    moving forward into a better space and relationship with them.
    They are definitely putting the right foot forward. They are
    here today. But more has to be done.
        And the fact that there has never been a child returned
    from Lebanon is frightening, as a mother who has daughters who
    could be married off. And we know that because the welfare and
    whereabouts visit that the Embassy did proved that. So, I mean,
    are we going to send them another demarche when my daughter is
    married off?
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Garrett?
        Mr. Garrett. Mr. Chairman, the only people more frustrated
    in this room than perhaps yourself and your staff, than me, are
    the ones at that table. And I want to concede that on the front
    end.
        Having said that--and I am leaving this body in just a few
    short weeks, and there are a lot of reasons I will be glad to
    be gone. And one of them is that we sit in this room oftentimes
    and identify real problems with real victims, many of whom are
    human beings, every one of whom has import in my world view, to
    include not only yourselves but your children, and we talk at
    these problems and we don't solve them.
        Now, I want to commend the chair of this subcommittee, Mr.
    Smith. Goldman has the teeth to make this happen. But there are
    435 Members, 441 including non-voting Members, in this chamber
    and 100 across the hall, and there is 1 guy sitting in the
    White House. And everything in this world, tragically, becomes
    a carrot and a stick. And we have the stick to make the
    Japanese and everyone else play ball if we are willing to use
    it.
        What I have seen in so many areas--and I shall not
    digress--as it relates to U.S. Policy with regard to anything
    from who we support in conflict zones abroad, to whether or not
    we put a priority on the sanctity of your familial
    relationships with the people who you love in a way that we
    can't understand unless they are our own family members, we
    subrogate oftentimes that which is seemingly micro for the
    macro. My submission would be that if we do the small things
    right the big things generally will tend to take care of
    themselves.
        But I hope that somebody in the executive branch is
    watching this, because they can fix this right now simply by
    suggesting that 12 F-35s might become 10, or what have you.
    These things aren't terribly important, tragically, to the
    people in the executive branch, whether in this country or
    abroad. If they were more important, I would bet we would see
    some movement.
        Having said all of that, again, this is not in any way to
    impugn the folks in this room. I think Mr. Smith has done all
    that can be done over a number of years, as have each of you.
    But these are things that we need to get on the radar of the
    people who can make the changes immediately. And, again, I am
    not trying to lecture you. You all know this.
        I can't begin to have empathy, praise God, for each one of
    you and your suffering. But it matters. It ought to matter. And
    if Congress were to decide that we were going to fix this and
    we really leaned into it, it would probably be fixed in a few
    years. We can fix this at Pennsylvania Avenue now. And so I
    hope someone is looking. I hope a phone call is made.
        Again, I understand that there are courts, et cetera, of
    basic jurisdiction in various places, but some of these cases
    that you are describing, cut and dried, right? Agreements on
    both sides of the water.
        So I wish that my words mattered. I hate mere words. But I
    commend you for what you are doing. To the extent that I am
    able to help during my time here and after, I will.
        This is really, truly symptomatic of mistakes that we make,
    I think, in the foreign policy realm by virtue of prioritizing
    relations, say, with Japan over relations between a mother and
    child, father and child. And I, again, think that you can have
    good relations with our colleagues in the global community and
    prioritize these familial relations, and, candidly, I don't
    think they are mutually exclusive.
        And, secondarily, I think they might be even better if we
    showed that we actually adhere to the values that we say we do.
    Because that is where I think we fail in the grand scheme.
    People are looking to see what this country does, not what it
    says. And what we are saying is all the right stuff; what we
    are doing is not generating the results.
        So I thank you and yield back. And I genuinely and
    sincerely thank you for the privilege of having been able to
    work with you. And, again, I wish condolences meant anything.
    It is tragic, what you all are going through, and I hope that
    it sees a rapid end. But I fear that until we attitudinally
    shift how we do business internationally that it will continue.
        Thank you.
        Mr. Smith. I thank you, Mr. Garrett. And thank you for your
    service on this subcommittee and your profound commitment to
    human rights.
        Mr. Posey?
        Mr. Posey. Thank you again very much, Mr. Chairman.
        And, again, I would be remiss if I didn't state how
    disappointed I am that the State Department is not here and
    can't help answer or validate some questions that have arisen
    because of the testimony that we have heard here today.
        For example, the last time our staff and I met with Ms.
    Littleton, the Department of State was there, and we talked
    about a number of different approaches that they might try to
    execute to make these things happen a little bit more
    efficiently. They promised to update us, and they did, in fact,
    recontact us and tell us that the local law enforcement had
    gone to the children's school to execute an order, and they
    planned, actually, to take the kids into possession and return
    them to you. But can you just imagine, on that particular day,
    the kidnapper didn't let the children go to school. And he
    refiled to appeal every other finding.
        So, you know, I think the political pressure definitely
    needs to be applied at a higher level. As was mentioned here,
    when we interface with the local authorities, there is
    obviously more than a little bit of corruption, and they are
    not on our side, like so much of the international community.
        Do you know, each of you, if any criminal charges have been
    filed against the kidnapper?
        Mr. Morehouse. Yes, I am aware of criminal charges being
    filed.
        Mr. Posey. Have they been filed? It has been 8 years.
        Mr. Morehouse. Yes. Yes.
        Mr. Posey. Have they been filed?
        Mr. Morehouse. Yes.
        Mr. Posey. Is your ex wanted by the FBI for interstate
    transportation of children illegally? Or what is the charge?
        Mr. Morehouse. It is under IPKCA, the International
    Parental Kidnapping Crime Act, and passport fraud.
        Mr. Posey. Okay. How severe is the penalty for that?
        Mr. Morehouse. I would have to look at the statute, but
    they are extraditable because it does meet the comity--it meets
    Japanese law under the interpretation of the Department of
    Justice.
        Mr. Posey. Because that is pretty significant. I think that
    got left out of the testimonies here.
        Sir, your case?
        Mr. Garaicoa. To my knowledge, in Ecuador, or people who
    have found a safe haven in Ecuador have not been criminally
    charged by the Department of Justice here in the U.S.
        Mr. Posey. But where were your children kidnapped?
        Mr. Garaicoa. My children were kidnapped to Ecuador. They
    were taken from Miami to Ecuador by their mother.
        Mr. Posey. Well, you know, it----
        Mr. Garaicoa. And I met with the FBI in Miami, and they
    told me they are not going to do anything unless I win the
    Hague case in Ecuador.
        Mr. Posey. Okay. So you have to win a case against Ecuador,
    a foreign court, before. And I wonder why your FBI office is
    different from your FBI office.
        Mr. Morehouse. If I could address that briefly.
        My colleagues and I have met in the past with the Office of
    the Attorney General at DOJ--not directly with the office, but
    underneath in the building. And we have cited the fact that
    there has been gross inconsistency in the FBI throughout the
    country with regard to responding to parents of kidnapping
    cases. I have seen instances as he has described as well as
    parents being turned away, claiming that the parent needed to
    file local charges first.
        Nowhere under the Federal statue does it require any sort
    of prerequisite. So I do not know if it is a fundamental lack
    in training, policy, or just a desire to push parents away
    because, in the end, these cases are hard to prosecute and they
    would rather put resources elsewhere. But it is important to
    actually get this on the record and get it cited.
        And the last thing I will just add in response to that is
    our coalition of organizations has asked for the past several
    years for DOJ to provide statistics on how many cases they have
    pursued and indicted under the International Parental
    Kidnapping Crime Act of 1993. To date, they have declined,
    stating that they do not collate those numbers, and advised us
    to reach out to each district office throughout the country.
    Frankly, I think that is kind of a nonsense response, but that
    is what they tell us.
        Mr. Posey. Thank you. Yeah. I am not a lawyer, but I think
    your court proceedings make it very clear that the children are
    basically being kidnapped out of Miami. And I am shocked that
    you couldn't get any charges filed and he could.
        Ms. Littleton, how about you?
        Ms. Littleton. There is a Federal warrant from the FBI for
    international parental childhood abduction. There is a warrant.
        Mr. Posey. There is a warrant. Okay. So two out of three.
        Mr. Morehouse. But, if I could just add to that, in my
    experience in knowing hundreds of cases, we are the outliers
    that actually have received response and indictments by the
    Department of Justice. It is highly unusual.
        Mr. Posey. Okay. Thank you.
        And, again, you wonder what the parents are telling their
    home countries too, you know, that are obviously taking the
    kidnappers' side. And it would be like, if you went over there
    and kidnapped your kids back and brought them over here, they
    would be filing motions saying that you molested the children
    and all kinds of terrible things, and why we should send them
    back to the country with them. I mean, so, you know, it is not
    clear-cut, probably, to the other side of the authorities
    either. They don't hear your side; they are obviously just
    getting the other side.
        Do we know if there are children in the United States who
    have been abducted in other countries by Americans and are held
    here and the people from the other countries are trying to do
    just the opposite? Are we aware of that?
        Mr. Morehouse. Yes. There are cases where children have
    been kidnapped from foreign countries to the United States.
        Mr. Posey. How many?
        Mr. Morehouse. I don't have the exact figures on that. I do
    know the Department of State publishes those numbers, or did in
    the past, on their Web site prior to the Goldman Act. And they
    would list, year by year, the number of incoming cases, as they
    call it.
        Mr. Posey. Okay. Do you know how the status works on any of
    those? Do we respect a foreign court's jurisdiction?
        Mr. Morehouse. My understanding from meetings with the
    Department of State on that topic is that is handled by the
    courts that adjudicate it. And the general answer could be yes,
    but I think, as you pointed out, they get into the details and
    the he-said-she-said component. So one could make an argument
    that we may not be perfect on this as well.
        However, I do think our American rule of law does apply,
    and hearsay is probably not allowed in those jurisdictions the
    way it is in Japan and, I presume, in Lebanon and Ecuador and
    many other countries that stack the deck against American
    citizens when our children are kidnapped abroad.
        Mr. Posey. Yeah, you would think there should be maybe an
    international court, but then you see what happens at the U.N.
    Same thing. You know, it is all against us.
        Just out of curiosity, is Judge Waltz still on the bench?
        Ms. Littleton. Yes, he is.
        Mr. Posey. You would not have had a problem were it not for
    his poor judgment, if I understand your testimony correctly.
        Ms. Littleton. That is correct.
        Mr. Posey. Is he aware of what this turned into?
        Ms. Littleton. He is fully aware, and he actually finished
    doing the final court orders, the final return orders that we
    submitted to the Lebanese civil court that Lebanon has
    acknowledged.
        So he has tried to make it right or rectify it. But I have
    been left to the fate of my lawyer in Lebanon using the court
    documents that Judge Waltz is now sending to have my children
    returned.
        Mr. Posey. And he seems like--your attorney there, I was on
    the phone with you one time where we did a conference call, and
    he seemed pretty confident--seems confident and competent. And
    I guess he did get everybody to the point they wanted to go,
    until the local police muffed the execution of the order for
    whatever reason, or however reason the kidnapper knew about it.
    And, you know, that is kind of sad.
        Mr. Chairman, I think it is really clear that we need to
    get some level of the State Department involved, at maybe a
    higher level that would actually want to show up at a hearing
    and see what was said and be up to date on this stuff.
        And I think, to the point of the witnesses today, clearly,
    the local level of governments are not going to be responsive.
    I don't think we are going to expect to see any change of
    behavior on their part unless we get higher-level interaction
    on our part. And they have all mentioned the possibility of
    sanctions being the key.
        And, I mean, this is not on the radar screen of most
    Americans, but if you know about one of these cases and you
    know about the injustice of one of these cases and you think
    about the children of these cases, it should shoot far up the
    interest screen of any agency, particularly our Department of
    State. But, you know, I don't have an answer right now, except
    some of those things that I have expressed that we should
    pursue further with our Department of State.
        But I just want to thank you for your interest in this, as
    you have so many other humanitarian issues and stood on so much
    principle for the betterment of mankind. I am deeply grateful
    to you, sir.
        Mr. Smith. Mr. Posey, thank you very much. And thank you
    for being such a great advocate for Ms. Littleton. I think that
    shows a clear concern for, as she put it, the hell that she is
    living, 2 years now, having her children abducted.
        You did mention in your testimony, as we have seen so many
    times all over the world, you have won case after case, you
    have full custody, and yet there is always the frivolous appeal
    that follows by your ex.
        And my appeal from this chair now to Lebanon, as you
    pointed out here:

            ``With the current court orders in place in my case,
            Lebanon could for the first time return an abducted
            child to the United States. It would be a timely and
            welcome gesture of cooperation between Lebanon and the
            United States as we seek justice for children abducted
            and wrongfully retained in either country.''

        I mean, that is a level-headed appeal to a country with
    whom we have strong relations and friendship, notwithstanding
    some other issues that complicate it at times. But this seems
    to be, on a purely humanitarian basis, something they could do
    tomorrow--enforce the orders. And I hope that they will take
    that from you being here today.
        And I would point out and I am grateful, there have been
    many members of the press here today. C-SPAN has also covered
    this, and we are deeply grateful for that, because that allows
    the American people to hear you and to hear what American
    parents are suffering because of parental child abduction.
        And, Mr. Posey, as you pointed out, we have had the State
    Department here before. We have had the high-level individuals.
    For the record, when I introduced this, it took 5 years to get
    passed. The Obama administration was opposed to it when Hillary
    Clinton was the Secretary of State. When John Kerry got that
    position things changed within State, and I am grateful to him
    for that, because we would pass it in the House and it would
    languish and die in the Senate. And it took 5 years to get the
    Goldman Act enacted into law.
        But a law is only as good as its enforcement. And,
    certainly, the prevention part of it is doing better and doing
    well; not as good as we would like it to be. But the second
    part, the returns of children, has been a failure.
        And it is only a failure due to lack of enforcement. Again,
    as Juan said earlier, if we would just say GSP is at risk and
    we mean it, we would have their attention full bore, and they
    would make a change in these dilatory tactics as well as their
    injustices being meted out to left-behind parents.
        And, again, there is always the issue of reciprocity. We do
    try in this country to honor our Hague Convention obligations,
    and that is to non-Hague countries as well. But our idea is
    that it is the rule of law. Custody needs to be determined at
    the place of habitual residence, not in some far-off court of
    law somewhere, where a judge may not be Hague-literate and not
    know the issues like parental alienation and the damage it does
    do to children.
        So we need, I think, perhaps, to do a letter to President
    Trump and include your testimonies and some of the other very,
    very high-profile cases that make the case for robust and
    rigorous enforcement. And it also ought to go to Secretary
    Pompeo as well.
        I have raised it at the highest levels myself, but when you
    hear what you had to say here today, you can't help but be
    moved mightily to do far more. And, hopefully, the President
    will have that same view. Enforcement has been the problem
    since enactment, and it is time for that to change. The pivot
    day should be today.
        So if any of my distinguished panelists or any of you
    would--any final comments?
        Okay. So thank you. We will work with you. It is
    bipartisan, I am happy to say. And my hope is that your
    children will be home soon. God bless you.
        [Whereupon, at 3:45 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

             Material Submitted for the Record

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H.
     Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and
     chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights,
                        and International Organizations

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H.
     Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and
     chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights,
                        and International Organizations

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

       Material submitted for the record by the Honorable Christopher H.
     Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State of New Jersey, and
     chairman, Subcommittee on Africa, Global Health, Global Human Rights,
                        and International Organizations

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]